Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
......but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people
Below, for the heathens that don't subscribe, is a copy of an article from tomorrow's Economist. A balanced, erudite and insightful persepctive and a refreshing change from the one sided claptrap on here. Enjoy.
************************************************************************************************
Liberalism after Brexit
The politics of anger
The triumph of the Brexit campaign is a warning to the liberal international order
MANY Brexiteers built their campaign on optimism. Outside the European Union, Britain would be free to open up to the world. But what secured their victory was anger.
Anger stirred up a winning turnout in the depressed, down-at-heel cities of England (see article). Anger at immigration, globalisation, social liberalism and even feminism, polling shows, translated into a vote to reject the EU. As if victory were a licence to spread hatred, anger has since lashed Britain’s streets with an outburst of racist abuse.
Across Western democracies, from the America of Donald Trump to the France of Marine Le Pen, large numbers of people are enraged. If they cannot find a voice within the mainstream, they will make themselves heard from without. Unless they believe that the global order works to their benefit, Brexit risks becoming just the start of an unravelling of globalisation and the prosperity it has created.
The rest of history
Today’s crisis in liberalism—in the free-market, British sense—was born in 1989, out of the ashes of the Soviet Union. At the time the thinker Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”, the moment when no ideology was left to challenge democracy, markets and global co-operation as a way of organising society. It was liberalism’s greatest triumph, but it also engendered a narrow, technocratic politics obsessed by process. In the ensuing quarter-century the majority has prospered, but plenty of voters feel as if they have been left behind.
Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.
Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.
Rather than spread the benefits of globalisation, politicians have focused elsewhere. The left moved on to arguments about culture—race, greenery, human rights and sexual politics. The right preached meritocratic self-advancement, but failed to win everyone the chance to partake in it. Proud industrial communities that look to family and nation suffered alienation and decay. Mendacious campaigning mirrored by partisan media amplified the sense of betrayal.
Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good. But, as Brexit shows, when people feel they do not control their lives or share in the fruits of globalisation, they strike out. The distant, baffling, overbearing EU makes an irresistible target.
Back to the future
Now that history has stormed back with a vengeance, liberalism needs to fight its ground all over again. Part of the task is to find the language to make a principled, enlightened case and to take on people like Ms Le Pen and Mr Trump. The flow of goods, ideas, capital and people is essential for prosperity. The power of a hectoring, bullying, discriminatory state is a threat to human happiness. The virtues of tolerance and compromise are conditions for people to realise their full potential.
Just as important is the need for policies to ensure the diffusion of prosperity. The argument for helping those mired in deprivation is strong. But a culture of compensation turns angry people into resentful objects of state charity. Hence, liberals also need to restore social mobility and ensure that economic growth translates into rising wages. That means a relentless focus on dismantling privilege by battling special interests, exposing incumbent companies to competition and breaking down restrictive practices. Most of all, the West needs an education system that works for everyone, of whatever social background and whatever age.
The fight for liberalism is at its most fraught with immigration. Given that most governments manage who comes to work and live in their country, the EU’s total freedom of movement is an anomaly. Just as global trade rules allow countries to counter surges of goods, so there is a case for rules to cope with surges in people. But it would be illiberal and self-defeating to give in to the idea that immigration is merely something to tolerate. Sooner than curb numbers, governments should first invest in schools, hospitals and housing. In Britain new migrants from the EU contribute more to the exchequer than they take out. Without them, industries such as care homes and the building trade would be short of labour. Without their ideas and their energy, Britain would be much the poorer.
Liberalism has been challenged before. At the end of the 19th century, liberals embraced a broader role for the state, realising that political and economic freedoms are diminished if basic human needs are unmet. In the 1970s liberals concluded that the embrace of the state had become smothering and oppressive. That rekindled an interest in markets.
When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, amid the triumph of Soviet collapse, an aide slipped Mr Fukuyama’s essay on history into her papers. The next morning she declared herself unimpressed. Never take history for granted, she said. Never let up. For liberals today that must be the rallying cry.
Below, for the heathens that don't subscribe, is a copy of an article from tomorrow's Economist. A balanced, erudite and insightful persepctive and a refreshing change from the one sided claptrap on here. Enjoy.
************************************************************************************************
Liberalism after Brexit
The politics of anger
The triumph of the Brexit campaign is a warning to the liberal international order
MANY Brexiteers built their campaign on optimism. Outside the European Union, Britain would be free to open up to the world. But what secured their victory was anger.
Anger stirred up a winning turnout in the depressed, down-at-heel cities of England (see article). Anger at immigration, globalisation, social liberalism and even feminism, polling shows, translated into a vote to reject the EU. As if victory were a licence to spread hatred, anger has since lashed Britain’s streets with an outburst of racist abuse.
