<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_29_188256</id>
	<title>New Software For Employers To Monitor Facebook</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269888300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The NY Times reports that a new service called Social Sentry has been released to <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/keeping-a-closer-eye-on-workers-social-networking/">monitor employees' Facebook and Twitter accounts</a> for $2 to $8 per employee. The service also plans to support MySpace, YouTube and LinkedIn by this summer. 'Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a research and advocacy group, called the automatic monitoring of social networking a "disaster," and predicted that it would lead to people being fired for online griping, the airing of political views and other innocuous conversation. There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The NY Times reports that a new service called Social Sentry has been released to monitor employees ' Facebook and Twitter accounts for $ 2 to $ 8 per employee .
The service also plans to support MySpace , YouTube and LinkedIn by this summer .
'Lewis Maltby , president of the National Workrights Institute , a research and advocacy group , called the automatic monitoring of social networking a " disaster , " and predicted that it would lead to people being fired for online griping , the airing of political views and other innocuous conversation .
There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The NY Times reports that a new service called Social Sentry has been released to monitor employees' Facebook and Twitter accounts for $2 to $8 per employee.
The service also plans to support MySpace, YouTube and LinkedIn by this summer.
'Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a research and advocacy group, called the automatic monitoring of social networking a "disaster," and predicted that it would lead to people being fired for online griping, the airing of political views and other innocuous conversation.
There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662062</id>
	<title>Re:I would like to know</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269856140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, you really need to get a handle on what's important. What's important is this: are your employees getting their job done?  That is, are they getting a reasonable amount of work done in a reasonable amount of time?  That is what you paid them for, if they are doing it, then it doesn't matter if they spend half their time on Facebook.  You should know approximately how long the tasks you give them should take, and only worry if they are not achieving that.  If you feel a need to micro-manage how exactly they do it, then you are wasting both your time and theirs.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Zapp-Lightning-Empowerment-Productivity-Satisfaction/dp/0449002829" title="amazon.com">This is a great book</a> [amazon.com] for getting your employees to become autonomous 'members of the team' that you don't have to constantly worry about prodding as if they were cattle.  If you are working in a company that is more like an assembly line, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Business-Jack-Stack/dp/038547525X" title="amazon.com">this book</a> [amazon.com] may be more appropriate.<br> <br>
But you should be all working towards a similar goal.  That is where you find something that is truly synergy, not just a buzzword.  If you aren't working as a team, you need to change stuff until you are.  And your comment is a clear symptom that you're not working as a team.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you really need to get a handle on what 's important .
What 's important is this : are your employees getting their job done ?
That is , are they getting a reasonable amount of work done in a reasonable amount of time ?
That is what you paid them for , if they are doing it , then it does n't matter if they spend half their time on Facebook .
You should know approximately how long the tasks you give them should take , and only worry if they are not achieving that .
If you feel a need to micro-manage how exactly they do it , then you are wasting both your time and theirs .
This is a great book [ amazon.com ] for getting your employees to become autonomous 'members of the team ' that you do n't have to constantly worry about prodding as if they were cattle .
If you are working in a company that is more like an assembly line , this book [ amazon.com ] may be more appropriate .
But you should be all working towards a similar goal .
That is where you find something that is truly synergy , not just a buzzword .
If you are n't working as a team , you need to change stuff until you are .
And your comment is a clear symptom that you 're not working as a team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you really need to get a handle on what's important.
What's important is this: are your employees getting their job done?
That is, are they getting a reasonable amount of work done in a reasonable amount of time?
That is what you paid them for, if they are doing it, then it doesn't matter if they spend half their time on Facebook.
You should know approximately how long the tasks you give them should take, and only worry if they are not achieving that.
If you feel a need to micro-manage how exactly they do it, then you are wasting both your time and theirs.
This is a great book [amazon.com] for getting your employees to become autonomous 'members of the team' that you don't have to constantly worry about prodding as if they were cattle.
If you are working in a company that is more like an assembly line, this book [amazon.com] may be more appropriate.
But you should be all working towards a similar goal.
That is where you find something that is truly synergy, not just a buzzword.
If you aren't working as a team, you need to change stuff until you are.
And your comment is a clear symptom that you're not working as a team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661818</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1269855060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll soon find out that basing team selection on criteria other than work performance is a recipe for random work performance.</p><p>Or they'll never figure that out, and they'll become as marginalized in business as they are in real life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll soon find out that basing team selection on criteria other than work performance is a recipe for random work performance.Or they 'll never figure that out , and they 'll become as marginalized in business as they are in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll soon find out that basing team selection on criteria other than work performance is a recipe for random work performance.Or they'll never figure that out, and they'll become as marginalized in business as they are in real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661554</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269854040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, You're a Conservative Libertarian and your bosses are Hardcore Politically Correct Socialists (The f'n crazy kind running the country right now)?</p><p>Oh right, because only (R)s can be f'n crazy, and anyone far enough left is completely sane.</p><p>Dude, you should be libertarian, because the (D) left is just as bad as whatever you think (R) right is, perhaps even worse (at the moment) because they have power (for the moment).</p><p>And don't think it doesn't happen, because all you have to do is go to any major University. Open minds for sure (except if you disagree).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , You 're a Conservative Libertarian and your bosses are Hardcore Politically Correct Socialists ( The f'n crazy kind running the country right now ) ? Oh right , because only ( R ) s can be f'n crazy , and anyone far enough left is completely sane.Dude , you should be libertarian , because the ( D ) left is just as bad as whatever you think ( R ) right is , perhaps even worse ( at the moment ) because they have power ( for the moment ) .And do n't think it does n't happen , because all you have to do is go to any major University .
Open minds for sure ( except if you disagree ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, You're a Conservative Libertarian and your bosses are Hardcore Politically Correct Socialists (The f'n crazy kind running the country right now)?Oh right, because only (R)s can be f'n crazy, and anyone far enough left is completely sane.Dude, you should be libertarian, because the (D) left is just as bad as whatever you think (R) right is, perhaps even worse (at the moment) because they have power (for the moment).And don't think it doesn't happen, because all you have to do is go to any major University.
Open minds for sure (except if you disagree).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660628</id>
	<title>RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the comments at the New York Times site it's clear many people there failed to Read The Fine Article.  Why should Slashdot readers do any better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the comments at the New York Times site it 's clear many people there failed to Read The Fine Article .
Why should Slashdot readers do any better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the comments at the New York Times site it's clear many people there failed to Read The Fine Article.
Why should Slashdot readers do any better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661830</id>
	<title>Re:'Learning" Social Networking</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269855120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to have forgotten MySpace.</p><p>Lucky bastard!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have forgotten MySpace.Lucky bastard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have forgotten MySpace.Lucky bastard!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31677878</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1269944760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Five years out of college they are less likely to be Democrats.  Ten years even more so.  And the progression continues.</p><p>Once the wetness dries off behind your ears, so to speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Five years out of college they are less likely to be Democrats .
Ten years even more so .
And the progression continues.Once the wetness dries off behind your ears , so to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Five years out of college they are less likely to be Democrats.
Ten years even more so.
And the progression continues.Once the wetness dries off behind your ears, so to speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661108</id>
	<title>Re:Jeebus - just block facebook, it's not that har</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269894780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to miss the point.  This is companies spying on people on their own time, out of the office.</p><p>But by your name you're probably a packy, who just says "oh yes jolly well kind sir" to anything management say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to miss the point .
This is companies spying on people on their own time , out of the office.But by your name you 're probably a packy , who just says " oh yes jolly well kind sir " to anything management say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to miss the point.
This is companies spying on people on their own time, out of the office.But by your name you're probably a packy, who just says "oh yes jolly well kind sir" to anything management say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661026</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>FiveLights</author>
	<datestamp>1269894240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the parent's idea was that using facebook at all is sharing too much publicly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the parent 's idea was that using facebook at all is sharing too much publicly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the parent's idea was that using facebook at all is sharing too much publicly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662374</id>
	<title>Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If she is already employed, follow these steps:<br> <br>
* Ignore it. If people ask her, tell them, "oh yeah, I'll get right on that."  Often in large bureaucracies weird requirements come up, but no one actually cares about them so they go away if you ignore them.<br>
* Incidental to that, don't be emotional.  If you passionately object, suddenly people will start to take a personal interest in you, and then it gets harder to ignore.  Bureaucratic nonsense is never worth getting emotional about.<br>
* If that doesn't work, and someone comes to you and insists that you do it, give them a task to distract them. Say, "Have you checked with the legal department about it?  Can you do so please and tell me what they say?"  If you are lucky, it will seem like too much work for them and they will give up.<br>
* If that doesn't work, try amending the contract with a pen.  Cross out every part you don't agree to.  Or, my preference, add a line that says, "I don't actually agree to this."  Write it in cursive and if you are lucky, the corporate drone will decide, "good enough" because in reality, they are just trying to fulfill the stupid requirements someone gave them.<br>
* If that doesn't work, try to talk to a supervisor. Try to escalate it to the person who actually created the policy (since they are the ones who understand the reasoning behind the policy). Once again, don't be emotional, and be respectful. Try to understand their position.  You can also try escalating to the person above them.<br>
* If that doesn't work, just refuse.  In this case, they can't really fire you, because it's illegal.  Once again, try not to be emotional, and be respectful, because otherwise it will be easy for them to make your job annoying in other ways.  It's harder if you are respectful.<br>
* It's extreme, but there is always the option to quit.<br> <br>
THAT is how you deal with bureaucracies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If she is already employed , follow these steps : * Ignore it .
If people ask her , tell them , " oh yeah , I 'll get right on that .
" Often in large bureaucracies weird requirements come up , but no one actually cares about them so they go away if you ignore them .
* Incidental to that , do n't be emotional .
If you passionately object , suddenly people will start to take a personal interest in you , and then it gets harder to ignore .
Bureaucratic nonsense is never worth getting emotional about .
* If that does n't work , and someone comes to you and insists that you do it , give them a task to distract them .
Say , " Have you checked with the legal department about it ?
Can you do so please and tell me what they say ?
" If you are lucky , it will seem like too much work for them and they will give up .
* If that does n't work , try amending the contract with a pen .
Cross out every part you do n't agree to .
Or , my preference , add a line that says , " I do n't actually agree to this .
" Write it in cursive and if you are lucky , the corporate drone will decide , " good enough " because in reality , they are just trying to fulfill the stupid requirements someone gave them .
* If that does n't work , try to talk to a supervisor .
Try to escalate it to the person who actually created the policy ( since they are the ones who understand the reasoning behind the policy ) .
Once again , do n't be emotional , and be respectful .
Try to understand their position .
You can also try escalating to the person above them .
* If that does n't work , just refuse .
In this case , they ca n't really fire you , because it 's illegal .
Once again , try not to be emotional , and be respectful , because otherwise it will be easy for them to make your job annoying in other ways .
It 's harder if you are respectful .
* It 's extreme , but there is always the option to quit .
THAT is how you deal with bureaucracies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she is already employed, follow these steps: 
* Ignore it.
If people ask her, tell them, "oh yeah, I'll get right on that.
"  Often in large bureaucracies weird requirements come up, but no one actually cares about them so they go away if you ignore them.
* Incidental to that, don't be emotional.
If you passionately object, suddenly people will start to take a personal interest in you, and then it gets harder to ignore.
Bureaucratic nonsense is never worth getting emotional about.
* If that doesn't work, and someone comes to you and insists that you do it, give them a task to distract them.
Say, "Have you checked with the legal department about it?
Can you do so please and tell me what they say?
"  If you are lucky, it will seem like too much work for them and they will give up.
* If that doesn't work, try amending the contract with a pen.
Cross out every part you don't agree to.
Or, my preference, add a line that says, "I don't actually agree to this.
