View allAll Photos Tagged Relator
Various papers relating to Mr.Thomas Wheeler my late Grandfather.Sadly he died when I was just eleven years of age.I do however recall it was he that took me on my very first fishing trip using the first fishing rod and reel that he bought me.The images here are from WWII papers when he was an active serviceman and I only recently found these in an old album of my late father`s.These are the first twenty images in nigh on eighty images of both his army papers and my Great Grandparents (to come later) images.Some images are somewhat the same but have different focus points and apertures,mainly to suit prospective customers on Alamy.com stock images.I sincerely hope you enjoy the images and hope you see,as I did,what I think is one of many of the Identity Card issued during WWII.As you can see my Grandfather first signed up in September 1940 and seved right up until the end of the war 1945.He was then signed up for the reserves.Do Not Use Without Express Permisison From Peter Wheeler.
Photo credit: UNDP
Relates to the project 'Reducing the Vulnerability of Cambodian Rural Livelihoods through Enhanced Sub-National Climate Change Planning and Execution of Priority Actions' www.adaptation-undp.org/projects/reducing-vulnerability-c...
Badbury Clump, near Faringdon, Oxfordshire.
HINGEFINKLE'S LOGBOOK (Fourth instalment)
The Tale of the Giant Leech of Sumatra
for which the world is only just prepared
It was unusual indeed for my friend Agrimony, who was, after all, a self-styled hermit, to have any visitors other than myself, so you may well imagine my surprise when, one morning in midsummer, I paid my customary visit and discovered that he already had company. Agrimony sat with his back to me as I entered the room, but I could sense by the stiffness of his silhouette against the window that the young maiden sitting opposite him had been in the midst of relating events of considerable interest. He turned and appraised me through his monocle, and motioned towards a spare chair.
“Ah, Hingefinkle, it’s you. Pray, take a seat, light one of your infernal pipes if you must, and pay close attention to what Miss Euphorbia-”
“Forgive me, Sir, but it’s Miss Eleanor,” interrupted the young woman, turning a pair of gentle, dark eyes on my companion, and combing a tress of black hair behind her ear. I noted at once that the ear rose to a delicate point at the end.
Agrimony gave a sigh of exasperation and let the monocle drop to his paunch as he continued, “- and pay attention to what Miss Elasmucha has to say. It promises to be, I think you will confess, a tale which is not without interest, especially to one of your particular inclinations, Hingefinkle, and your enthusiasm for monsters, may help to throw some light on the conundrum she intends to set before me. Now, young lady, if you would tell us the facts…”
I sat in the chair as commanded, and filled and lit my pipe, and as I did so, the young Miss Eleanor, who could not have been more than ten years of age – although, by that age, elves are considerably better developed than we humans - closed her eyes for a moment to gather her thoughts, and began.
“You may have observed, kind Sirs, that my parents are of elvish extraction. I live with them in the little hamlet overlooking the Bilberry Moor some ten miles south of here-”
“Hum,” I said appreciatively, “I know it well! Many is the time I have said, haven’t I, Agrimony, that one of these days I must get around to doing a cartographic survey of the -”
Agrimony waved his hand impatiently, so that I lapsed once more into silence, and the girl continued.
“Yes, Mr. Hingefinkle, it is indeed a very beautiful and mysterious place,” she said softly, “but as I grow older, I seem to see less of the beauty, and more of the mystery. My parents chose to live there not long after I was born, although my mother was destined for high office among the elves of Bluebell Wood. Mother and Father say that they wanted me to know what it was like to live among the round-eared people – to know their ways, experience their joys and sorrows, and, if you will forgive me, good Sirs, to learn something of their eccentricities.” Here, her eyes darted from Agrimony’s monocle to my pipe, and then rested nervously on the floor. “I am sure that they made the right decision, for I love the Moor, and the simple pleasures enjoyed by the people who live on its edge. Outsiders say that it is a bleak place, but once you are familiar with it, and know the paths which it is safe to take, it is difficult to imagine living anywhere else.”
“Hum – provided, of course, that you know where the bogs are, and manage to avoid them,” I added enthusiastically.
“Yes,” she replied, nodding slowly. “Or at least, that is what I had always thought, until -” and suddenly her voice broke off, and she stared into my companion’s eyes with half-suppressed terror written all over her fine-boned features. “Oh, Druid Agrimony, I am so frightened!” she cried in a rush of tears, clutching at his hand. Agrimony sat motionless, waiting for her to continue with her story. She regained her composure, and continued her narrative in faltering tones.