Across Western democracies, from the America of Donald Trump to the France of Marine Le Pen, large numbers of people are enraged. If they cannot find a voice within the mainstream, they will make themselves heard from without. Unless they believe that the global order works to their benefit, Brexit risks becoming just the start of an unravelling of globalisation and the prosperity it has created.
The rest of history
Today’s crisis in liberalism—in the free-market, British sense—was born in 1989, out of the ashes of the Soviet Union. At the time the thinker Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”, the moment when no ideology was left to challenge democracy, markets and global co-operation as a way of organising society. It was liberalism’s greatest triumph, but it also engendered a narrow, technocratic politics obsessed by process. In the ensuing quarter-century the majority has prospered, but plenty of voters feel as if they have been left behind.
Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.
Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.
Rather than spread the benefits of globalisation, politicians have focused elsewhere. The left moved on to arguments about culture—race, greenery, human rights and sexual politics. The right preached meritocratic self-advancement, but failed to win everyone the chance to partake in it. Proud industrial communities that look to family and nation suffered alienation and decay. Mendacious campaigning mirrored by partisan media amplified the sense of betrayal.
Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good. But, as Brexit shows, when people feel they do not control their lives or share in the fruits of globalisation, they strike out. The distant, baffling, overbearing EU makes an irresistible target.
Back to the future
Now that history has stormed back with a vengeance, liberalism needs to fight its ground all over again. Part of the task is to find the language to make a principled, enlightened case and to take on people like Ms Le Pen and Mr Trump. The flow of goods, ideas, capital and people is essential for prosperity. The power of a hectoring, bullying, discriminatory state is a threat to human happiness. The virtues of tolerance and compromise are conditions for people to realise their full potential.
Just as important is the need for policies to ensure the diffusion of prosperity. The argument for helping those mired in deprivation is strong. But a culture of compensation turns angry people into resentful objects of state charity. Hence, liberals also need to restore social mobility and ensure that economic growth translates into rising wages. That means a relentless focus on dismantling privilege by battling special interests, exposing incumbent companies to competition and breaking down restrictive practices. Most of all, the West needs an education system that works for everyone, of whatever social background and whatever age.
The fight for liberalism is at its most fraught with immigration. Given that most governments manage who comes to work and live in their country, the EU’s total freedom of movement is an anomaly. Just as global trade rules allow countries to counter surges of goods, so there is a case for rules to cope with surges in people. But it would be illiberal and self-defeating to give in to the idea that immigration is merely something to tolerate. Sooner than curb numbers, governments should first invest in schools, hospitals and housing. In Britain new migrants from the EU contribute more to the exchequer than they take out. Without them, industries such as care homes and the building trade would be short of labour. Without their ideas and their energy, Britain would be much the poorer.
Liberalism has been challenged before. At the end of the 19th century, liberals embraced a broader role for the state, realising that political and economic freedoms are diminished if basic human needs are unmet. In the 1970s liberals concluded that the embrace of the state had become smothering and oppressive. That rekindled an interest in markets.
When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, amid the triumph of Soviet collapse, an aide slipped Mr Fukuyama’s essay on history into her papers. The next morning she declared herself unimpressed. Never take history for granted, she said. Never let up. For liberals today that must be the rallying cry.
Show More
Realism is what it is all about Oz,keep a small bit spiritual,less of the Anglo and don't believe the hype.
Make your own mind up.
Make your own mind up.
Ozy a very interesting article , much sense is spoken ,the piece about immigration and the amount immigrants contribute is also interesting ,I take it that the main immigrants in this instance are from the continent of Europe . That is not a problem ,we know what IMMIGRANTS are though....
I have a feeling, Wonks, that the editor of the Economist (the delectable Zanny Mintoes Beddoes, a WOMAN, Wonks) has a better handle of the definition of the word 'Immigrant' than you do.
You can subscribe to 12 copies for 57 Euro, Wonks, only 43 Euro if you inadvertently register as a Student. Which make it cheaper than your Irish Independent. And there is eating and drinking in it.
You can subscribe to 12 copies for 57 Euro, Wonks, only 43 Euro if you inadvertently register as a Student. Which make it cheaper than your Irish Independent. And there is eating and drinking in it.
i used to read this mag all the time...............its great for conflicts............u will quickly become an expert in the rebels of congo & peru.
Would you not agree my dear man , that those immigrants who come from Europe ARE the ones who contribute to the British economy ,and I'm sure that's who the delectable Zanny was refaring to THEM . Whereas those from the African and Asian Continents would be working Illigally in the BLACK markets , few if any would have work permits never mind a NS number .So they wouldn't be paying taxes of ANY sort ...