"  Write it in cursive and if you are lucky, the corporate drone will decide, "good enough" because in reality, they are just trying to fulfill the stupid requirements someone gave them.
* If that doesn't work, try to talk to a supervisor.
Try to escalate it to the person who actually created the policy (since they are the ones who understand the reasoning behind the policy).
Once again, don't be emotional, and be respectful.
Try to understand their position.
You can also try escalating to the person above them.
* If that doesn't work, just refuse.
In this case, they can't really fire you, because it's illegal.
Once again, try not to be emotional, and be respectful, because otherwise it will be easy for them to make your job annoying in other ways.
It's harder if you are respectful.
* It's extreme, but there is always the option to quit.
THAT is how you deal with bureaucracies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476</id>
	<title>Easy enough to avoid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Don't use Facebook on company computers<br>2. Keep your profile private<br>3. Don't post work related topics on other user's profiles (they may not be private)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Do n't use Facebook on company computers2 .
Keep your profile private3 .
Do n't post work related topics on other user 's profiles ( they may not be private )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Don't use Facebook on company computers2.
Keep your profile private3.
Don't post work related topics on other user's profiles (they may not be private)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663748</id>
	<title>A few thoughts.</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1269864600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a) There is a reason i do not use Facebook

b) for sure it pisses your employer more off if you step visibly for millions of people out of line than if you step a little out of line in the cafeteria or at a picnic. (even if you get completely drunk at some company celebration - as long as you dont post a video on facebook its probably not so bad)

c) Always keep you business, your private and you political life separated. You private life, when mentioned in the internet does not have a name. It does not have an identifiable Job. And it does not have pictures of you making it identifiable. End of the Story. Doin it otherwise screams for people monitoring you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) There is a reason i do not use Facebook b ) for sure it pisses your employer more off if you step visibly for millions of people out of line than if you step a little out of line in the cafeteria or at a picnic .
( even if you get completely drunk at some company celebration - as long as you dont post a video on facebook its probably not so bad ) c ) Always keep you business , your private and you political life separated .
You private life , when mentioned in the internet does not have a name .
It does not have an identifiable Job .
And it does not have pictures of you making it identifiable .
End of the Story .
Doin it otherwise screams for people monitoring you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) There is a reason i do not use Facebook

b) for sure it pisses your employer more off if you step visibly for millions of people out of line than if you step a little out of line in the cafeteria or at a picnic.
(even if you get completely drunk at some company celebration - as long as you dont post a video on facebook its probably not so bad)

c) Always keep you business, your private and you political life separated.
You private life, when mentioned in the internet does not have a name.
It does not have an identifiable Job.
And it does not have pictures of you making it identifiable.
End of the Story.
Doin it otherwise screams for people monitoring you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630</id>
	<title>Seriously now...</title>
	<author>Skyshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1269892680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Set up Facebook privacy so only friends can see your stuff. Crisis averted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Set up Facebook privacy so only friends can see your stuff .
Crisis averted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set up Facebook privacy so only friends can see your stuff.
Crisis averted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662154</id>
	<title>Rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the simple fact that you connect to the site via SSL (https) would mean that it digitally secure and would technically fall under a DRM scheme?  Then logic would follow that just by snooping your company is in direct violation of the DRM laws?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the simple fact that you connect to the site via SSL ( https ) would mean that it digitally secure and would technically fall under a DRM scheme ?
Then logic would follow that just by snooping your company is in direct violation of the DRM laws ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the simple fact that you connect to the site via SSL (https) would mean that it digitally secure and would technically fall under a DRM scheme?
Then logic would follow that just by snooping your company is in direct violation of the DRM laws?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661110</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269894780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meanwhile, other employers are (or were?) <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/166956/reveal\_your\_facebook\_password\_get\_a\_job.html" title="pcworld.com" rel="nofollow">demanding facebook passwords</a> [pcworld.com] to more easily monitor job applicants</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , other employers are ( or were ?
) demanding facebook passwords [ pcworld.com ] to more easily monitor job applicants</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, other employers are (or were?
) demanding facebook passwords [pcworld.com] to more easily monitor job applicants</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662168</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1269856680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am pretty sure what grahamsz meant was "do not use Facebook".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pretty sure what grahamsz meant was " do not use Facebook " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pretty sure what grahamsz meant was "do not use Facebook".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663540</id>
	<title>"The views expressed by \_\_\_ do not necessarily..."</title>
	<author>kaltkalt</author>
	<datestamp>1269863460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The views expressed by your employees on their own time do not represent your company unless you take the time and energy to point it out and MAKE it so.  No reasonable person would think that a Walmart employee's ranting on his/her facebook page represents the official views of Walmart.  Of course, nobody should say who their employer is on Facebook or any other such site.  But we know that's not going to be a prerequisite for firings.  People have and will be fired for their online content even when they don't mention their job/employer.  What's to stop Domino's pizza from firing an employee because she is pro-choice?
<br> <br>
There is going to come a point where the First Amendment will need to be incorporated onto the actions of private actors like big corporations.  Frankly I think we're well past that point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The views expressed by your employees on their own time do not represent your company unless you take the time and energy to point it out and MAKE it so .
No reasonable person would think that a Walmart employee 's ranting on his/her facebook page represents the official views of Walmart .
Of course , nobody should say who their employer is on Facebook or any other such site .
But we know that 's not going to be a prerequisite for firings .
People have and will be fired for their online content even when they do n't mention their job/employer .
What 's to stop Domino 's pizza from firing an employee because she is pro-choice ?
There is going to come a point where the First Amendment will need to be incorporated onto the actions of private actors like big corporations .
Frankly I think we 're well past that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The views expressed by your employees on their own time do not represent your company unless you take the time and energy to point it out and MAKE it so.
No reasonable person would think that a Walmart employee's ranting on his/her facebook page represents the official views of Walmart.
Of course, nobody should say who their employer is on Facebook or any other such site.
But we know that's not going to be a prerequisite for firings.
People have and will be fired for their online content even when they don't mention their job/employer.
What's to stop Domino's pizza from firing an employee because she is pro-choice?
There is going to come a point where the First Amendment will need to be incorporated onto the actions of private actors like big corporations.
Frankly I think we're well past that point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662408</id>
	<title>Re:I would like to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.awarenesstech.com will provide what you need to monitor your employees. Social Sentry is sub-par to their software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.awarenesstech.com will provide what you need to monitor your employees .
Social Sentry is sub-par to their software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.awarenesstech.com will provide what you need to monitor your employees.
Social Sentry is sub-par to their software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662084</id>
	<title>Here's an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want the whole world to know something about you, don't post it on the internet for the whole world to read.  Seems like common sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want the whole world to know something about you , do n't post it on the internet for the whole world to read .
Seems like common sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want the whole world to know something about you, don't post it on the internet for the whole world to read.
Seems like common sense to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660528</id>
	<title>HEY GUISE, I HAVE AN APP FOR MONITORING FACEOOK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called FIREFOX.  $3 per employee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called FIREFOX .
$ 3 per employee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called FIREFOX.
$3 per employee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</id>
	<title>Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269893160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's hardly enough. Suppose you're an American who holds Democratic views. Your superiors happen to be hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).</p><p>They're monitoring your social media profiles, and see that you've joined Facebook groups supporting health care reform, joined some groups opposing the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, you've made some comments suggesting you think it's fine for homosexuals to marry and adopt children, and you once twittered a pro-abortion news article link.</p><p>Now, they wouldn't have known this about you otherwise. But now they do know. Even if they don't fire you outright, they'll treat you differently, for sure. Maybe they won't trust you. Maybe they won't give you tasks that would allow you to further your career. After all, they probably don't like you any more, just because some political views you expressed differ from theirs.</p><p>All that can happen without you using your account at work, without you discussing work-related matters, and even if you keep your profile "private" (which for Facebook these days seems to mean it's open to just about anyone...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's hardly enough .
Suppose you 're an American who holds Democratic views .
Your superiors happen to be hardcore Republicans ( the fucking crazy kind ) .They 're monitoring your social media profiles , and see that you 've joined Facebook groups supporting health care reform , joined some groups opposing the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan , you 've made some comments suggesting you think it 's fine for homosexuals to marry and adopt children , and you once twittered a pro-abortion news article link.Now , they would n't have known this about you otherwise .
But now they do know .
Even if they do n't fire you outright , they 'll treat you differently , for sure .
Maybe they wo n't trust you .
Maybe they wo n't give you tasks that would allow you to further your career .
After all , they probably do n't like you any more , just because some political views you expressed differ from theirs.All that can happen without you using your account at work , without you discussing work-related matters , and even if you keep your profile " private " ( which for Facebook these days seems to mean it 's open to just about anyone... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's hardly enough.
Suppose you're an American who holds Democratic views.
Your superiors happen to be hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).They're monitoring your social media profiles, and see that you've joined Facebook groups supporting health care reform, joined some groups opposing the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, you've made some comments suggesting you think it's fine for homosexuals to marry and adopt children, and you once twittered a pro-abortion news article link.Now, they wouldn't have known this about you otherwise.
But now they do know.
Even if they don't fire you outright, they'll treat you differently, for sure.
Maybe they won't trust you.
Maybe they won't give you tasks that would allow you to further your career.
After all, they probably don't like you any more, just because some political views you expressed differ from theirs.All that can happen without you using your account at work, without you discussing work-related matters, and even if you keep your profile "private" (which for Facebook these days seems to mean it's open to just about anyone...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660738</id>
	<title>Gentlemen, Start Your Lawyers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269893160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662560</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1269858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or suppose you are a Republican and work with hardcore Progressives (the fraking crazy kind). They see a friend of yours on Facebook who is a hunter and then at work the next day they drill you about how the workplace is violence and firearms free.</p><p>Then when its winter you come to work wearing a parka with a wetlands camouflage pattern (hey its Columbia Titanium and was on sale), you are asked very pointedly if you are a "killer".</p><p>Oh they treat you differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or suppose you are a Republican and work with hardcore Progressives ( the fraking crazy kind ) .
They see a friend of yours on Facebook who is a hunter and then at work the next day they drill you about how the workplace is violence and firearms free.Then when its winter you come to work wearing a parka with a wetlands camouflage pattern ( hey its Columbia Titanium and was on sale ) , you are asked very pointedly if you are a " killer " .Oh they treat you differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or suppose you are a Republican and work with hardcore Progressives (the fraking crazy kind).
They see a friend of yours on Facebook who is a hunter and then at work the next day they drill you about how the workplace is violence and firearms free.Then when its winter you come to work wearing a parka with a wetlands camouflage pattern (hey its Columbia Titanium and was on sale), you are asked very pointedly if you are a "killer".Oh they treat you differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31681498</id>
	<title>Where is the button....</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1269961440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... to stop other people saying things about me? I don't seem to find it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... to stop other people saying things about me ?
I do n't seem to find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... to stop other people saying things about me?
I don't seem to find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31674322</id>
	<title>Re:Monitoring</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1269975180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think a company wouldn't be allowed to do just that?  Its not because its expensive, but its not illegal either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think a company would n't be allowed to do just that ?
Its not because its expensive , but its not illegal either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think a company wouldn't be allowed to do just that?
Its not because its expensive, but its not illegal either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661384</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269896340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's hardly enough. Suppose you're an American who holds Republican views. Your superiors happen to be hardcore Democrats (the fucking crazy kind).
</p><p>
They're monitoring your social media profiles, and see that you've joined Facebook groups against health care reform, joined some groups opposing the illegal immigration, you've made some comments suggesting you oppose unionization, and you once twittered a pro-life news article link.
</p><p>
Now, they wouldn't have known this about you otherwise. But now they do know. Even if they don't fire you outright, they'll treat you differently, for sure. Maybe they won't trust you. Maybe they won't give you tasks that would allow you to further your career. After all, they probably don't like you any more, just because some political views you expressed differ from theirs.
