Miscellaneous desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 18[edit]

What was the building where I live used for?[edit]

I have purchased an apartment in a converted victorian building in Manchester. I would like to know what the building was originally used for, I seem to think it may have been a glass factory but am not sure.

The name of the Apartment building now is 30Strong, it is at 30-32 Simpson Street, Manchester, M4 4BG.

Any help at all would really be appreciated as i have come up against a brick wall.

Thanks Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markj3 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The local library would be a good starting point. They'd have local papers, local history and local knowledge. If you're lucky they'll have a few older staff who'd actually remember it when it was still operational. - KoolerStill (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Simpson Street Manchester M4 4BG.jpg

A brick wall you say? Your address is next door to Wasik Ltd. at 33-35 Simpson Street where someone may know about your property. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try these http://www.manchester.gov.uk/a_to_z/service/827/archives_and_local_studies hotclaws 01:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured Date[edit]

I just bought a Soft Drink bottle. Today is June 18th, but the manufactured Date on the crimp says 20th June !. Are all manufactured date printed like this? If not, what are my rights? Can I go so far as sue the company? Rkr1991 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been manufactured June 20th, 2008? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that "rights" really enter into this, but you can sue the company, as you can sue nearly anyone for nearly anything. Whether a suit would have any merit is perhaps the better question. — Lomn 14:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no it's 2009. Rkr1991 (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I accidentally brought that back with me in my time travel machine. :-) 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. There goes the space-time continuum. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of the space-time continuum versus fresh soda - I guess it evens out. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a case of the manufacturer getting confused with Date and time notation by country. It is also possible that they printed the best before or buy before date on the cap and (wrong) definition on the label. That often happens if one place is the bottler and another company is the manufacturer. 68.208.122.33 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always easy to decipher the date stamps on food items, especially manufacturing dates. Some companies print standard dates, some use what's referred to as a "Julian Code" (but don't try our article, because it's about something different), and some use numbers that are specifically meant to not be deciphered externally. If you tell me exactly what is stamped and who the manufacturer is, I may be able to decipher what it really means. And yes, it could very well simply be mis-stamped. It happens. Matt Deres (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Ahh, this is what I meant by Julian code date. Nobody in food service calls it an ordinal date though. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I just noticed. All the soft drinks on the store (the owner said they arrived that day only) had this kind of a problem. Maybe its done every time ! And the date is very clear, no confusion about that. Plus, its a major soft drink company, mind you (you probably would have guessed). Rkr1991 (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What major soft drink company stamps a manufacturing date on their products (and in what country?). AFAIK most countries that have regulations on that require "best before" or "use by" date aka. "expiration date". In which case you might want to finish those soft drinks fast. 68.208.122.33 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed yes. Both Coke and Pepsi make exclusive use of expiration dates; neither uses manufacture dates at all. Matt Deres (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha, Barack Obama and a dead fly[edit]

Can someone help me understand this comment by PETA, complaining about Obama swatting that fly:

<quote>He's isn't the Buddha, he's a human being and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act.</quote>

Was Buddha known for swatting flies? --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary. Buddha was known to think before he acts, and to be kind to everyone. That is the meaning conveyed by this quote, that Obama hasn't risen to the standard of the Buddha. Rkr1991 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre quote then. Of course, he's not Buddha - only Buddha was Buddha.

And more confusion, because (AFAIK) even devout Buddhists would agree that Buddha was a human being too.

The sentence is structured as saying that Buddha could happily swat as many flies as he liked [presumably because he was so special] but Obama cannot, because he isn't as special as that.

