"There is nothing sacrosanct about the status of any prize. It will only carry authority while it continues to be awarded to artsits who are held in high regard or who are seen, in a relatively short time, to have merits that perhaps people didn't recognise at that moment. It's only as good as its last outing."
Test test kasjhflaskjfdl;kasjfl;kasjdfl;kjasfl;kjasdflkjdas;lkjdflkajsdf;lksajdfTest test kasjhflaskjfdl;kasjfl;kasjdfl;kjasfl;kjasdflkjdas;lkjdflkajsdf;lksajdfTest test kasjhflaskjfdl;kasjfl;kasjdfl;kjasfl;kjasdflkjdas;lkjdflkajsdf;lksajdfTest test kasjhflaskjfdl;kasjfl;kasjdfl;kjasfl;kjasdflkjdas;lkjdflkajsdf;lksajdfTest test kasjhflaskjfdl;kasjfl;kasjdfl;kjasfl;kjasdflkjdas;lkjdflkajsdf;lksajdf
Cost of PCs In November 1998 Dixons came under fire because of the prices it was charging for personal computers. Peter Mandelson said he was worried that consumers were getting a "raw deal" because of the store's dominant position in the market [1]. Intel's chief executive at that time, Craig Barrett, said that Dixons charges "ridiculous margins" [2]. The Intel Architecture Business Group said "Dixons has classic channel presence and can determine what gets sold at what price." Dixons responded that it could not make sense of the comments. The Consumers' Association said "Dixons controls over half of the high street distribution of PCs and they seem to be using this enormous market power to keep prices to consumers high" and has a "monopoly position in the high street". [3]
test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text test text.