</p><p>
All that can happen without you using your account at work, without you discussing work-related matters, and even if you keep your profile "private" (which for Facebook these days seems to mean it's open to just about anyone...).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's hardly enough .
Suppose you 're an American who holds Republican views .
Your superiors happen to be hardcore Democrats ( the fucking crazy kind ) .
They 're monitoring your social media profiles , and see that you 've joined Facebook groups against health care reform , joined some groups opposing the illegal immigration , you 've made some comments suggesting you oppose unionization , and you once twittered a pro-life news article link .
Now , they would n't have known this about you otherwise .
But now they do know .
Even if they do n't fire you outright , they 'll treat you differently , for sure .
Maybe they wo n't trust you .
Maybe they wo n't give you tasks that would allow you to further your career .
After all , they probably do n't like you any more , just because some political views you expressed differ from theirs .
All that can happen without you using your account at work , without you discussing work-related matters , and even if you keep your profile " private " ( which for Facebook these days seems to mean it 's open to just about anyone... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's hardly enough.
Suppose you're an American who holds Republican views.
Your superiors happen to be hardcore Democrats (the fucking crazy kind).
They're monitoring your social media profiles, and see that you've joined Facebook groups against health care reform, joined some groups opposing the illegal immigration, you've made some comments suggesting you oppose unionization, and you once twittered a pro-life news article link.
Now, they wouldn't have known this about you otherwise.
But now they do know.
Even if they don't fire you outright, they'll treat you differently, for sure.
Maybe they won't trust you.
Maybe they won't give you tasks that would allow you to further your career.
After all, they probably don't like you any more, just because some political views you expressed differ from theirs.
All that can happen without you using your account at work, without you discussing work-related matters, and even if you keep your profile "private" (which for Facebook these days seems to mean it's open to just about anyone...).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661178</id>
	<title>tunnel</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1269895080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use your laptop at work and an ssh tunnel to your home sever.  Then browse the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use your laptop at work and an ssh tunnel to your home sever .
Then browse the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use your laptop at work and an ssh tunnel to your home sever.
Then browse the net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662402</id>
	<title>Simple solution ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the company doesn't want unfavorable things posted about it by its employees on such sites, and doing so using company resources, then the solution is to block all access to said sites from the company network. With the previously mentioned "authorized" access by the PR department maintaining the "official" site for the company on these networks.</p><p>Or allow inbound-only (read-only) viewing. Anyone using these means as a way to send an urgent, important, and/or private message to someone while they are at work should use the proper means to do so -- the phone.</p><p>Wiretapping in the US has a much stronger legal position in terms of expectations of privacy than does \_any\_ use of a company owned computer, network, mail server, disk space, or any other resource.</p><p>Anyone using this "service" should be seriously considered for canning, not because it is immoral or unethical or even illegal (e.g. cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying), but because it is far more expensive than paying your network admin to implement firewall rules to block access to/from these sites.</p><p>I'm certain at some point, an FB or MS user will file suit against these clowns for "cyber-stalking" as well as naming their entire customer base as co-defendants (who likely have deeper pockets than this start-up).</p><p>It would be interesting to hear their explanation as to how "monitoring" someone's personal website is somehow exempt from the various states' legal definitions of a "cyber-stalking" criminal offense.<br>Not to mention a FB or MS TOS violation to use another user's information to potentially and likely cause significant financial harm to that user (i.e. cause them to lose their jobs).<br>I also wonder if this company has a Private Investigator license in each of the home states of their "persons of interest" whose accounts they are monitoring.</p><p>Also, one has to wonder about the priorities of any company seriously worried about what people (some of whom also happen to be their employees) might be saying outside of working hours, when they are not representing the company in any way, (nor being compensated to do so as well), and not only worried, but worried enough to spend money hunting them down in order to take action against them.</p><p>That must be one really, really influential employee for their FB or MS pages to have that much financial impact to the company's shareholders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the company does n't want unfavorable things posted about it by its employees on such sites , and doing so using company resources , then the solution is to block all access to said sites from the company network .
With the previously mentioned " authorized " access by the PR department maintaining the " official " site for the company on these networks.Or allow inbound-only ( read-only ) viewing .
Anyone using these means as a way to send an urgent , important , and/or private message to someone while they are at work should use the proper means to do so -- the phone.Wiretapping in the US has a much stronger legal position in terms of expectations of privacy than does \ _any \ _ use of a company owned computer , network , mail server , disk space , or any other resource.Anyone using this " service " should be seriously considered for canning , not because it is immoral or unethical or even illegal ( e.g .
cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying ) , but because it is far more expensive than paying your network admin to implement firewall rules to block access to/from these sites.I 'm certain at some point , an FB or MS user will file suit against these clowns for " cyber-stalking " as well as naming their entire customer base as co-defendants ( who likely have deeper pockets than this start-up ) .It would be interesting to hear their explanation as to how " monitoring " someone 's personal website is somehow exempt from the various states ' legal definitions of a " cyber-stalking " criminal offense.Not to mention a FB or MS TOS violation to use another user 's information to potentially and likely cause significant financial harm to that user ( i.e .
cause them to lose their jobs ) .I also wonder if this company has a Private Investigator license in each of the home states of their " persons of interest " whose accounts they are monitoring.Also , one has to wonder about the priorities of any company seriously worried about what people ( some of whom also happen to be their employees ) might be saying outside of working hours , when they are not representing the company in any way , ( nor being compensated to do so as well ) , and not only worried , but worried enough to spend money hunting them down in order to take action against them.That must be one really , really influential employee for their FB or MS pages to have that much financial impact to the company 's shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the company doesn't want unfavorable things posted about it by its employees on such sites, and doing so using company resources, then the solution is to block all access to said sites from the company network.
With the previously mentioned "authorized" access by the PR department maintaining the "official" site for the company on these networks.Or allow inbound-only (read-only) viewing.
Anyone using these means as a way to send an urgent, important, and/or private message to someone while they are at work should use the proper means to do so -- the phone.Wiretapping in the US has a much stronger legal position in terms of expectations of privacy than does \_any\_ use of a company owned computer, network, mail server, disk space, or any other resource.Anyone using this "service" should be seriously considered for canning, not because it is immoral or unethical or even illegal (e.g.
cyber-stalking or cyber-bullying), but because it is far more expensive than paying your network admin to implement firewall rules to block access to/from these sites.I'm certain at some point, an FB or MS user will file suit against these clowns for "cyber-stalking" as well as naming their entire customer base as co-defendants (who likely have deeper pockets than this start-up).It would be interesting to hear their explanation as to how "monitoring" someone's personal website is somehow exempt from the various states' legal definitions of a "cyber-stalking" criminal offense.Not to mention a FB or MS TOS violation to use another user's information to potentially and likely cause significant financial harm to that user (i.e.
cause them to lose their jobs).I also wonder if this company has a Private Investigator license in each of the home states of their "persons of interest" whose accounts they are monitoring.Also, one has to wonder about the priorities of any company seriously worried about what people (some of whom also happen to be their employees) might be saying outside of working hours, when they are not representing the company in any way, (nor being compensated to do so as well), and not only worried, but worried enough to spend money hunting them down in order to take action against them.That must be one really, really influential employee for their FB or MS pages to have that much financial impact to the company's shareholders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661908</id>
	<title>Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1269855480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd hustle that "guideline" over to my attorney. Assuming you're in the United States there are some provisions of that "Guideline"  that are most definitely not enforceable. For instance you cannot, generally, sign away your right to free speech. Attempting to limit posts about religion and politics DEFINITELY fall into that category. It's quite likely that their legal department already knows this and is trying it anyway. If that's the case a letter from an Attorney 'reminding' them that this is forbidden will probably be enough to end it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hustle that " guideline " over to my attorney .
Assuming you 're in the United States there are some provisions of that " Guideline " that are most definitely not enforceable .
For instance you can not , generally , sign away your right to free speech .
Attempting to limit posts about religion and politics DEFINITELY fall into that category .
It 's quite likely that their legal department already knows this and is trying it anyway .
If that 's the case a letter from an Attorney 'reminding ' them that this is forbidden will probably be enough to end it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hustle that "guideline" over to my attorney.
Assuming you're in the United States there are some provisions of that "Guideline"  that are most definitely not enforceable.
For instance you cannot, generally, sign away your right to free speech.
Attempting to limit posts about religion and politics DEFINITELY fall into that category.
It's quite likely that their legal department already knows this and is trying it anyway.
If that's the case a letter from an Attorney 'reminding' them that this is forbidden will probably be enough to end it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662476</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Suppose you're an American who holds Democratic views. Your superiors happen to be hardcore Republicans<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>Given recent history it's more likely to be the opposite (most college grads are likely to be Democrats).  You say you watch Glenn Beck?  You lose that upcoming promotion.  You announce you joined the Tea Party to kick-out the D's for passing a lousy, lousy bill?  Be prepared to be called a "racist" and other nasty comments by your bosses.  And so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Suppose you 're an American who holds Democratic views .
Your superiors happen to be hardcore Republicans &gt; &gt; &gt; Given recent history it 's more likely to be the opposite ( most college grads are likely to be Democrats ) .
You say you watch Glenn Beck ?
You lose that upcoming promotion .
You announce you joined the Tea Party to kick-out the D 's for passing a lousy , lousy bill ?
Be prepared to be called a " racist " and other nasty comments by your bosses .
And so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Suppose you're an American who holds Democratic views.
Your superiors happen to be hardcore Republicans&gt;&gt;&gt;Given recent history it's more likely to be the opposite (most college grads are likely to be Democrats).
You say you watch Glenn Beck?
You lose that upcoming promotion.
You announce you joined the Tea Party to kick-out the D's for passing a lousy, lousy bill?
Be prepared to be called a "racist" and other nasty comments by your bosses.
And so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661584</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269854160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Trolling public information that may or may not be your employee is risky (duplicate names).</i></p><p>Indeed; your comment should be modded up, this is snake oil. I once challenged slashdotters to pinpoint me, and not only did nobody find me, somebody posted some poor Canadian's home address and cell phone number who had the same name as me. Good luck finding anybody named "Johnson" in Chicago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trolling public information that may or may not be your employee is risky ( duplicate names ) .Indeed ; your comment should be modded up , this is snake oil .
I once challenged slashdotters to pinpoint me , and not only did nobody find me , somebody posted some poor Canadian 's home address and cell phone number who had the same name as me .
Good luck finding anybody named " Johnson " in Chicago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trolling public information that may or may not be your employee is risky (duplicate names).Indeed; your comment should be modded up, this is snake oil.
I once challenged slashdotters to pinpoint me, and not only did nobody find me, somebody posted some poor Canadian's home address and cell phone number who had the same name as me.
Good luck finding anybody named "Johnson" in Chicago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661398</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269853200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).</p></div><p>If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then, I am a complete loon and proud of it!</p></div><p>That doesn't make sense. Do you imply that you're a hardcore republican? Or do you hold the same view of the constitution as our founding fathers did? They're mutually exclusive (if any of the writings attributed to our founding fathers in any way reflect their thinking).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hardcore Republicans ( the fucking crazy kind ) .If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then , I am a complete loon and proud of it ! That does n't make sense .
Do you imply that you 're a hardcore republican ?
Or do you hold the same view of the constitution as our founding fathers did ?
They 're mutually exclusive ( if any of the writings attributed to our founding fathers in any way reflect their thinking ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then, I am a complete loon and proud of it!That doesn't make sense.
Do you imply that you're a hardcore republican?
Or do you hold the same view of the constitution as our founding fathers did?