Presumably the spokesman thinks that the long way to go is backwards, because you'd have to go back in time to find anyone who thought before they acted... what a tangled mess. Actually, he proves his point well, because he's not thought enough about his statement. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement, quite clearly i think, says Buddha is no ordinary human being. He would think before he acts, and hence would not swat flies like this. However, Obama unlike Buddha is only an ordinary human being and hence he cannot be blamed if he (without thinking) swats a fly like this. Rkr1991 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No way... PETA (did you click the link?) is criticising Obama! --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the source of that quote, but out of context it sounds they're saying "You shouldn't condemn Obama for swatting a fly, because he likely just did it out of instinct. Only the Buddha could always stop himself from swatting a fly." This is probably a preemptive strike to stop their members from starting an anti-Obama protest of some sort just because he killed another living creature in public. APL (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Here is PETA's complete statement.] Belive it or not it's completely rational. PETA is not slamming Obama. They're slamming the media for assuming that they would slam Obama.

A quick Google search shows me that this went right over the heads of most reporters. APL (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that makes sense. Thanks chaps. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to have gone over the head of whoever wrote the PETA Wikipedia article. I've removed that section from the article. APL (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the reference to the Buddha. As far as I know, it is not a Buddhist doctrine that you should either (a) think before you act or (b) not think before you act. What are they getting at? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume they are referring to the pacifist nature of Buddhists. But that would be an incorrect interpretation of the first of the five Buddist precepts:

To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms)

I don't think they'd consider a fly "senitent" - so swatting flies is just fine. SteveBaker (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flies are considered sentient, and the Buddha would likely not kill a fly. It is not clear-cut because the actions of an enlightened being are such that he values himself and others equally, i.e., he does value himself. He would likely swat a bug he thought could be carrying malaria. According to earliest Buddhism, enlightenment entails (and requires) ethical conduct. Certain later schools of Mahayana Buddhism drifted away from this. So for example in Zen texts you read of an "enlightened master" getting drunk and going to brothels after becoming enlightened. This literature is apocryphal. Also some Mahayana teachers in the West have used such ideas as justification for their own unethical conduct. While bad conduct happens among Theravada monks as well the community has no doubt that such behavior is un-Buddhist. Regarding the first precept it is generally viewed as a prima facie, rather than absolute, duty. The formula goes "I undertake to uphold the training precept of non-violence." Mitsube (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a fly is sentient then presumably they are using a definition of sentience which includes all animals (you don't get much more primitive than a fly), and I can't see them including anything that wasn't an animal, so why use the word "sentient" at all? Why don't they just say "animal"? --Tango (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It includes ghosts, etc. Mitsube (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In The Mashuganishi Yogi, Joey Forman as the Yogi was talking about reincarnation as a fly was buzzing around his head. He was talking about how the fly might be the reincarnation of various famous people. Then the fly landed on his nose and he swatted it, saying, "...or just a nobody, bothering and pestering people!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

passport[edit]

What is the difference between an ordinary passport and an official passport, practically speaking? Do official passports have any additional rights and or privileges that ordinary passports do not have? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Other than being free there are no additional benefits to holding an official passport. See here. Fribbler (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild guess: visas not required? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "official" passport, but in some countries Diplomatic passports allow the holders to sidestep immigration queues and suchlike. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, an official passport is given to someone who has to travel abroad for government work, but is not a diplomat (and is thus ineligible for a diplomatic passport). 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, official passports are issued free of charge to persons who require them for official government business and for certain others who qualify, such as former ambassadors, depending on the regulations of the issuing country. Visa requirements may also be different than for regular passports, sometimes stricter and sometimes less strict. They are not officially eligible for some of the special treatments granted to diplomatic passports (special queues at immigration, e.g.), but holders may receive such additional courtesies in some places. --Xuxl (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyosho DST nitro RC car failsafe device[edit]

Does the Kyosho DST nitro RC car have a failsafe device fitted as standard to stop it if the remote control car goes out of range ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.131.94 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it. But the radio range is not the problem. The car would be a tiny speck in the distance with no way for you to know which way it's going long before you reached the limit of the radio range. Radio failure is more likely to be the problem - most often because you didn't recharge the batteries for long enough. In that case, the radio will probably just shut off leaving the car hurtling along at full throttle. There are a few RC units that are smart enough to shut off the throttle when the transmitter signal goes away - but it's not a standard feature as far as I know. The main causes of radio failure are dead batteries and cables getting unplugged because of all of the vibration or a strong-but-recoverable crash. If you take care to prep the car - check the connectors - make sure the batteries are good - check the throttle and steering linkages - before each run - you shouldn't have too many problems. If you've only ever driven electric RC cars before - take it gently to start with - these things are big and FAST...way faster than you'll be used to. SteveBaker (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online market of used books[edit]