“One week ago, my parents went to the Bluebell Wood for the annual Council of Elves, leaving me in charge of the day-to-day running of the property. Father runs a small flock of sheep on the moors, and it is my duty to care for them until my parents return in two weeks’ time. Well, I was very proud of myself, for everything was running quite smoothly until – until last night. It was well past midnight when I was awoken by a peculiar sound drifting across the moors; the sort of noise that water sometimes makes running down a drainpipe – a sucking noise. I had never heard anything like it, even at night on the moors, and it left me mystified. As I listened, I detected another sound, not so loud as the first, and almost drowned out by it – but I recognised this sound at once. Druid Agrimony, it was the sound of one of Father’s sheep bleating with terror. I leapt from my bed, wrapped a cloak about my shoulders, lit a lantern, and rushed out of the front door of our little stone cottage. It was quite dark, and there was a thin mist, so I followed the course of the dry-stone wall upwards towards the moor, and then down the other side. Here I paused and listened carefully, but the strange noise and the bleating were no longer to be heard. All was silent, and as the mist from the bog crept about me, I shivered with fear. I have often been out on the moors at night, good Sirs, and never before have I been afraid – but that noise possessed a sinister, unnatural quality, and I was shaken by it. To make matters worse, there was a horrible, musty smell hanging about the hollow, which quite made the bile rise in my throat.
“I decided that there was little I could do with the aid of my little lantern amidst the rising mist, for the bog is a dangerous proposition after dark, so I turned back for home, resolving to return at first light. I had only walked a few steps when I stumbled over something soft, warm and bulky. I clutched at it with one hand as I fell. It was wool, good Sirs, but you can imagine my horror when, as I drew my hand away and held it to the light, I saw that it was soaked with blood. I turned up the lantern flame, and I confess that I could not suppress a scream – for there, lying amidst the sedges on the edge of the bog, was one of Father’s prize rams, quite dead, with a gaping, fleshy wound the size of a dinner plate on its chest. Beside it, the ground had been churned up, as if some giant serpent had threshed about upon it.”
“I see,” said Agrimony prosaically. “And what did you do then?”
“I ran away,” she replied. “There are legends – unspeakable legends -”
“Hum. That is quite true,” I ventured, “and the legends would seem to have some basis in fact.”
“Capital!” said Agrimony. “I perceive that you have already developed an opinion, Hingefinkle, you old codger!”
“I presume, young lady, that you refer to the Legend of the Giant Leech?” Eleanor nodded silently, and I continued. “Hum. Yes. Of course, the legend has probably been magnified out of all proportion, but I can furnish you with some details of a more trustworthy nature. It all started with my great-great grandfather Gearsprocket, the famous Eastern explorer – you have heard of him, I presume? Very well-”
“Codswallop!” Agrimony grumbled. “What possible connection can exist between your great grandfather Gearsprocket and this young lady’s dead sheep? Pah!”
“Hum. Great-great grandfather,” I insisted. “Gearsprocket was, as I have just said, a famous Eastern explorer. He was also a renowned collector of giant invertebrates; it was he who discovered the horseshoe crab -”
“Poppycock! An idle fantasy!” Agrimony rudely interrupted.
“Hum. And he also collected the first known living specimens of the bird-eating spider -”
“Pah! An impossibility!”
“- and the Giant Leech of Sumatra.”
“You really are a credulous old codger, aren’t you, Hingefinkle?” blustered Agrimony, his face turning the colour of a boiled beetroot. “You are not going to suggest, by any chance, that old Gearsprocket brought a giant leech here alive, all the way from Sumatra? I know about Gearsprocket’s travels, and the little barque he sailed in leaked like a sieve! It was barely seaworthy enough to carry him, let alone a gigantic leech.”
“Fiddlesticks!” I replied testily. “It was not a giant leech when he brought it. It was a juvenile. It grew up after he had got it here. He kept it penned up in a converted sheepfold on the Bilberry Moor, until one day it escaped and was never seen again. They found great-great-grandfather Gearsprocket two days later, half submerged in the mire, with a wound precisely like that which Miss Eleanor just described. Why! I should say that it is perfectly obvious that the Giant Leech of Sumatra still exists! This is fascinating! Absolutely fascinating!”