They're mutually exclusive (if any of the writings attributed to our founding fathers in any way reflect their thinking).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660590</id>
	<title>Re:Easy enough to avoid</title>
	<author>drachenstern</author>
	<datestamp>1269892500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the way this would work is that they monitor ALL your usage and so you get screwed when you're not at work and are griping.</p><p>Nothing to do with being at work and using the services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the way this would work is that they monitor ALL your usage and so you get screwed when you 're not at work and are griping.Nothing to do with being at work and using the services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the way this would work is that they monitor ALL your usage and so you get screwed when you're not at work and are griping.Nothing to do with being at work and using the services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680</id>
	<title>Simple to avoid</title>
	<author>alphax45</author>
	<datestamp>1269892860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Private profile - the security/privacy settings are there for a reason
2. Don't friend boss/manager - why would you ever do this? It could only lead to bad things
3. Don't use work equipment to access social networks - if they are not already blocked</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Private profile - the security/privacy settings are there for a reason 2 .
Do n't friend boss/manager - why would you ever do this ?
It could only lead to bad things 3 .
Do n't use work equipment to access social networks - if they are not already blocked</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Private profile - the security/privacy settings are there for a reason
2.
Don't friend boss/manager - why would you ever do this?
It could only lead to bad things
3.
Don't use work equipment to access social networks - if they are not already blocked</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</id>
	<title>This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>grahamsz</author>
	<datestamp>1269892260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours. Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad.</p><p>It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours .
Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts , this does n't really seem so bad.It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours.
Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad.It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660932</id>
	<title>Re:'Learning" Social Networking</title>
	<author>linuxgurugamer</author>
	<datestamp>1269893880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a skewed idea of how things are "supposed" to work.  In \_your\_ mind, it may be supposed to work one way.  But the whole idea of "social networking" is that it is PUBLIC.  It is supposed to work however each user uses it.  This also includes REPEATING what is read on one site on other sites.</p><p>I'm sorry if it doesn't work the way \_you\_ intended to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a skewed idea of how things are " supposed " to work .
In \ _your \ _ mind , it may be supposed to work one way .
But the whole idea of " social networking " is that it is PUBLIC .
It is supposed to work however each user uses it .
This also includes REPEATING what is read on one site on other sites.I 'm sorry if it does n't work the way \ _you \ _ intended to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a skewed idea of how things are "supposed" to work.
In \_your\_ mind, it may be supposed to work one way.
But the whole idea of "social networking" is that it is PUBLIC.
It is supposed to work however each user uses it.
This also includes REPEATING what is read on one site on other sites.I'm sorry if it doesn't work the way \_you\_ intended to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661472</id>
	<title>Re:Simple to avoid</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1269853560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, oh, say, don't put anything on Facebook that you wouldn't want the world to see?</p><p>My boss's boss's boss is a friend on Facebook.  It doesn't bother or scare me because <i>I am comfortable with my public actions</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , oh , say , do n't put anything on Facebook that you would n't want the world to see ? My boss 's boss 's boss is a friend on Facebook .
It does n't bother or scare me because I am comfortable with my public actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, oh, say, don't put anything on Facebook that you wouldn't want the world to see?My boss's boss's boss is a friend on Facebook.
It doesn't bother or scare me because I am comfortable with my public actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660946</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1269893940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Trust" - an ancient word meaning whale's vagina apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Trust " - an ancient word meaning whale 's vagina apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Trust" - an ancient word meaning whale's vagina apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660624</id>
	<title>Reacting harshly?</title>
	<author>fprefect</author>
	<datestamp>1269892680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic"</p><p>Of course, because such as comment isn't a one-off thing in close company, but posted for everyone to see until it is removed -- rather like a sign hung from the break-room bulletin board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic " Of course , because such as comment is n't a one-off thing in close company , but posted for everyone to see until it is removed -- rather like a sign hung from the break-room bulletin board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is a tendency to react to an off-color joke or complaint that appears online more harshly than to the same comment made in a cafeteria or company picnic"Of course, because such as comment isn't a one-off thing in close company, but posted for everyone to see until it is removed -- rather like a sign hung from the break-room bulletin board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661318</id>
	<title>None of their damn business</title>
	<author>Dragoness Eclectic</author>
	<datestamp>1269895980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Why would you use your Real Life name on an Internet social forum?</p><p>2) Why in the Nine Hells would you tell your boss your Internet nickname on said social forum??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Why would you use your Real Life name on an Internet social forum ? 2 ) Why in the Nine Hells would you tell your boss your Internet nickname on said social forum ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Why would you use your Real Life name on an Internet social forum?2) Why in the Nine Hells would you tell your boss your Internet nickname on said social forum?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31664492</id>
	<title>Re:'Learning" Social Networking</title>
	<author>nicoh</author>
	<datestamp>1269868560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the post-fb age I've reactivated my lj activity for some of those very reasons(geek understanding of social networks). I need to vent?  friends-only locked post on lj. I need to tell everyone I know what I had for lunch? fb. Most of the ppl left on lj are still operating like it's 2002 anyways, fb has pulled the more content free lj users into its own suckfield. so yeah, fb++</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the post-fb age I 've reactivated my lj activity for some of those very reasons ( geek understanding of social networks ) .
I need to vent ?
friends-only locked post on lj .
I need to tell everyone I know what I had for lunch ?
fb. Most of the ppl left on lj are still operating like it 's 2002 anyways , fb has pulled the more content free lj users into its own suckfield .
so yeah , fb + +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the post-fb age I've reactivated my lj activity for some of those very reasons(geek understanding of social networks).
I need to vent?
friends-only locked post on lj.
I need to tell everyone I know what I had for lunch?
fb. Most of the ppl left on lj are still operating like it's 2002 anyways, fb has pulled the more content free lj users into its own suckfield.
so yeah, fb++</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661252</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269895500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simpler solution:</p><p>1)  Don't work for assholes.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simpler solution : 1 ) Do n't work for assholes.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simpler solution:1)  Don't work for assholes.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661118</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously now...</title>
	<author>DeanFox</author>
	<datestamp>1269894840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
If requested MySpace/Facebook will grant employers with invisible type "friend" status to any of their employee's account.  Employers can monitor their employees page without the user giving individual consent (general consent was given when accepting the user agreements) or knowing they have been friended by their employer.  This is not a protection by itself.  It could be for this particular service as they claim it only covers "public" information but it isn't if the employer asks directly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If requested MySpace/Facebook will grant employers with invisible type " friend " status to any of their employee 's account .
Employers can monitor their employees page without the user giving individual consent ( general consent was given when accepting the user agreements ) or knowing they have been friended by their employer .
This is not a protection by itself .
It could be for this particular service as they claim it only covers " public " information but it is n't if the employer asks directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If requested MySpace/Facebook will grant employers with invisible type "friend" status to any of their employee's account.
Employers can monitor their employees page without the user giving individual consent (general consent was given when accepting the user agreements) or knowing they have been friended by their employer.
This is not a protection by itself.
It could be for this particular service as they claim it only covers "public" information but it isn't if the employer asks directly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614</id>
	<title>I would like to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an employer, I would be quite happy to know how much time is being wasted by employees on social networking sites. Of course keeping up with current events (Suff that matters) would not be included. The comments my employees make are public and I have the same right to see them as anyone. In addition, the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an employer , I would be quite happy to know how much time is being wasted by employees on social networking sites .
Of course keeping up with current events ( Suff that matters ) would not be included .
The comments my employees make are public and I have the same right to see them as anyone .
In addition , the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an employer, I would be quite happy to know how much time is being wasted by employees on social networking sites.
Of course keeping up with current events (Suff that matters) would not be included.
The comments my employees make are public and I have the same right to see them as anyone.
In addition, the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662502</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this shit, doesn't want or understand freedom and liberty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who does n't have a problem with this shit , does n't want or understand freedom and liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this shit, doesn't want or understand freedom and liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660702</id>
	<title>Perhaps they'll release their customer list</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we know which companies subscribe to the service, we have new additions to the list of companies to avoid working for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we know which companies subscribe to the service , we have new additions to the list of companies to avoid working for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we know which companies subscribe to the service, we have new additions to the list of companies to avoid working for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661546</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1269853980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's OK...  If you're an American who holds Democratic views, you shouldn't be comfortable working for folks like that anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's OK... If you 're an American who holds Democratic views , you should n't be comfortable working for folks like that anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's OK...  If you're an American who holds Democratic views, you shouldn't be comfortable working for folks like that anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660800</id>
	<title>Smart Employers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269893340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Smart employers don't give a crap whether their employees go to Facebook or MySpace or whatever, so long as the work gets done.  Nitpicking over every minute is an idiot's response to an unproductive workplace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Smart employers do n't give a crap whether their employees go to Facebook or MySpace or whatever , so long as the work gets done .
Nitpicking over every minute is an idiot 's response to an unproductive workplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smart employers don't give a crap whether their employees go to Facebook or MySpace or whatever, so long as the work gets done.
Nitpicking over every minute is an idiot's response to an unproductive workplace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544</id>
	<title>FTFA</title>
	<author>Capt James McCarthy</author>
	<datestamp>1269892380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Social Sentry draws only on publicly posted information on Facebook and Twitter;"</p><p>Talk about a cash cow. Trolling public information that may or may not be your employee is risky (duplicate names). Perhaps this will remind folks that use social networks to set their security settings up is a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Social Sentry draws only on publicly posted information on Facebook and Twitter ; " Talk about a cash cow .
Trolling public information that may or may not be your employee is risky ( duplicate names ) .
Perhaps this will remind folks that use social networks to set their security settings up is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Social Sentry draws only on publicly posted information on Facebook and Twitter;"Talk about a cash cow.
Trolling public information that may or may not be your employee is risky (duplicate names).
Perhaps this will remind folks that use social networks to set their security settings up is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663794</id>
	<title>Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1269864900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>point out its an invalid and unenforcable contract</htmltext>
<tokenext>point out its an invalid and unenforcable contract</tokentext>
<sentencetext>point out its an invalid and unenforcable contract</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660520</id>
	<title>I can beat that price.</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1269892260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For only $1 to 7$ per seat I shall give you a 'web browser'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For only $ 1 to 7 $ per seat I shall give you a 'web browser' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For only $1 to 7$ per seat I shall give you a 'web browser'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660782</id>
	<title>Re:How to save $2 to $8 dollars per employee</title>
	<author>gabereiser</author>
	<datestamp>1269893280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>dude, that's hilarious and sooo true.  Problem is, most companies that want to monitor facebook etc for private posts are also not utilizing it's corporate pages to build a following.  Like at my work.  OpenDNS block, which is ok by me, but what about the potential for all those customers?  All 430 million of them.  Seems like a step backward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>dude , that 's hilarious and sooo true .
Problem is , most companies that want to monitor facebook etc for private posts are also not utilizing it 's corporate pages to build a following .
Like at my work .
OpenDNS block , which is ok by me , but what about the potential for all those customers ?
All 430 million of them .
Seems like a step backward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dude, that's hilarious and sooo true.
Problem is, most companies that want to monitor facebook etc for private posts are also not utilizing it's corporate pages to build a following.
Like at my work.
OpenDNS block, which is ok by me, but what about the potential for all those customers?
All 430 million of them.
Seems like a step backward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663006</id>
	<title>Not New</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269860460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is hardly new. There is a company named Awareness Technologies, www.awarenesstech.com that has been invading your privacy for years now. They've been able to capture ALL activity from any website, not just Facebook. The difference is, they didn't get the press this company got. It's funny how some crappy unknown company and crappy software makes it onto the internet with such buzz, while other quality products just keep going on with their business even though they've been doing it for a much longer time --- with much a much more quality product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is hardly new .
There is a company named Awareness Technologies , www.awarenesstech.com that has been invading your privacy for years now .
They 've been able to capture ALL activity from any website , not just Facebook .