What is the most dynamic market of used books? I'm specially interested in trading with old books (earlier than 1950).--Quest09 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trading vinyl records[edit]

What is the best online site to trade vinyl records?--Quest09 (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as below...eBay. It's the best site to trade pretty much anything. SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trading antiquities[edit]

Where can you trade with antiquities online? (I'm not searching for an online shop, but to an open market).--Quest09 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The antiquities section of eBay? The trouble with this kind of thing is that you don't have a way to examine the item before you buy. Hence it's just asking for fraud to happen. SteveBaker (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually mean antiques or do you truly mean antiquities? Big difference. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is eBay the best market for everything?[edit]

My three questions above let me thinking...--Quest09 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ebay has a list of prohibited items, such as firearms. Therefore, while they are a very broad market, they can not be the best market for everything. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not for drugs... Also, while eBay may be the closest thing to a perfect open market for things, it is at a disadvantage to other markets because it requires delivering the thing from wherever to wherever, people can't actually hold the things (more a problem for things like clothes than things like televisions) and there's probably a greater chance of getting ripped of or even defrauded. I think for many items, being local is important, and so craigslist or kijiji are often more popular. Also, for a customer, the "best" market may not be the lowest price. eBay is much better at determining the price of things since so many more people are willing to buy them, while with craigslist you're more likely to find a bargain since people just want rid of stuff, or conversely a buyer just wants something quickly and doesn't care if they're paying more than it's worth. TastyCakes (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do not allow the sale in the "magazine backissue" category of Playboy magazines showing nekkid women, unless they (the magazines that is) date from before 1980. (Perhaps more recent nudie magazines can be sold in an "adults only" category). Seems a curious distinction. Edison (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not buy a high priced musical instrument, such as a fine violin, woodwind or brass instrument there, because any company sometimes makes an instrument even in a prestige line which is a stinker and won't play in tune. Edison (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these criticisms are true - but they are true of any online service. Remember - we're talking about a company that doesn't buy or sell any products themselves - they are merely the intermediary. They have to be judged on the job they do of sorting out problems when things go wrong (because they will). They won't let people deal in things that are illegal - they won't deal with things that are easily faked or commonly fraudulant...or which require background checks (firearms) or imply copyright violations or whatever. Things can and do go wrong with eBay purchases all the time (I can probably relate two or three cases like that) - but in every case, eBay made it right in the end - and that's the best you can possibly ask.

I bought a collectable 1960's toy car - one of a limited edition with a "Buy It Now" price of $100 - and I bid and got it for a crazy low price (like $3 - it really was worth $100) - presumably because the seller forgot to put a reserve price on the item. The seller evidently realised there was a problem and returned my money claiming "We are currently out of stock of that item". I bitched to eBay - they told the seller that he had no business advertising something he didn't have in stock...they told him to either deliver the item or pay what *I* considered to be a fair market value for the item (which was indisputably $100 because of the Buy It Now price) - or be disbarred as an eBay seller. The item arrived in the mail a week later and the guy didn't want the $3 back!