I see Austria has decided that the recent Presidential election result was illegal , they agreed that the result was flawed , the Far Right party have won a rerun after it emerged that vote rigging and terrifying irregularities had occured..
What! I hear Ozy ask , the Left using ungentlemany conduct to get their way , NEVER! 
Ozy, as you know to get time to read the magazine you need some serious dedication.
Often, after I've torn away the plastic cover, the only page I will always read is the page inside back (the "pre-penultimate" as Peter O'Sullevan might say) , that is devoted to obituary.
They are mostly brilliant, more often about someone who I never heard of before and witty, clever, irreverent and respectful. They ran two pages on the great Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali but my favourite in recent times for sheer poetry was the guy who used to make the recorded announcements (recorded from a box room at his home)at most of the railway stations in England. An unsung hero brought to life in death.
Often, after I've torn away the plastic cover, the only page I will always read is the page inside back (the "pre-penultimate" as Peter O'Sullevan might say) , that is devoted to obituary.
They are mostly brilliant, more often about someone who I never heard of before and witty, clever, irreverent and respectful. They ran two pages on the great Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali but my favourite in recent times for sheer poetry was the guy who used to make the recorded announcements (recorded from a box room at his home)at most of the railway stations in England. An unsung hero brought to life in death.
The pretence is now gone Ozymandius is now reduced to reproducing articles from various periodicals.
His inability to think on his feet is legendary,his swift decent into foul mouthed name calling a certainty,its now just another's mans argument.
Royal Academy is a rum one but every now and again shows a likeable side,if he likes the railways I will forgive him all his other transgressions.
His inability to think on his feet is legendary,his swift decent into foul mouthed name calling a certainty,its now just another's mans argument.
Royal Academy is a rum one but every now and again shows a likeable side,if he likes the railways I will forgive him all his other transgressions.
Yet anther non-substantive reply!
I felt it was important that the Forum saw a true, properly balanced, Group 1 winning Thoroughbred in full flight. A filly at that! No surprise that the quality of the penmanship and perspective sailed straight over your head.
I felt it was important that the Forum saw a true, properly balanced, Group 1 winning Thoroughbred in full flight. A filly at that! No surprise that the quality of the penmanship and perspective sailed straight over your head.
I quite agree, RA, the Obituaries are wonderful...as you say, even for those whom you have never heard of.
One does need time on one's hands to get through the entire publication. I dip in and out of it over the week and savour it.
One does need time on one's hands to get through the entire publication. I dip in and out of it over the week and savour it.
For the love of God will ya ever stop, Liberalism me hole,you want to reverse the vote, modern day slavery no thanks.
Railway enthusists,allotment holders,numismatists feel free to talk away,anything but the blinkered liberals,the biggest charlatans that ever drew a breath.
Railway enthusists,allotment holders,numismatists feel free to talk away,anything but the blinkered liberals,the biggest charlatans that ever drew a breath.
The 'John & Yoko' experiment with Spiritualism didn't last long, Pa
And it's quite remiss of me to fail to mention wonks getting a mention every other week. Scarcely believable, but 100% true.
No point asking Ozymandius what he believes liberalism is,he doesn't know.
They only believe in the now,no concept of history and no concern for the coming generations.
One of their main tenets is equality,in the wooly sense naturally.
They have equality studies and equality officers and they ever get the irony.
Their political parties rattle on about equality,yet have a hierarchy all of their own.
They are anti anything natural,its natural for people to know where they are from be it country or county.
That's why you have privileged students proclaiming themselves European or worse still citizens of the world.
Liberals are very intolerant,they generally hate religion with the extraordinary exception of Islam ( they and feminists have this inexplicable soft spot for the religion of peace )
They hate the concept go God because they think themselves Gods hence the constant preaching.
Like all Gods they lay down laws and sins,these are new sins.
Murder is always explained away,adultery is compulsory,robbery understandable their sins are far more serious,racism,homophobia.
They only believe in the now,no concept of history and no concern for the coming generations.
One of their main tenets is equality,in the wooly sense naturally.
They have equality studies and equality officers and they ever get the irony.
Their political parties rattle on about equality,yet have a hierarchy all of their own.
They are anti anything natural,its natural for people to know where they are from be it country or county.
That's why you have privileged students proclaiming themselves European or worse still citizens of the world.
Liberals are very intolerant,they generally hate religion with the extraordinary exception of Islam ( they and feminists have this inexplicable soft spot for the religion of peace )
They hate the concept go God because they think themselves Gods hence the constant preaching.