The difference is , they did n't get the press this company got .
It 's funny how some crappy unknown company and crappy software makes it onto the internet with such buzz , while other quality products just keep going on with their business even though they 've been doing it for a much longer time --- with much a much more quality product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is hardly new.
There is a company named Awareness Technologies, www.awarenesstech.com that has been invading your privacy for years now.
They've been able to capture ALL activity from any website, not just Facebook.
The difference is, they didn't get the press this company got.
It's funny how some crappy unknown company and crappy software makes it onto the internet with such buzz, while other quality products just keep going on with their business even though they've been doing it for a much longer time --- with much a much more quality product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663900</id>
	<title>It's not censorship, it's enforcement of AUP</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269865440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most companies have an AUP that forbids personal use of company network resources, and also doing things from company IP addresses that would make it appear as if you spoke on behalf of the company.</p><p>The network belongs to the Company, and they have every right to dictate how you may and may not use it. I see no problem with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most companies have an AUP that forbids personal use of company network resources , and also doing things from company IP addresses that would make it appear as if you spoke on behalf of the company.The network belongs to the Company , and they have every right to dictate how you may and may not use it .
I see no problem with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most companies have an AUP that forbids personal use of company network resources, and also doing things from company IP addresses that would make it appear as if you spoke on behalf of the company.The network belongs to the Company, and they have every right to dictate how you may and may not use it.
I see no problem with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661302</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously now...</title>
	<author>c\_sd\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1269895800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until Facebook changes the privacy policy next week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until Facebook changes the privacy policy next week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until Facebook changes the privacy policy next week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662544</id>
	<title>Re:Simple to avoid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's right. the way to deal with a police state mentality is not to piss it off.  just cater to its whims and everything is just fine. happy freedom to you citizen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's right .
the way to deal with a police state mentality is not to piss it off .
just cater to its whims and everything is just fine .
happy freedom to you citizen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's right.
the way to deal with a police state mentality is not to piss it off.
just cater to its whims and everything is just fine.
happy freedom to you citizen!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661238</id>
	<title>Re: This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>Yankel</author>
	<datestamp>1269895440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest joke are the businesses where social networking can actually increase awareness and sales through fan pages, promotion and additional information, yet "head office" blocks access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest joke are the businesses where social networking can actually increase awareness and sales through fan pages , promotion and additional information , yet " head office " blocks access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest joke are the businesses where social networking can actually increase awareness and sales through fan pages, promotion and additional information, yet "head office" blocks access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661080</id>
	<title>Re:Jeebus - just block facebook, it's not that har</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269894540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook, I have yet to hear it.</p></div><p>I work for Facebook, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook , I have yet to hear it.I work for Facebook , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook, I have yet to hear it.I work for Facebook, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661516</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269853800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).</p></div><p>If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then, I am a complete loon and proud of it!</p></div><p>You are a loon, for two reasons.  First, I don't think the founding fathers had any one view; they were as split politically as we are.  Second, even if they were unified, why should we adhere to views that are over 200 years old?  Views that consider slavery to be just fine, and that consider blacks to be 3/5ths of a human being for reasons of district representation, but then deny them any say in that representation, not even 3/5ths?  The Constitution, as originally conceived, allowed only white men who owned property eligible to vote.  Not women, not blacks, not Native Americans.</p><p>Times have changed, bud.  Mostly for the better.  The founding fathers weren't infallible.  They weren't smarter than we are and they weren't better.  To infer that we should do things their way is to say that our system of government is authority-driven rather than subject to the will of living voters, and that's a load of crap.  We need to make our own way in the world, and that has to include everybody, not just rich white people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hardcore Republicans ( the fucking crazy kind ) .If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then , I am a complete loon and proud of it ! You are a loon , for two reasons .
First , I do n't think the founding fathers had any one view ; they were as split politically as we are .
Second , even if they were unified , why should we adhere to views that are over 200 years old ?
Views that consider slavery to be just fine , and that consider blacks to be 3/5ths of a human being for reasons of district representation , but then deny them any say in that representation , not even 3/5ths ?
The Constitution , as originally conceived , allowed only white men who owned property eligible to vote .
Not women , not blacks , not Native Americans.Times have changed , bud .
Mostly for the better .
The founding fathers were n't infallible .
They were n't smarter than we are and they were n't better .
To infer that we should do things their way is to say that our system of government is authority-driven rather than subject to the will of living voters , and that 's a load of crap .
We need to make our own way in the world , and that has to include everybody , not just rich white people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then, I am a complete loon and proud of it!You are a loon, for two reasons.
First, I don't think the founding fathers had any one view; they were as split politically as we are.
Second, even if they were unified, why should we adhere to views that are over 200 years old?
Views that consider slavery to be just fine, and that consider blacks to be 3/5ths of a human being for reasons of district representation, but then deny them any say in that representation, not even 3/5ths?
The Constitution, as originally conceived, allowed only white men who owned property eligible to vote.
Not women, not blacks, not Native Americans.Times have changed, bud.
Mostly for the better.
The founding fathers weren't infallible.
They weren't smarter than we are and they weren't better.
To infer that we should do things their way is to say that our system of government is authority-driven rather than subject to the will of living voters, and that's a load of crap.
We need to make our own way in the world, and that has to include everybody, not just rich white people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636</id>
	<title>'Learning" Social Networking</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1269892740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prior to Facebook, social networking sites were pretty much utilized only by the "geeks" of society. Now, with Facebook, everyone and their mom and their grandma has a page. With this flood of people unaccustomed to "life on the internet", people are learning how to conduct themselves on social networking sites all over again. Not only are the non-geeks learning how all this techno-babble works - geeks are also learning how the new social networking environment works. For example, prior to Facebook, on other sites (LiveJournal, for example), my contacts understood that what I said there was to remain there. They were virtual conversations with my friends. Now, however, I'm realizing that the people I have on Facebook do not have that innate understanding of "how it works." Things I say on Facebook, just as a venue to vent, become an issue. I'm being forced to re-evaluate how a social networking site "works" because of all the people who are now using it who just don't understand how it \_should\_ work.<br> <br>
All of this is to say that it's a very dangerous time to be active on a social networking site. \_YOU\_ may understand how it all works. Your \_FRIENDS\_ may understand that you're just venting about a shitty day at work or whatever. Can you be certain your MOM or your BOSS similarly understands these things?...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior to Facebook , social networking sites were pretty much utilized only by the " geeks " of society .
Now , with Facebook , everyone and their mom and their grandma has a page .
With this flood of people unaccustomed to " life on the internet " , people are learning how to conduct themselves on social networking sites all over again .
Not only are the non-geeks learning how all this techno-babble works - geeks are also learning how the new social networking environment works .
For example , prior to Facebook , on other sites ( LiveJournal , for example ) , my contacts understood that what I said there was to remain there .
They were virtual conversations with my friends .
Now , however , I 'm realizing that the people I have on Facebook do not have that innate understanding of " how it works .
" Things I say on Facebook , just as a venue to vent , become an issue .
I 'm being forced to re-evaluate how a social networking site " works " because of all the people who are now using it who just do n't understand how it \ _should \ _ work .
All of this is to say that it 's a very dangerous time to be active on a social networking site .
\ _YOU \ _ may understand how it all works .
Your \ _FRIENDS \ _ may understand that you 're just venting about a shitty day at work or whatever .
Can you be certain your MOM or your BOSS similarly understands these things ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior to Facebook, social networking sites were pretty much utilized only by the "geeks" of society.
Now, with Facebook, everyone and their mom and their grandma has a page.
With this flood of people unaccustomed to "life on the internet", people are learning how to conduct themselves on social networking sites all over again.
Not only are the non-geeks learning how all this techno-babble works - geeks are also learning how the new social networking environment works.
For example, prior to Facebook, on other sites (LiveJournal, for example), my contacts understood that what I said there was to remain there.
They were virtual conversations with my friends.
Now, however, I'm realizing that the people I have on Facebook do not have that innate understanding of "how it works.
" Things I say on Facebook, just as a venue to vent, become an issue.
I'm being forced to re-evaluate how a social networking site "works" because of all the people who are now using it who just don't understand how it \_should\_ work.
All of this is to say that it's a very dangerous time to be active on a social networking site.
\_YOU\_ may understand how it all works.
Your \_FRIENDS\_ may understand that you're just venting about a shitty day at work or whatever.
Can you be certain your MOM or your BOSS similarly understands these things?...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662796</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269859440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have other Sys Admin tools that can monitor even at the packet level what goes in and out of a network.  Justifying invasion of privacy with an umbrella of bullshit just doesn't cut it for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have other Sys Admin tools that can monitor even at the packet level what goes in and out of a network .
Justifying invasion of privacy with an umbrella of bullshit just does n't cut it for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have other Sys Admin tools that can monitor even at the packet level what goes in and out of a network.
Justifying invasion of privacy with an umbrella of bullshit just doesn't cut it for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661184</id>
	<title>Re:Simple to avoid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269895140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just - put your boss to a blacklist for specific content - like photo albums and tags if you share photos of having "fun" with his wife. The rest of the company will still get something to laugh at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just - put your boss to a blacklist for specific content - like photo albums and tags if you share photos of having " fun " with his wife .
The rest of the company will still get something to laugh at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just - put your boss to a blacklist for specific content - like photo albums and tags if you share photos of having "fun" with his wife.
The rest of the company will still get something to laugh at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661450</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269853440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I'm a software developer, in my early 30's, pretty tech-savy. It took me about 45 minutes (a long time, I think) digging around Facebook's privacy settings to properly hide everything. Not only do you have to go under "Privacy", but also "Application Settings" - would the average user know to do that? Apparently "Group" privacy settings are under applications??? Those settings are complicated And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public 2) my pages from the public. So my point is it's hard to NOT share too much publicly with Facebook.</p></div><p>Aaaaand, that's only private from the general public.  Even if you update Facebook only on your own time, with your own equipment, on your own network, there's a chance that your employer can see your full profile anyway... and your mom's profile, and your dog's profile.  There have been posts on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. in the past from people who said that a P.I. license and a little money shoved to FB for a special "fraud detection" account will allow HR departments full access to anyone's profile pages and photo albums.  I don't know if it's true, but it's one of the only ways beyond ads that I could see FB monetizing all the data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm a software developer , in my early 30 's , pretty tech-savy .
It took me about 45 minutes ( a long time , I think ) digging around Facebook 's privacy settings to properly hide everything .
Not only do you have to go under " Privacy " , but also " Application Settings " - would the average user know to do that ?
Apparently " Group " privacy settings are under applications ? ? ?
Those settings are complicated And even now I ca n't hide 1 ) my friends list from the public 2 ) my pages from the public .
So my point is it 's hard to NOT share too much publicly with Facebook.Aaaaand , that 's only private from the general public .
Even if you update Facebook only on your own time , with your own equipment , on your own network , there 's a chance that your employer can see your full profile anyway... and your mom 's profile , and your dog 's profile .
There have been posts on / .
in the past from people who said that a P.I .
license and a little money shoved to FB for a special " fraud detection " account will allow HR departments full access to anyone 's profile pages and photo albums .
I do n't know if it 's true , but it 's one of the only ways beyond ads that I could see FB monetizing all the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm a software developer, in my early 30's, pretty tech-savy.
It took me about 45 minutes (a long time, I think) digging around Facebook's privacy settings to properly hide everything.
Not only do you have to go under "Privacy", but also "Application Settings" - would the average user know to do that?
Apparently "Group" privacy settings are under applications???
Those settings are complicated And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public 2) my pages from the public.
So my point is it's hard to NOT share too much publicly with Facebook.Aaaaand, that's only private from the general public.