Agrimony rolled his eyes wrathfully, but to my surprise, he did not attempt to argue with me any further. “I will indeed look into your case, young madam, if only to disprove all this codswollop about corpulent bloodsucking nematodes. Quite frankly, I can’t be bothered with sitting around listening to him spouting such unutterable tripe!” He stood up, brushed off his cloak, and impatiently motioned for Miss Eleanor to exit, but as he did so, there was a knock.
“Fiddlesticks!” I said. “Three visitors in one day! You will be becoming popular, Agrimony!”
“Popular schmopular!” he cried, opening the door with a vicious snarl, but his expression faded into one of bemusement as Gladys Sparkbright, looking even more bedraggled than usual, marched into the Hermitage, a long tress of grey hair flopping about her face where it had fallen from its bun.
“Thar’s no point in beatin’ abaht th’ bush, so there isn’t,” she began, exhaustedly taking a seat without waiting to be invited. “Ah’ve bin robbed! Goblins, it were, or so ah should say by th’ smell. Cor! What a stink! Thought yer oughter know!” She grabbed the stray length of hair, wound it about the bun, and transfixed it with a knitting needle. “Ah ‘aven’t even begun ter make an inventory of everythin’ that’s missin’: three mahcroscopes, fifteen chronometers, one iron-ore extractor – an’ that were a brand new prototahpe… extracts th’ element from surroundin’ rock lahk a charm, so it does – two lathes, six boxes o’ teabags-”
“Indeed,” said Agrimony impatiently. “I suppose you have no idea how the culprits managed to abscond with so many things all at once.”
“Oh, aye, ah do! They ‘ad a cart! Th’ tracks were clearer’n th’ nose on yer face! In view o’ that – ah thought ah’d let yer know, considerin’ as you an’ ‘Ingefinkle are in possession o’ so many of mah rejects.”
“Quite so,” replied Agrimony. “I hope your goods will be safely returned – but in the meantime, the local Druid fraternity will provide you with the protection you need. I would do it myself, but this young lady here has already enticed me to the Bilberry Moor, and, frankly, I don’t think I can be bothered with all the bureaucracy involved with using protection spells these days. Hingefinkle! Put that pipe away! Are you coming or not?”
*
Snowdrop, it seemed, was in an even more stubborn and ponderous mood than usual, and Agrimony gnashed his teeth and bellowed at the poor carthorse as we followed the road, such as it was, to the Bilberry Moor. At length, however, he dropped the reins and turned to face me.
“I must confess, Hingefinkle, to being a little disappointed. For a moment I thought the young lady here had presented us with a considerable conundrum, but now I perceive that there is nothing remarkable in it at all.”
“Hum,” I replied indignantly, “I rather think that the Giant Leech of Sumatra would be considered remarkable by most people -”
“Codswallop! You must dismiss that absurd notion from your mind at once, Hingefinkle. There is considerable danger awaiting us, and if you insist on looking down every hole and peering into every quagmire in the hope of finding two-hundred-year old renegade leeches, you will only succeed in endangering us even more. There is only one feature in what we have heard today which requires any consideration. I commend to your attention the unpleasant olfactory sensation which Miss Euphorbia experienced in the hollow. A horrible, musty smell which quite made the bile rise in my throat. Cogitate on it if you can!”
I can only admit that I was flummoxed by this remark, for leeches, in my experience, hardly smell at all, but when I attempted to question him further, Agrimony refused to be moved, until at last the cart lurched across a rutted track on an upland meadow, and came to a halt at a little cottage built of the characteristic local stone.
“We can walk from here,” said Miss Eleanor as we dismounted, and she led us up the hillside, taking the path of the previous night, alongside the dry-stone wall. Her father’s sheep bleated and tramped about among the bilberries and heather as we climbed, and a grouse flew away on noisy wings, cluck-clucking as it went. Agrimony and I were quite breathless by the time we reached the top of the moor, but Eleanor dashed on ahead, running down the hillside towards the mire.
“There it is!” she cried, pointing to a patch of red and white amid the mottled greens, browns and purples of the moor. As we approached, we saw that it was indeed the ram, its head thrown back in rigor mortis, with a large, round wound on the chest, just above the heart. There were great, snake-like impressions in the ground beside it, and I quickly estimated the diameter of the body which had left them at half an ell. The nauseating, musty smell still hung about the hollow, and Agrimony sniffed at it distastefully, and then stooped at the head of the carcase. He drew back the ram’s upper lip, revealing blood-drained gums beneath.