Like all Gods they lay down laws and sins,these are new sins.
Murder is always explained away,adultery is compulsory,robbery understandable their sins are far more serious,racism,homophobia.
R.A.Hole ,the TIMES has very interesting obituarys everyday , doubt you'd get a mention though....Hopefully not for a while yet says he ...
You must be the only BOHS support that KNOWS that publication exits I'd say...
You must be the only BOHS support that KNOWS that publication exits I'd say...
The train now approaching...
Phil Sayer, the best-loved voice on England’s railways, died on April 14th, aged 62
Apr 23rd 2016
TRAVELLERS are creatures caught between two worlds. They are neither where they anticipate, nor where they were, but on a featureless white concourse or grey station platform, considering the void. A smartphone will fill that, to a point; but it does not quite smooth the edge of their anxiety and displacement. What they need is existential reassurance that they can, for certain, move towards where they want to go.
Such blessed assurance, at least for passengers on the busiest southern, south-western and central parts of England’s railways, was what Phil Sayer gave in spades. When he announced that the 17.36 for Hampton Court, calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Earlsfield, Wimbledon, Raynes Park, New Malden, Berrylands, Surbiton, Thames Ditton and Hampton Court, was standing at Platform 6, you knew it could not possibly be anywhere else, or bound for any other place. When he added that this train was formed of four coaches, you knew it would not be five, or three. Such warm, confident tones could not be wrong.
Accordingly, travellers entrusted their lives to him. All across the London Underground, at his behest, they took care to Mind the Gap between the train and the platform—or sometimes, more subtly, between the platform and the train. Thanks to him, they stood clear of the closing doors and did not leave cases or parcels unattended anywhere on the station; for any unattended articles, he had told them, were likely to be removed without warning. The gentle but firm authority in his voice obviated the need to say “Please”.
Few gave a thought to who he was, or where. If not in the clouds, then he was in the cavernous cast-iron murk of the station roof, where pigeons brooded. Those who listened to him daily detected human touches: his succulent enthusiasm for the trolley service of drinks and light refreshments that would be available on this train, as if he was already unwrapping a tuna sandwich; his palpable excitement at the words “London Midland” or “Cross Country”; his interesting hesitation, when announcing the Bournemouth service, between “Brockenhurst” and “Sway”, as though he doubted for a moment whether tiny Sway existed.
The words “We are sorry”, which he said a good deal, prefatory to adverse weather conditions, leaves on the line, staff absences and signal failures, were controversial. Their firmness had a touch of melancholy and defiance. Perhaps, saying them so often, he never meant them at all. Perhaps, sitting snug and smug in an office somewhere, he cared nothing for the ant-like confusion of the crowd below. At Birmingham New Street once a furious passenger, caught out by a late platform alteration, was seen shaking his fist at the tannoy and crying that he had lied.
In fact Mr Sayer was a nice, funny, ordinary chap, brought up in Liverpool and living in Bolton; station cognoscenti, despite his perfect, classless diction, could still detect the northerner in him. The messages of comfort or doom were recorded in a little studio across the hall from his kitchen; and as his apologies were relayed to the southern morning scrum he was generally asleep, or leisurely sipping a large cup of coffee to lubricate his voice. The only difference between his ordinary and working personae was that the working Phil straightened, focused and widened his eyes behind the specs, becoming just slightly more ridiculous, he would say, than his real self; and praying not to trip over “Micheldever”, “digital”, “shortages”, or other well-known traps of the trade.
He was not indifferent to the plight of travellers. Indeed, he was often a champion of the common man. In the 1970s he had worked for a while on a pirate-radio “peace boat” aiming pop songs at the Middle East. Much of his career was spent on local and BBC radio in Manchester, where he cut ribbons at primary schools and played darts in street-corner pubs, absorbing the life and chatter of the place. When not announcing trains, he did radio commercials for new cars, dog shows, fungal-infection creams and everything under the sun. He loved voice-over work, and claimed even to be on friendly terms with the (still secret and much-loathed) woman on the supermarket self-checkouts, with her unexpected items in the bagging area.
A broken-down grill
His railway job gave him great happiness. Down in London one day, he stood as close as he dared to perfect strangers on the Tube and parroted his own announcements, hoping they would recognise him. Disappointingly, they didn’t. For visiting reporters he and his wife Elinor, his business partner and Tube co-instructor (“Please take all your personal belongings with you”), would give a glimpse of the home life many assumed they led:
“What’s for breakfast, darling?”
“We apologise for the late running of your breakfast. This is due to the late running of the children’s breakfast earlier.”