Even if you update Facebook only on your own time, with your own equipment, on your own network, there's a chance that your employer can see your full profile anyway... and your mom's profile, and your dog's profile.
There have been posts on /.
in the past from people who said that a P.I.
license and a little money shoved to FB for a special "fraud detection" account will allow HR departments full access to anyone's profile pages and photo albums.
I don't know if it's true, but it's one of the only ways beyond ads that I could see FB monetizing all the data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663108</id>
	<title>During work hours?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1269860940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, i get an hour lunch break and 2 other contractual/legal breaks.. I have a phone..   Leave my personal time out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , i get an hour lunch break and 2 other contractual/legal breaks.. I have a phone.. Leave my personal time out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, i get an hour lunch break and 2 other contractual/legal breaks.. I have a phone..   Leave my personal time out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663316</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1269862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 exactly correct</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 exactly correct</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 exactly correct</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660846</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>GabriellaKat</author>
	<datestamp>1269893460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours. Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad.</p><p>It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.</p></div><p>And what if you posted while on break / in bathroom from your smart phone?

Yet another reason I "Just say NO" to social networks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours .
Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts , this does n't really seem so bad.It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.And what if you posted while on break / in bathroom from your smart phone ?
Yet another reason I " Just say NO " to social networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours.
Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad.It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.And what if you posted while on break / in bathroom from your smart phone?
Yet another reason I "Just say NO" to social networks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663428</id>
	<title>What jerks</title>
	<author>WeeBit</author>
	<datestamp>1269862920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Teneros should be kicked where the sun don't shine.   Social Sentry should be boycotted.  Actually both need to be boycotted.   This clearly is a lawsuit in the making. This is not right or moral.  I hope it does turn into a Teneros disaster. May their business end up in a pit of sewage where they belong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teneros should be kicked where the sun do n't shine .
Social Sentry should be boycotted .
Actually both need to be boycotted .
This clearly is a lawsuit in the making .
This is not right or moral .
I hope it does turn into a Teneros disaster .
May their business end up in a pit of sewage where they belong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teneros should be kicked where the sun don't shine.
Social Sentry should be boycotted.
Actually both need to be boycotted.
This clearly is a lawsuit in the making.
This is not right or moral.
I hope it does turn into a Teneros disaster.
May their business end up in a pit of sewage where they belong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660574</id>
	<title>Re:Jeebus - just block facebook, it's not that har</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about monitoring people facebooking at work, it's about monitoring facebook profiles around the clock to check up on your employees' personal lives and rants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about monitoring people facebooking at work , it 's about monitoring facebook profiles around the clock to check up on your employees ' personal lives and rants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about monitoring people facebooking at work, it's about monitoring facebook profiles around the clock to check up on your employees' personal lives and rants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661544</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously now...</title>
	<author>Dr. Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1269853980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are always leaks in the service.

</p><p>A friend of mine created a fake profile and sent me a friend request.  I never accepted the request, but he got "people you might know..." suggestions which were from my contact list.

</p><p>Facebook is not designed for security, there are information leaks like that all over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are always leaks in the service .
A friend of mine created a fake profile and sent me a friend request .
I never accepted the request , but he got " people you might know... " suggestions which were from my contact list .
Facebook is not designed for security , there are information leaks like that all over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are always leaks in the service.
A friend of mine created a fake profile and sent me a friend request.
I never accepted the request, but he got "people you might know..." suggestions which were from my contact list.
Facebook is not designed for security, there are information leaks like that all over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660836</id>
	<title>Re:Simple to avoid</title>
	<author>bdenton42</author>
	<datestamp>1269893460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>4.  Just don't post stuff that your boss or mother would be offended by.</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Just do n't post stuff that your boss or mother would be offended by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Just don't post stuff that your boss or mother would be offended by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660664</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1269892800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad.</i></p><p>Given how many of us own personal laptops, personal smart phones, and have personal wireless data plans, this doesn't really seem so bright either. I am also legally entitled to breaks from work.</p><p>I'm actually all in favor of IT locking down and monitoring the corporate network to -protect the corporate network-. However, attempting to monitor or restrict the corporate network as a measure to control employee behaviour and/or productivity however is doomed to failure.</p><p>If the employee has a blackberry and a 15 minute break, who is management to tell them they can't update their facebook page. (Sure there are perhaps a few isolated work environments where it would be reasonable to prevent the employee. But the VAST majority of jobs out there... it just wouldn't be realistic to even attempt to enforce such a policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts , this does n't really seem so bad.Given how many of us own personal laptops , personal smart phones , and have personal wireless data plans , this does n't really seem so bright either .
I am also legally entitled to breaks from work.I 'm actually all in favor of IT locking down and monitoring the corporate network to -protect the corporate network- .
However , attempting to monitor or restrict the corporate network as a measure to control employee behaviour and/or productivity however is doomed to failure.If the employee has a blackberry and a 15 minute break , who is management to tell them they ca n't update their facebook page .
( Sure there are perhaps a few isolated work environments where it would be reasonable to prevent the employee .
But the VAST majority of jobs out there... it just would n't be realistic to even attempt to enforce such a policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad.Given how many of us own personal laptops, personal smart phones, and have personal wireless data plans, this doesn't really seem so bright either.
I am also legally entitled to breaks from work.I'm actually all in favor of IT locking down and monitoring the corporate network to -protect the corporate network-.
However, attempting to monitor or restrict the corporate network as a measure to control employee behaviour and/or productivity however is doomed to failure.If the employee has a blackberry and a 15 minute break, who is management to tell them they can't update their facebook page.
(Sure there are perhaps a few isolated work environments where it would be reasonable to prevent the employee.
But the VAST majority of jobs out there... it just wouldn't be realistic to even attempt to enforce such a policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661380</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1269896280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they note that you're posting at 2:06 in the afternoon which means that you're SUPPOSED TO BE AT WORK FINISHING THAT REPORT THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ON MY DESK FIRST THING THIS MORNING JOHN PARKER.</p><p>Coward?  Perhaps.  (Well, he IS clearly a Democrat, so that's kinda redundant.)</p><p>Anonymous?  Not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they note that you 're posting at 2 : 06 in the afternoon which means that you 're SUPPOSED TO BE AT WORK FINISHING THAT REPORT THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ON MY DESK FIRST THING THIS MORNING JOHN PARKER.Coward ?
Perhaps. ( Well , he IS clearly a Democrat , so that 's kinda redundant. ) Anonymous ?
Not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they note that you're posting at 2:06 in the afternoon which means that you're SUPPOSED TO BE AT WORK FINISHING THAT REPORT THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ON MY DESK FIRST THING THIS MORNING JOHN PARKER.Coward?
Perhaps.  (Well, he IS clearly a Democrat, so that's kinda redundant.)Anonymous?
Not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663014</id>
	<title>Mobile version</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269860520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use my iPhone for such things. It's safer in the long run.</p><p>Until someone comes up with a rogue cell repeater they can tap into.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use my iPhone for such things .
It 's safer in the long run.Until someone comes up with a rogue cell repeater they can tap into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use my iPhone for such things.
It's safer in the long run.Until someone comes up with a rogue cell repeater they can tap into.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31664328</id>
	<title>So what level in Mafia Wars and Farmville are you?</title>
	<author>seanvaandering</author>
	<datestamp>1269867660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Add me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add me : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add me :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076</id>
	<title>This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269894540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not just happening in the workplace. Some employers are actively watching their employee's social networking pages when they are outside the work environment!</p><p>My girlfriend was recently given a series of "guidelines" in which was outlined, procedures for proper social network use. Amongst those outlined, the guidelines state she cannot speak negatively of her employer, and may not even speak of public information such as stock price of the company. It also goes so far as to say she cannot make politically or religiously opinionated posts, and she may not post such content anonymously,</p><p>At the end of this document composed of "guidelines" (their term) is a signature and date field, followed by the threat of termination of these guidelines are not followed. Guidelines my ass, it's a contract to limit her free speech outside the work place.</p><p>We're at a lost as to what to do. Thus far she's refused to sign the document, and has attempted to contact the ACLU and several other organizations. Nothing yet so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not just happening in the workplace .
Some employers are actively watching their employee 's social networking pages when they are outside the work environment ! My girlfriend was recently given a series of " guidelines " in which was outlined , procedures for proper social network use .
Amongst those outlined , the guidelines state she can not speak negatively of her employer , and may not even speak of public information such as stock price of the company .
It also goes so far as to say she can not make politically or religiously opinionated posts , and she may not post such content anonymously,At the end of this document composed of " guidelines " ( their term ) is a signature and date field , followed by the threat of termination of these guidelines are not followed .
Guidelines my ass , it 's a contract to limit her free speech outside the work place.We 're at a lost as to what to do .
Thus far she 's refused to sign the document , and has attempted to contact the ACLU and several other organizations .
Nothing yet so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not just happening in the workplace.
Some employers are actively watching their employee's social networking pages when they are outside the work environment!My girlfriend was recently given a series of "guidelines" in which was outlined, procedures for proper social network use.
Amongst those outlined, the guidelines state she cannot speak negatively of her employer, and may not even speak of public information such as stock price of the company.
It also goes so far as to say she cannot make politically or religiously opinionated posts, and she may not post such content anonymously,At the end of this document composed of "guidelines" (their term) is a signature and date field, followed by the threat of termination of these guidelines are not followed.
Guidelines my ass, it's a contract to limit her free speech outside the work place.We're at a lost as to what to do.
Thus far she's refused to sign the document, and has attempted to contact the ACLU and several other organizations.
Nothing yet so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662566</id>
	<title>Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try EFF as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try EFF as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try EFF as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661510</id>
	<title>Re:I would like to know</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1269853800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and you can look at your logs to see what sites your employees are going to and how often they are hitting those sites.  You're even well within your rights to install monitoring software on the computers you own to monitor everything that happens on those machines.  The machine I'm using here at work belongs to my company.  However, if my company wanted to monitor my online behavior from computers they don't own on time they're not paying for, I'd leave immediately.  What I do on my own time is none of the company's business unless it's bad enough to end up in the paper the next morning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and you can look at your logs to see what sites your employees are going to and how often they are hitting those sites .
You 're even well within your rights to install monitoring software on the computers you own to monitor everything that happens on those machines .
The machine I 'm using here at work belongs to my company .
However , if my company wanted to monitor my online behavior from computers they do n't own on time they 're not paying for , I 'd leave immediately .
What I do on my own time is none of the company 's business unless it 's bad enough to end up in the paper the next morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and you can look at your logs to see what sites your employees are going to and how often they are hitting those sites.
You're even well within your rights to install monitoring software on the computers you own to monitor everything that happens on those machines.
The machine I'm using here at work belongs to my company.
However, if my company wanted to monitor my online behavior from computers they don't own on time they're not paying for, I'd leave immediately.
What I do on my own time is none of the company's business unless it's bad enough to end up in the paper the next morning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522</id>
	<title>Jeebus - just block facebook, it's not that hard.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook, I have yet to hear it. Just don't allow people to visit the godforsaken vector on company resources. Problem solved.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook , I have yet to hear it .
Just do n't allow people to visit the godforsaken vector on company resources .
Problem solved .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is a work-related reason an employee needs to have access to facebook, I have yet to hear it.
Just don't allow people to visit the godforsaken vector on company resources.
Problem solved.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31670282</id>
	<title>For the Record...</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1269962820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to note that my company is the most productive, innovative, and beneficient organization in the history mankind.  Indeed, my managers are such paragons of humanity that I have no doubt that were they to control all of society, we would be living in a golden age which would rival, nay exceed, even the most fantasic utopias portrayed in literature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to note that my company is the most productive , innovative , and beneficient organization in the history mankind .