“Hum,” I said triumphantly, “the marks in the ground and the sucker-wound would both appear to be consistent with my hypothesis. This is quite clearly the work of the Giant Leech of Sumatra, so fiddlesticks to you, Agrimony!”
“Indeed?” replied Agrimony testily. “Your nematode appears to have evolved somewhat in the past two hundred years, for it has evidently sprouted legs.” He gave a sarcastic sneer and pointed to a number of clawed footprints beside the lifeless body of the ram. The tracks led away towards the mire.
I stooped and inspected them carefully. “Remarkable!” I enthused. “These are hominid footprints, though I don’t know what to make of the claw-marks.”
“There is one other problem with your hypothesis, if you can credit it with so lofty a title,” added Agrimony. “How do you account for the rope which has so obviously been used to hobble the ram whilst it was being attacked? The chafing marks are still clearly visible, and in two places at least, the rope has rubbed the skin away completely.”
“Hum. That does seem to rule the leech out,” I had to admit, “at least as the sole agent in this crime.”
Agrimony gave me a withering look. “Precisely,” he said, and without another word, he strode off boldly across the mire, following the mysterious tracks.
“Be careful!” Eleanor called after him. “The mire has sucked many to their deaths!” but Agrimony waved his arm impatiently at her. She and I exchanged worried glances, and, as it was evident that Agrimony was not to be dissuaded, I shrugged my shoulders and followed him.
We walked through the mire for almost an hour, wending this way and that, great swathes of sphagnum moss and peaty bog on either side of us. Agrimony stopped frequently and bent over, examining the ground. Twice, it seemed that he had lost the trail, and we spent anxious moments wondering whether we were not stranded in the middle of the bog with no way forward and an impossible maze preventing our return to dry land. Agrimony took a stone from his pocket and tossed it onto the surface of the mire. For a moment it lay there, and then, slowly, it began to sink, until at last it was engulfed, leaving only a trail of peaty-brown bubbles on the surface.
“Observe, Hingefinkle,” he said, “one false step, and you’ll end up like the Tollund Man. Not that he is very well known yet, of course, but he will be… he will be!” And then he marched on, following faint impressions in the mossy ground.
“Fiddlesticks,” I said at last. “That smell is getting stronger. What on earth is it?”
“It is the stench of Goblins,” replied Agrimony beneath his breath. “I must warn you that when you meet them, you will find their manner quite charming at first, except of course for the smell. Do not be deceived. They are quite incorrigibly evil, and in this case, they are not only thieves, but potential murderers.” As he spoke, I stopped, and pointed wordlessly to a stone cairn on an island in the middle of the mire. A thin plume of smoke arose from a makeshift chimney in one corner of the structure, and despite the awful, pungent smell, I was quite sure that I could detect the smell of fried black pudding.
Agrimony gritted his teeth and stepped forward, prodding the ground suspiciously with his staff as he went. After some manoeuvring, we reached the cairn, and crept around the outer wall, until the entrance loomed up beside us.
“I say, Griswald, me old chap, I think we have visitors!” came a voice from inside the cave. It did not sound at all offensive, and for a moment I doubted Agrimony’s warning.
“Oh, how absolutely spiffing, Snotgobbler!” said a second voice, slightly higher-pitched than the first. Invite them in for a spot of tea, some fried bread and black pudding, do!”
We stepped through the doorway to find two dandyish-looking gentlemen sitting upon stools in front of a stove. Several pieces of black-pudding were sizzling on top of it, and one of the fellows was turning over pieces of fried bread with a spatula. But as I surveyed the rest of the rough-hewn room, I realised with a start that it was cluttered with gadgets from the workshop of Gladys Sparkbright: mud-spattered microscopes, dented telescopes, broken chronometers, and, in one corner, an enormous cylindrical object made of brass, from the end of which there protruded a long, flexible hose, about a half an ell in diameter, ending in a nozzle which looked for all the world like the oral orifice of a leech magnified ten thousand times.
“Observe,” whispered Agrimony, “the iron ore extractor.”
“Well, well! This is positively cosy,” said the young man with the spatula. He wore a dapper pin-striped suit and a tasteful green cravat. I must admit that he did look a personable sort of fellow, except that his feet were bare and hairy and ended in long, hooked claws – and that (how could I forget so obvious a thing?) his skin was a bright, sickly green.