The really tough things are cases where an online description isn't good enough...Edison's example of how a musical instrument sounds is a tough one...so long as it is what it says it is - caveat emptor. Hence, don't buy a fine musical instrument online - no matter where you buy it. Go to a bricks and mortar music store and play half a dozen of them until you find one you like. But if you are going to buy from an online auction site - I believe that eBay is as good as any. SteveBaker (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting pretty sick of eBay myself. There seems to be a lot more timewasters on there these days. In particular, way too many sellers who list items (especially CDs, DVDs and books), claiming that they have multiple copies available, without even knowing in advance if they can get ahold of *one* copy from their 'supplier' when the auction ends. Winning something and paying immediately, then getting an unrequested refund a few days later (bonus dickhead points if they leave it to you to email them, wondering where your stuff is after waiting for two weeks) because the item is 'out of stock' or 'has now been deleted' is, to my mind, pretty fucking shoddy. I had five of those in a row last year. Bunch of jackasses. Oh yeah - and the place is full of pirated DVDs from sellers in the Far East too. With certain titles (anime in particular), it can be quite difficult to find legitimate copies on there. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eBay has liquidity issues with many items. For example, if you are trading shares, or buying a new jumbo jet, eBay is not the best market for that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And eBay is also not a good market for shares because it's not legally able to be, since it is not a registered broker-dealer. (It does, as it happens, have a broker-dealer subsidiary, Microplace, Inc., but that has a separate mission.) There are probably many other things it can't sell because of licensing or other legal reasons. John M Baker (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did try to sell a plane on eBay albeit not a jumbo jet [1] [2]. Fortunately she didn't do what SB's seller did and forget to set a reserve (actually I suspect it was an advertisment rather then a bid) Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Schneier is also having problems: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/06/fraud_on_ebay.html Weepy.Moyer (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to believe eBay was the best place for those cheap Chinese items shipped from HK but I've started to find DealExtreme and other sites are actually better in some cases if you do your research and find out who to trust. Having said that, particularly with some higher value items, you can get better deals on eBay compared to retail sellers if you willing and able to wait and bid over a stretch of time on auctions since it's not uncommon for items to start with a low reserve and if the seller is selling a lot of them, there will often be some that go cheaper. The are of course issues with warranty, fakes/clones (and I'm not just talking reputed brands here) etc and I personally wouldn't trust RAM and flash memory from eBay to be what it says it is even with ample feedback.

Also for items sold domesticly in NZ, eBay generally pales in comparison to TradeMe. Similarly I believe Lelong and a few other sites are quite competive in Malaysia.

Finally for some speciality items, e.g. special parts for a RepRap the forums or whatever associated with these items tend to be better given the small market size (eBay is fine for generic parts for a RepRap).

In terms of problems on eBay, I once wanted to check something about shipping since precisely how much I was supposed to pay was unclear (the seller clearly claimed they would ship to me in New Zealand but there was conflicting info) but the seller failed to contact me for several weeks, I tried multiple ways to contact via eBay and e-mail (not phone, I can't recall if there was a phone number but I had no desire to waste money calling US) even some I dug up from searches IIRC. At first I thought the seller may have had an unfortunate accident or was otherwise indisposed since they seemed to stop listing stuff for a while, but then they started again, still without contact. Finally one month later I received an unpaid item dispute. I looked in to eBay policies and wasn't that sure were I stood so I asked eBay since I had no desire to purchase the item anymore as had purchased a similar item from someone else after no response to communication for so long and also no longer really trusted the sellet. After I responded to the autoresponder, the person who replied was useless, simply saying I had to respond to the unpaid item dispute within 7 days (okay fine but that doesn't mean you can answer my question) and the best thing to do was to come to an agreement to end it (okay fine but what happens if I can't). I decided just to proceed with the dispute, replying and explaining why I had not paid and mentioning that I was reluctant to purchase the item after such a long time but might be willing if the seller at least answered my question. As I semi-expected, the seller DID NOT respond and instead just continued with the dispute and I received an unpaid item strike, eBay evidentally doesn't bother to look in to the dispute at all, if they had I presume they would have noticed I made multiple attempts to contact the seller, including via the unpaid item dispute but received no bloody contact (the seller never said anything other then "buyer never paid!"). I of course asked for this to be removed, explaining that I had made multiple attempts to contact had received absolutely no contact and even when I responded to the dispute the seller still didn't contact me or challenge my story other then to say "buyer never paid!" which I didn't dispute. While this was eventually done after a bit of effort, even their response, while perhaps a generic was, was far from satisfactory "Please be informed that we have removed the strike in this instance as we're now satisfied that you're fully aware of our rules concerning your obligation to purchase after placing a bid or Buy It Now offer on eBay. There will be no negative effect on your account from this strike. Please note that we won't remove any further Unpaid Item Strikes from your account unless you provide proof of your payment. If an account receives too many Unpaid Item Strikes within a short period, we may suspend it indefinitely." (Hello do you understand at all that I have no fault here, the seller has completely failed to respond to a question so I couldn't pay despite multiple attempts, has never disputed at least that I'm aware of that they didn't contact me, and you really should be chasing the seller not me, in fact you never should have refunded the seller or given me an unpaid item strike). Perhaps if I had chased this up further, particularly earlier on I would have received a better outcome but I decided to give up and just let it be. Of course this is not unique to eBay but given their size, I'm not surprised if it's more common.