Indeed , my managers are such paragons of humanity that I have no doubt that were they to control all of society , we would be living in a golden age which would rival , nay exceed , even the most fantasic utopias portrayed in literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to note that my company is the most productive, innovative, and beneficient organization in the history mankind.
Indeed, my managers are such paragons of humanity that I have no doubt that were they to control all of society, we would be living in a golden age which would rival, nay exceed, even the most fantasic utopias portrayed in literature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661042</id>
	<title>Re:I would like to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269894300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing.</p><p>On the other hand, you like to steal your employees' time by not paying them overtime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing.On the other hand , you like to steal your employees ' time by not paying them overtime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing.On the other hand, you like to steal your employees' time by not paying them overtime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661764</id>
	<title>My strategy</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1269854760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My strategy is to just not worry about it.  I post whatever I fee like on the internet and if my employer decides to fire me over it, tough shit for him.  I'm an awesome employee and there's plenty of companies that would gladly hire me with full knowledge of my dirty liberal ways.  Of course my stance is made easier by the fact that the software industry tends to be pretty relaxed about ideological stances or weekend indiscretions that don't effect job performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My strategy is to just not worry about it .
I post whatever I fee like on the internet and if my employer decides to fire me over it , tough shit for him .
I 'm an awesome employee and there 's plenty of companies that would gladly hire me with full knowledge of my dirty liberal ways .
Of course my stance is made easier by the fact that the software industry tends to be pretty relaxed about ideological stances or weekend indiscretions that do n't effect job performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My strategy is to just not worry about it.
I post whatever I fee like on the internet and if my employer decides to fire me over it, tough shit for him.
I'm an awesome employee and there's plenty of companies that would gladly hire me with full knowledge of my dirty liberal ways.
Of course my stance is made easier by the fact that the software industry tends to be pretty relaxed about ideological stances or weekend indiscretions that don't effect job performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661226</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>six11</author>
	<datestamp>1269895380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And even once you've figured out how to make your Facebookery private (or approximately private), this doesn't address (1) things your friends say or pictures tagged as you, and (2) privacy changes Facebook makes in the future without warning.</p><p>I am on Facebook but I take the view that absolutely everything I say might eventually be up for scrutiny. There's lots of rumors flying around about Zoidberg, Facebook's founder, and even if 10\% of it is true, I think it is merely a matter of time until Facebook has betrayed the last shred of trust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And even once you 've figured out how to make your Facebookery private ( or approximately private ) , this does n't address ( 1 ) things your friends say or pictures tagged as you , and ( 2 ) privacy changes Facebook makes in the future without warning.I am on Facebook but I take the view that absolutely everything I say might eventually be up for scrutiny .
There 's lots of rumors flying around about Zoidberg , Facebook 's founder , and even if 10 \ % of it is true , I think it is merely a matter of time until Facebook has betrayed the last shred of trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even once you've figured out how to make your Facebookery private (or approximately private), this doesn't address (1) things your friends say or pictures tagged as you, and (2) privacy changes Facebook makes in the future without warning.I am on Facebook but I take the view that absolutely everything I say might eventually be up for scrutiny.
There's lots of rumors flying around about Zoidberg, Facebook's founder, and even if 10\% of it is true, I think it is merely a matter of time until Facebook has betrayed the last shred of trust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661754</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1269854760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Claiming that you have "the same exact views" as a moderately large and diverse group with a wide range of views sounds pretty crazy to me just to start with.  Claiming that you magically know the "exact" views of a group of dead people whom we only know through their writings and can't ask for clarification sounds pretty crazy to me too, unless you're a time-traveling telepath.  That's why I, instead, hold the same exact views as God--I know because He told me so.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In any case, the original poster's point works either way.  If your employers are extremists or fanatics of some sort (left or right or even some totally other direction), and you hold opinions contrary to that group of extremists or fanatics, you may be in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Claiming that you have " the same exact views " as a moderately large and diverse group with a wide range of views sounds pretty crazy to me just to start with .
Claiming that you magically know the " exact " views of a group of dead people whom we only know through their writings and ca n't ask for clarification sounds pretty crazy to me too , unless you 're a time-traveling telepath .
That 's why I , instead , hold the same exact views as God--I know because He told me so .
: ) In any case , the original poster 's point works either way .
If your employers are extremists or fanatics of some sort ( left or right or even some totally other direction ) , and you hold opinions contrary to that group of extremists or fanatics , you may be in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claiming that you have "the same exact views" as a moderately large and diverse group with a wide range of views sounds pretty crazy to me just to start with.
Claiming that you magically know the "exact" views of a group of dead people whom we only know through their writings and can't ask for clarification sounds pretty crazy to me too, unless you're a time-traveling telepath.
That's why I, instead, hold the same exact views as God--I know because He told me so.
:)In any case, the original poster's point works either way.
If your employers are extremists or fanatics of some sort (left or right or even some totally other direction), and you hold opinions contrary to that group of extremists or fanatics, you may be in trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31668256</id>
	<title>Well duh.</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1269948780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the reaction to online griping is harsher because, unlike griping in the cafetaria, it's not visible to ten inside people, but to pretty much the world ? How do you think your boss would react if you badmouthed him in on the frontpage of a newspaper ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the reaction to online griping is harsher because , unlike griping in the cafetaria , it 's not visible to ten inside people , but to pretty much the world ?
How do you think your boss would react if you badmouthed him in on the frontpage of a newspaper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the reaction to online griping is harsher because, unlike griping in the cafetaria, it's not visible to ten inside people, but to pretty much the world ?
How do you think your boss would react if you badmouthed him in on the frontpage of a newspaper ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662148</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Employers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269856620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly. what if ive just finished a 2-3 hour (usually much longer!) intense coding session where i worked hard to complete a module/function/whatever and i wish to relax for, heaven forbid, 20 min. by goofing around a social networking website, or reading slashdot, or whatever else.</p><p>offhandley, the giant fucking problem in todays society is that managers treat programmers like lineworkers. 8 hours in office does != 8 hours productivity, PHB. now fuck off and let me work at my own pace, viewing on the net what i want, within reason, so long as the work gets done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly .
what if ive just finished a 2-3 hour ( usually much longer !
) intense coding session where i worked hard to complete a module/function/whatever and i wish to relax for , heaven forbid , 20 min .
by goofing around a social networking website , or reading slashdot , or whatever else.offhandley , the giant fucking problem in todays society is that managers treat programmers like lineworkers .
8 hours in office does ! = 8 hours productivity , PHB .
now fuck off and let me work at my own pace , viewing on the net what i want , within reason , so long as the work gets done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly.
what if ive just finished a 2-3 hour (usually much longer!
) intense coding session where i worked hard to complete a module/function/whatever and i wish to relax for, heaven forbid, 20 min.
by goofing around a social networking website, or reading slashdot, or whatever else.offhandley, the giant fucking problem in todays society is that managers treat programmers like lineworkers.
8 hours in office does != 8 hours productivity, PHB.
now fuck off and let me work at my own pace, viewing on the net what i want, within reason, so long as the work gets done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31681482</id>
	<title>Yeah right.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1269961320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are the same kind of employer/manager that will also demand from their employees to work long hours and weekends.</p><p>I know the type, it sounds like you.</p><p>But then it is not called stealing, because somehow companies abusing people in this way is never bad and there are even legal provisions that allow it in some localities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are the same kind of employer/manager that will also demand from their employees to work long hours and weekends.I know the type , it sounds like you.But then it is not called stealing , because somehow companies abusing people in this way is never bad and there are even legal provisions that allow it in some localities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are the same kind of employer/manager that will also demand from their employees to work long hours and weekends.I know the type, it sounds like you.But then it is not called stealing, because somehow companies abusing people in this way is never bad and there are even legal provisions that allow it in some localities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661016</id>
	<title>Re:I would like to know</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1269894180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing</p></div>
</blockquote><p>If they're assembly-line workers, then probably yes.  If they fall in the "knowledge" category, then I disagree in principle.  To expect a human to mentally function at top efficiency without breaks and diversions is not reasonable.  So, if you are the kind of employer who has hourly-wage employees with scheduled breaks, then you have a right to complain if your workers are slacking off on the clock.  If not, then I think you are shooting yourself in the foot with a policy that equates employees taking a necessary 10-minute break every 2 hours with "stealing."</p><p>Obviously, if their personal activities are interfering with their productivity then that is another matter.  I think you should evaluate your employees on productivity and overall quality of work, not on whether they keep their noses to the grindstone all day, every day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing If they 're assembly-line workers , then probably yes .
If they fall in the " knowledge " category , then I disagree in principle .
To expect a human to mentally function at top efficiency without breaks and diversions is not reasonable .
So , if you are the kind of employer who has hourly-wage employees with scheduled breaks , then you have a right to complain if your workers are slacking off on the clock .
If not , then I think you are shooting yourself in the foot with a policy that equates employees taking a necessary 10-minute break every 2 hours with " stealing .
" Obviously , if their personal activities are interfering with their productivity then that is another matter .
I think you should evaluate your employees on productivity and overall quality of work , not on whether they keep their noses to the grindstone all day , every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the time and resources they spend on personal items while getting paid by me is no less than stealing
If they're assembly-line workers, then probably yes.
If they fall in the "knowledge" category, then I disagree in principle.
To expect a human to mentally function at top efficiency without breaks and diversions is not reasonable.
So, if you are the kind of employer who has hourly-wage employees with scheduled breaks, then you have a right to complain if your workers are slacking off on the clock.
If not, then I think you are shooting yourself in the foot with a policy that equates employees taking a necessary 10-minute break every 2 hours with "stealing.
"Obviously, if their personal activities are interfering with their productivity then that is another matter.
I think you should evaluate your employees on productivity and overall quality of work, not on whether they keep their noses to the grindstone all day, every day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661098</id>
	<title>What about commenting on slashdot?</title>
	<author>abhishekupadhya</author>
	<datestamp>1269894660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that still ok?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that still ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that still ok?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661478</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269853560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must have missed the part of the Constitution where people could be held indefinitely and tortured. Not to mention the obviously massive writings of the Founding Fathers on the subject of hating gays and abortions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must have missed the part of the Constitution where people could be held indefinitely and tortured .
Not to mention the obviously massive writings of the Founding Fathers on the subject of hating gays and abortions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must have missed the part of the Constitution where people could be held indefinitely and tortured.
Not to mention the obviously massive writings of the Founding Fathers on the subject of hating gays and abortions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660586</id>
	<title>Re:Jeebus - just block facebook, it's not that har</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1269892500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy answer: Drunken sales people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy answer : Drunken sales people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy answer: Drunken sales people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269892860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>It might serve as a wake-up call to people who <strong>share too much publicly.</strong> </em>
<p>
So I'm a software developer, in my early 30's, pretty tech-savy.  It took me about 45 minutes (a long time, I think) digging around Facebook's privacy settings to properly hide everything.  Not only do you have to go under "Privacy", but also "Application Settings" - would the average user know to do that?  Apparently "Group" privacy settings are under applications???  Those settings are complicated  And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public 2) my pages from the public.  So my point is it's hard to NOT share too much publicly with Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly .
So I 'm a software developer , in my early 30 's , pretty tech-savy .
It took me about 45 minutes ( a long time , I think ) digging around Facebook 's privacy settings to properly hide everything .
Not only do you have to go under " Privacy " , but also " Application Settings " - would the average user know to do that ?
Apparently " Group " privacy settings are under applications ? ? ?
Those settings are complicated And even now I ca n't hide 1 ) my friends list from the public 2 ) my pages from the public .
So my point is it 's hard to NOT share too much publicly with Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might serve as a wake-up call to people who share too much publicly.
So I'm a software developer, in my early 30's, pretty tech-savy.
It took me about 45 minutes (a long time, I think) digging around Facebook's privacy settings to properly hide everything.