“Absolutely cosy,” said the second young man, who was sitting at a rough-hewn table with a fork in his hand and a lily-white bib tucked into his admirably starched collar. His skin was quite as green as that of his fellow, and I noted with some disgruntlement that while he was popping the lightly-buttered pieces of black pudding into his mouth with commendable finesse and decorum, the urbane and sophisticated effect was somewhat marred by the fact that there was no plate, for he was eating the black pudding direct from the surface of the table. As Agrimony advanced into the room, the first young fellow turned and inverted the spatula over the table, scattering pieces of well-greased fried bread across its surface.
“Superbly cosy,” said the spatula-wielding fellow. “Take a seat, do! Oh – there isn’t one. Well. Never mind, what?” He turned back to the stove and began cracking a number of large leathery eggs on top of it. They popped and sizzled, and he prodded them with his spatula.
“Enough!” roared Agrimony, raising his staff, and as he did so, a remarkable, not to mention terrifying, change came over the young gentlemen. Their noses suddenly grew to four times their previous size, and became hooked at the ends. Warts sprouted up all over them. I recoiled in horror as the prim-looking waistcoat of the chap sitting at the table split up the back from top to bottom, revealing a portion of slimy green skin. The eyes of both young gentlemen suddenly became bloodshot, and the pupils glowed a malignant shade of purple. The spatula-wielding fellow opened his mouth to reveal an elongated blue tongue, and slowly began to lick the wax from his own earhole.
“You don’t like black-pudding, what?” said Snotgobbler with a drool. “Never mind! Perhaps we’ll turn you both into rissoles instead.”
“Oh, botheration!” said Griswald. “I’m sick of beastly rissoles. Can’t we turn them into proper sausages?”
Snotgobbler was on the verge of mentioning the possibility of human hamburgers, when Agrimony suddenly clapped his hands, and the pieces of black pudding flew into the air and stuffed themselves into the mouths and ears of Snotgobbler and Griswald. The two Goblins threw themselves helplessly upon the rocky floor of the cairn, spat out the bits of black pudding, and rolled about clutching their stomachs, slavering and squealing uncontrollably.
“So!” roared Agrimony, adopting a commanding stance with his foot on Snotgobbler’s head. “It was you two who stole the iron ore extractor from the workshop of Gladys Sparkbright, and adapted it for the purpose of blood-extraction, for the making of black puddings!”
“Yes!” cried Griswald between wails of perturbation. “It was us! And we’re proud of it!”
“I presume that making puddings from the ram was just a practice-run for the real thing?” said Agrimony, aiming a kick at Snotgobbler’s bottom.
“Yes, absolutely!” groaned Snotgobbler. “Black pudding made from mutton is not a patch on black pudding made from people!”
“Especially young people,” added Griswald with a groan.
“And especially elves,” choked Snotgobbler. “We were going to start with Miss Eleanor.”
“I thought as much,” said Agrimony grimly. “I would turn both of you into black puddings on the spot, but frankly, I can’t be bothered. Any suggestions, Hingefinkle?”
“Hum,” I said, after some thought. “You could turn them both into sheep. There would be a certain amount of poetic justice in that.”
And that is precisely what Agrimony did. Surprisingly, Griswald and Snotgobbler made wonderfully obedient sheep; they even led us across the maze of dry ground which passed through the mire and onto the moor, and with two well-aimed kicks, Agrimony propelled them towards the curious flock of sheep which had congregated at the edge of the mire.
“Hum,” I said, as Eleanor stared nonplussed at the new additions to her parents’ flock. “So the Goblins adapted the iron ore extractor to attract the haemoglobin in blood?”
“Haemoglobin, schlaemoglobin!” said Agrimony grumpily. “Do you realise the paperwork I shall have to do to justify my use of that little spell back there? It will take me a week to fill in the forms!”
“Fiddlesticks,” I replied, in as conciliatory tone as I could muster, “it will be worse for Gladys Sparkbright. She is going to have to invent a way to get the iron ore extractor and all her microscopes out of that quagmire!”
*
As a matter of fact, it took Agrimony two weeks to do the paperwork, because when he had completed it for the first time, the local Druid fraternity told him that they had recently changed the colour of Spell-Employment Notification Form 28Z/4150c from green to a lovely shade of lilac, and it was quite simply impossible for them to accept a Notification on the old form. I was on the verge of congratulating him on having signed and dated the lilac version of Form 28Z/4150c, when there was a knock at the door.