“Oh well, I’ll just have some toast.”
“We regret to announce that the toast service has been cancelled, due to a broken-down grill.”
His death was announced by his wife with the words: “This service terminates here.” He might have added a less finite thought: “All change, please; all change.”
Phil Sayer, the best-loved voice on England’s railways, died on April 14th, aged 62
Apr 23rd 2016
TRAVELLERS are creatures caught between two worlds. They are neither where they anticipate, nor where they were, but on a featureless white concourse or grey station platform, considering the void. A smartphone will fill that, to a point; but it does not quite smooth the edge of their anxiety and displacement. What they need is existential reassurance that they can, for certain, move towards where they want to go.
Such blessed assurance, at least for passengers on the busiest southern, south-western and central parts of England’s railways, was what Phil Sayer gave in spades. When he announced that the 17.36 for Hampton Court, calling at Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Earlsfield, Wimbledon, Raynes Park, New Malden, Berrylands, Surbiton, Thames Ditton and Hampton Court, was standing at Platform 6, you knew it could not possibly be anywhere else, or bound for any other place. When he added that this train was formed of four coaches, you knew it would not be five, or three. Such warm, confident tones could not be wrong.
Accordingly, travellers entrusted their lives to him. All across the London Underground, at his behest, they took care to Mind the Gap between the train and the platform—or sometimes, more subtly, between the platform and the train. Thanks to him, they stood clear of the closing doors and did not leave cases or parcels unattended anywhere on the station; for any unattended articles, he had told them, were likely to be removed without warning. The gentle but firm authority in his voice obviated the need to say “Please”.
Few gave a thought to who he was, or where. If not in the clouds, then he was in the cavernous cast-iron murk of the station roof, where pigeons brooded. Those who listened to him daily detected human touches: his succulent enthusiasm for the trolley service of drinks and light refreshments that would be available on this train, as if he was already unwrapping a tuna sandwich; his palpable excitement at the words “London Midland” or “Cross Country”; his interesting hesitation, when announcing the Bournemouth service, between “Brockenhurst” and “Sway”, as though he doubted for a moment whether tiny Sway existed.
The words “We are sorry”, which he said a good deal, prefatory to adverse weather conditions, leaves on the line, staff absences and signal failures, were controversial. Their firmness had a touch of melancholy and defiance. Perhaps, saying them so often, he never meant them at all. Perhaps, sitting snug and smug in an office somewhere, he cared nothing for the ant-like confusion of the crowd below. At Birmingham New Street once a furious passenger, caught out by a late platform alteration, was seen shaking his fist at the tannoy and crying that he had lied.
In fact Mr Sayer was a nice, funny, ordinary chap, brought up in Liverpool and living in Bolton; station cognoscenti, despite his perfect, classless diction, could still detect the northerner in him. The messages of comfort or doom were recorded in a little studio across the hall from his kitchen; and as his apologies were relayed to the southern morning scrum he was generally asleep, or leisurely sipping a large cup of coffee to lubricate his voice. The only difference between his ordinary and working personae was that the working Phil straightened, focused and widened his eyes behind the specs, becoming just slightly more ridiculous, he would say, than his real self; and praying not to trip over “Micheldever”, “digital”, “shortages”, or other well-known traps of the trade.
He was not indifferent to the plight of travellers. Indeed, he was often a champion of the common man. In the 1970s he had worked for a while on a pirate-radio “peace boat” aiming pop songs at the Middle East. Much of his career was spent on local and BBC radio in Manchester, where he cut ribbons at primary schools and played darts in street-corner pubs, absorbing the life and chatter of the place. When not announcing trains, he did radio commercials for new cars, dog shows, fungal-infection creams and everything under the sun. He loved voice-over work, and claimed even to be on friendly terms with the (still secret and much-loathed) woman on the supermarket self-checkouts, with her unexpected items in the bagging area.
A broken-down grill
His railway job gave him great happiness. Down in London one day, he stood as close as he dared to perfect strangers on the Tube and parroted his own announcements, hoping they would recognise him. Disappointingly, they didn’t. For visiting reporters he and his wife Elinor, his business partner and Tube co-instructor (“Please take all your personal belongings with you”), would give a glimpse of the home life many assumed they led:
“What’s for breakfast, darling?”
“We apologise for the late running of your breakfast. This is due to the late running of the children’s breakfast earlier.”
“Oh well, I’ll just have some toast.”
“We regret to announce that the toast service has been cancelled, due to a broken-down grill.”
His death was announced by his wife with the words: “This service terminates here.” He might have added a less finite thought: “All change, please; all change.”
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539