P.S. Other then the above dispute, I wasn't entirely satisfied with a (non high volume) seller who while they sent the item, made no attempt to contact me even after I asked (I don't think it's unresonable to expect a quick 'I've sent the item' particularly when it's relatively high value (US$100+) and shipping overseas so going to take a week or more so the seller doesn't have to worry that you may have disappeared with their money nor was I pleased about the high shipping costs charged when it was clear they hadn't paid close to that much when I received the item (I understand adding extra for handling, but this was like 3 times the amount). The seller had of course disclosed the amount upfront and claimed that they just didn't know (but never offered a refund) although IIRC they did seem to have shipped a few items before (perhaps the requests I sent asking for contact had annoyed them which made them less likely to be kind but I had apologised about that. And both of these were US sellers (although I have had some better experiences with US sellers) but I've never had a significant problem with the high volume HK sellers yet IIRC.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what are "those cheap Chinese items"? Tupperware? Ming vases? Christmas lights? Imitation Ferraris? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

importing my skyline[edit]

is it possible to import a 1994 nissan skyline r33 from germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Str8diesal34 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like to import a 1994 Nissan Skyline from Germany to where? Import restrictions and road safety requirements vary significantly between countries. 68.208.122.33 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There will likley also be differences between living in one country and importing a new car from Germany to it, and living in Germany and taking with you a car you have already owned with you to another country. // BL \\ (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmission standards are different for each country, this may also be something that affects your ability to import. Livewireo (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be OK within Europe surely? All of the European laws were supposed to have this stuff harmonized. You could just drive the thing from one country to another. But if you're talking outside of the European community - then it gets a lot harder...probably impossibly hard...certainly with a car of that age it would be cheaper to sell it in Germany and buy another one wherever you're going. SteveBaker (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much would one cost in the US? Acceptable (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Skyline was never sold in the US. Some of the later Skyline models were badge-engineered and sold under the Infiniti marque - but not as far back as 1994. The oldest Skyline/Infiniti is the 2003 Infiniti G35 (which is really a Skyline R35) - and according to "www.cars.com" you can pick up a 2003 model for $17,000. Our article Nissan Skyline says that the R35/G35 was the best Skyline ever made. But the fact that the '96 Skyline was never sold in the USA would CERTAINLY make importing it essentially impossible because it would never have been certified street-legal in the US - which means you're going to have to pay through the nose to get the thing tested...that might include having to import 3 more of them to turn over to the government for crash testing!! But you'd be paying $4,000 to $6,000 on shipping costs alone. Really, the only cars you can import into the US relatively easily is when they are already being sold here - or if they are more than 25 years old and can be classified as 'antique' which exempts them from all of the safety and emissions laws (that's how my British '63 Mini got into the US). My 1300lb Mini cost $2,000 to ship from the UK to Texas - a Skyline probably weighs three times that - and they charge by weight...so expect to pay $6,000 or more for shipping...and an '03 Infiniti starts to sound pretty good! SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the Infiniti doesn't have the much revered RB26DETT engine of the Skyline that made it so popular with tuners in the first place. Acceptable (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're screwed. They never sold any car with that engine in the US market - which means that you can't buy one here - and the cost/effort to import one would be crazily difficult and expensive. SteveBaker (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]