Not only do you have to go under "Privacy", but also "Application Settings" - would the average user know to do that?
Apparently "Group" privacy settings are under applications???
Those settings are complicated  And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public 2) my pages from the public.
So my point is it's hard to NOT share too much publicly with Facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661038</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1269894300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours. Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so bad</p></div><p>I know! I think the most ridiculous idea is that people are PAYING for this software! You get your IT guys to put some Open Source Linux variant on their routers that keep track of internet usage - and compare it with an IP-Table for those well known sites - and you'll know who is on Facebook when. If your company is larger than 10 people you probably have an "IT Department" and they should know how to handle all of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours .
Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts , this does n't really seem so badI know !
I think the most ridiculous idea is that people are PAYING for this software !
You get your IT guys to put some Open Source Linux variant on their routers that keep track of internet usage - and compare it with an IP-Table for those well known sites - and you 'll know who is on Facebook when .
If your company is larger than 10 people you probably have an " IT Department " and they should know how to handle all of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In particular it seems that this service is monitoring publicly available posts and also flagging how many of them happen during work hours.
Considering employers are likely within their rights to monitor when their networks are used to make private posts, this doesn't really seem so badI know!
I think the most ridiculous idea is that people are PAYING for this software!
You get your IT guys to put some Open Source Linux variant on their routers that keep track of internet usage - and compare it with an IP-Table for those well known sites - and you'll know who is on Facebook when.
If your company is larger than 10 people you probably have an "IT Department" and they should know how to handle all of that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660810</id>
	<title>Re:How to save $2 to $8 dollars per employee</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1269893340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Works for me.  My boss is my FB friend.  He doesn't use it much, but I'm happy for anyone in the world to see anything I put anywhere.  If I were to get in trouble for something I say online then it would only show that my employer is not someone I would want to continue working for.</p><p>And it's happened in the past.  I once got blowback on an internal developer discussion list for saying something that should have been completely benign.  I said that I very much liked a technology that the company was using, and I later got in trouble from an upper manager who was part of a faction that didn't like that technology and was looking to replace it.  From that point on, I lost all respect for the upper management at that place.  (And that was far from the only reason.)  Management would read the list, but not participate, but when someone said something impolitic, there would be trouble.  This was, in my opinion, the very definitions<br>of arrogance and cowardice.  Needless to say, upper management at this place was like dealing with autistic toddlers (and I've had a little experience with that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Works for me .
My boss is my FB friend .
He does n't use it much , but I 'm happy for anyone in the world to see anything I put anywhere .
If I were to get in trouble for something I say online then it would only show that my employer is not someone I would want to continue working for.And it 's happened in the past .
I once got blowback on an internal developer discussion list for saying something that should have been completely benign .
I said that I very much liked a technology that the company was using , and I later got in trouble from an upper manager who was part of a faction that did n't like that technology and was looking to replace it .
From that point on , I lost all respect for the upper management at that place .
( And that was far from the only reason .
) Management would read the list , but not participate , but when someone said something impolitic , there would be trouble .
This was , in my opinion , the very definitionsof arrogance and cowardice .
Needless to say , upper management at this place was like dealing with autistic toddlers ( and I 've had a little experience with that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works for me.
My boss is my FB friend.
He doesn't use it much, but I'm happy for anyone in the world to see anything I put anywhere.
If I were to get in trouble for something I say online then it would only show that my employer is not someone I would want to continue working for.And it's happened in the past.
I once got blowback on an internal developer discussion list for saying something that should have been completely benign.
I said that I very much liked a technology that the company was using, and I later got in trouble from an upper manager who was part of a faction that didn't like that technology and was looking to replace it.
From that point on, I lost all respect for the upper management at that place.
(And that was far from the only reason.
)  Management would read the list, but not participate, but when someone said something impolitic, there would be trouble.
This was, in my opinion, the very definitionsof arrogance and cowardice.
Needless to say, upper management at this place was like dealing with autistic toddlers (and I've had a little experience with that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661028</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA</title>
	<author>Goffee71</author>
	<datestamp>1269894240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phew, my 1994-era usenet postings to alt.pave.the.earth and redhaired.reds.both.in.and.under.the.bed will remain safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phew , my 1994-era usenet postings to alt.pave.the.earth and redhaired.reds.both.in.and.under.the.bed will remain safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phew, my 1994-era usenet postings to alt.pave.the.earth and redhaired.reds.both.in.and.under.the.bed will remain safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31674272</id>
	<title>Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1269975000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think you can't be fired for refusing to sign?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think you ca n't be fired for refusing to sign ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think you can't be fired for refusing to sign?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662170</id>
	<title>Re:FTFA</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1269856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Risky for whom?  If my employer finds somebody else of my name who has non-mutual opinions, and fires me, they've lost some cash and have to hire somebody else.  No big deal, really.  They aren't going to bother to confront me with it, just act on it or not.  In an "at-will" state, they can fire me for any reason except for a certain specified few (and firing me for something somebody else did or said is not among those few), and under any legal circumstances it would be really difficult to prove anything.
</p><p>
Employees need specific employers more than employers need specific employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Risky for whom ?
If my employer finds somebody else of my name who has non-mutual opinions , and fires me , they 've lost some cash and have to hire somebody else .
No big deal , really .
They are n't going to bother to confront me with it , just act on it or not .
In an " at-will " state , they can fire me for any reason except for a certain specified few ( and firing me for something somebody else did or said is not among those few ) , and under any legal circumstances it would be really difficult to prove anything .
Employees need specific employers more than employers need specific employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Risky for whom?
If my employer finds somebody else of my name who has non-mutual opinions, and fires me, they've lost some cash and have to hire somebody else.
No big deal, really.
They aren't going to bother to confront me with it, just act on it or not.
In an "at-will" state, they can fire me for any reason except for a certain specified few (and firing me for something somebody else did or said is not among those few), and under any legal circumstances it would be really difficult to prove anything.
Employees need specific employers more than employers need specific employees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661424</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>einhverfr</author>
	<datestamp>1269853260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the worker in this scenario.  I have run into one employer once (and not at a job interview fortunately) who expected all employees to have a specific political ideology.  If I was seeking a job and such came up, I would be very clear that my political views were my own and that no employer had a right to tell control them.</p><p>I have run into subtle pressure.  For example, when I worked at Microsoft a lot of my co-workers opposed Maria Cantwell just because she came from a competing company.  Something about company loyalty.</p><p>Anyway, I looked at issues, decided I liked Cantwell better than Gordon and said so.  It was controversial but it had no impact on my career.</p><p>Basically, if you don't stand up for your viewpoints, you can't expect anyone else to stand up for you either.  If you are going to be in a work environment which requires this, leave it or at least disagree with the policy and stand up for others.  Failing that, such an environment is no good to work in anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , I do n't have a lot of sympathy for the worker in this scenario .
I have run into one employer once ( and not at a job interview fortunately ) who expected all employees to have a specific political ideology .
If I was seeking a job and such came up , I would be very clear that my political views were my own and that no employer had a right to tell control them.I have run into subtle pressure .
For example , when I worked at Microsoft a lot of my co-workers opposed Maria Cantwell just because she came from a competing company .
Something about company loyalty.Anyway , I looked at issues , decided I liked Cantwell better than Gordon and said so .
It was controversial but it had no impact on my career.Basically , if you do n't stand up for your viewpoints , you ca n't expect anyone else to stand up for you either .
If you are going to be in a work environment which requires this , leave it or at least disagree with the policy and stand up for others .
Failing that , such an environment is no good to work in anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the worker in this scenario.
I have run into one employer once (and not at a job interview fortunately) who expected all employees to have a specific political ideology.
If I was seeking a job and such came up, I would be very clear that my political views were my own and that no employer had a right to tell control them.I have run into subtle pressure.
For example, when I worked at Microsoft a lot of my co-workers opposed Maria Cantwell just because she came from a competing company.
Something about company loyalty.Anyway, I looked at issues, decided I liked Cantwell better than Gordon and said so.
It was controversial but it had no impact on my career.Basically, if you don't stand up for your viewpoints, you can't expect anyone else to stand up for you either.
If you are going to be in a work environment which requires this, leave it or at least disagree with the policy and stand up for others.
Failing that, such an environment is no good to work in anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31664642</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>Grim Leaper</author>
	<datestamp>1269869340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those settings are complicated  And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public</p> </div><p>Just for reference, I think I managed that one based on these instructions: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518\_3-10416524-238.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518\_3-10416524-238.html</a> [cnet.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those settings are complicated And even now I ca n't hide 1 ) my friends list from the public Just for reference , I think I managed that one based on these instructions : http : //news.cnet.com/8301-19518 \ _3-10416524-238.html [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those settings are complicated  And even now I can't hide 1) my friends list from the public Just for reference, I think I managed that one based on these instructions: http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518\_3-10416524-238.html [cnet.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269895380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).</p></div><p>If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then, I am a complete loon and proud of it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hardcore Republicans ( the fucking crazy kind ) .If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then , I am a complete loon and proud of it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> hardcore Republicans (the fucking crazy kind).If holding on the constitution with the same exact views as our founding fathers did is crazy then, I am a complete loon and proud of it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660516</id>
	<title>How to save $2 to $8 dollars per employee</title>
	<author>funchords</author>
	<datestamp>1269892260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't abuse your employees and "friend" them for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't abuse your employees and " friend " them for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't abuse your employees and "friend" them for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661282</id>
	<title>Re:Hardly enough.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1269895620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here isn't Facebook.  It's the farce of "at-will" employment.  You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is n't Facebook .
It 's the farce of " at-will " employment .
You 're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here isn't Facebook.
It's the farce of "at-will" employment.
You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31669944</id>
	<title>Re:This seems a little overblown</title>
	<author>ebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1269961620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And for five bucks Facebook will sell all that private information to you're employer.  Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but eventually they'll figure out that it will be a good revenue stream.

Of course, the sale will eventually be reported, and a lawsuit will follow; but, that won't put the cat back into the bag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for five bucks Facebook will sell all that private information to you 're employer .
Perhaps not today , perhaps not tomorrow , but eventually they 'll figure out that it will be a good revenue stream .
Of course , the sale will eventually be reported , and a lawsuit will follow ; but , that wo n't put the cat back into the bag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for five bucks Facebook will sell all that private information to you're employer.
Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but eventually they'll figure out that it will be a good revenue stream.
Of course, the sale will eventually be reported, and a lawsuit will follow; but, that won't put the cat back into the bag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662432</id>
	<title>Re:This is not just happening INSIDE the workplace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269857760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have the documented printed into toilet paper, put the toilet paper into all bathrooms at the office! solved!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have the documented printed into toilet paper , put the toilet paper into all bathrooms at the office !
solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have the documented printed into toilet paper, put the toilet paper into all bathrooms at the office!
solved!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661340</id>
	<title>Monitoring</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1269896100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, can I get this company to hire a private detective to follow my employees around all day?  How much would that cost?
</p><p>I just want to know what they're saying about my company in their off time, and find out whether anyone is sharing sensitive company information.  There's no problem with that, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , can I get this company to hire a private detective to follow my employees around all day ?
How much would that cost ?
I just want to know what they 're saying about my company in their off time , and find out whether anyone is sharing sensitive company information .
There 's no problem with that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, can I get this company to hire a private detective to follow my employees around all day?
How much would that cost?
I just want to know what they're saying about my company in their off time, and find out whether anyone is sharing sensitive company information.
There's no problem with that, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31674322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31681482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31681498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31669944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31677878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31664642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31664492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31674272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_29_188256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31674322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31681482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661252
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661516
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662476
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31677878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31670282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31664492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31669944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31664642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31663794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31674272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_29_188256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31660836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31662544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31681498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_29_188256.31661184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