I put down my pipe and opened it to reveal Miss Eleanor, looking even paler and more frightened than she had done on her last visit to the Hermitage.
“Oh, Druid Agrimony!” she cried. “It’s Griswald and Snotgobbler! Father found them both this morning on the edge of the mire, quite dead, with gaping, bloody wounds on their chests. We looked for footprints, but there weren’t any, and oh -” (at this point she sobbed uncontrollably for a few moments before gathering her wits and continuing), “and when we looked out across the mire, a great pool of peaty water began to churn and froth, and something – something awful – arose from beneath the surface-”
“Hum,” I said calmly. “Dear Miss Eleanor. Take a deep breath, gather your thoughts, and then tell us what it was that you saw. There is nothing to fear.”
She obediently kept her silence for a few moments, and then burst into tears. “Oh, Mr. Hingefinkle! It was the head of a gigantic leech!”
Agrimony polished his monocle morosely, held it up to the light, and scrutinised it meticulously. “I see,” he said slowly. “In the light of this new development, I have a useful piece of advice for you and your parents.”
“What’s that?” asked Eleanor breathlessly.
Agrimony sat on his chair, put his feet up on a stool, and gazed vacantly at the ceiling. “Give up sheep-farming and go and live in the Bluebell Wood,” he said with a sigh.
Relating to a generally known fairy-tale character, Cosima von Bonin’s temporary installation TAGEDIEB (IDLER) is a work focusing on the commercial excesses of inner city spaces. Her Pinocchio presents himself as a disruptive element on Vienna’s consumption binge boulevard, because he resists the impulse to buy and – as an “idler” and “good-for-nothing” – interferes with the efficient flow of transactions, thus symbolically obstructing the circulation of money and commodities. In a culture of logos, the art object turns into a “blank,” heralding a social utopia beyond the market logic in its rejection of commercialization and trade efficiency. When the viewer approaches the Pinocchio sculpture, a light comes on setting the figure off against its environs – an ironic reference to the cult of short-lived prominence in today’s everyday media world: Pinocchio as a star in the casting show of public life.
This relates to the text due to stage 1 of sleep. I remember when taking this picture that the cat just started to lay down and relax causing his heartbeat and respiration to start to slow down.
This piece relates to my historical influences because, I attempted to incorporate the pain and damage that wars have on people who are exposed to them, and how it affects them. I attempted to portray this through the mushroom cloud brain, signifying PTSD and never forgetting, which is partly why it's lower half resembles the brain, and the scars, barbed wire, and burns, along with other things. If I was to d anything different in this piece, I would clean up the lines and the bottom of the piece, making the hands more tidy. I would also place the object in a way that it is balanced. Overall though, I think I did a relatively good job on this piece, partly because I returned to my natural medium of ink.
For Sale in TAllahassee, FL
Debbie Kirkland, Relator
Armor Realty
850-212-0440
HomeSalesofTallahassee.com
Documents from the early 1990s relating to blood plasma transfusion by Henan provincial government and military blood plasma collection stations that led to the spread of HIV to many people who sold blood. The blood collection stations were closed in the mid 1990s though some continued this very profitable business underground.
HIV Blood Transfusion Disaster Documents For more information see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_Economy The Wound by He Aifang on the history of blood disaster museums.cnd.org/CND-Global/CND-Global.01-01-25.html
Links to US Embassy website mentioned at the end of the report above are archived on the Internet Archive web.archive.org/web/20010809150226fw_/http://www.usembass...
See also article Dr. Gao Yaojie Human Rights China at www.hrichina.org/content/4754
This lantern slide relates to a photograph taken by Clement Lindley Wragge (b.1852, d.1922), likely dating between 1890-1922.
The slide shows a triptych image of different aspects of the full moon with calculations of the 'apparent dimensions of Moon at extreme and mean distances from Earth', information on the revolution of moon around Earth, Diameter of Moon, and density.
Inscription Details: Handwritten in black ink at top of plate, 'apparent dimensions of moon at extreme and mean distances from Earth. Extreme distance 253,000 miles Mean " 239,000 " Least " 221,000". Handwritten in black ink on white tape at bottom of plate, 'Revolution round Earth 27.322 days Diameter 2,160 miles Mean density compared with water 3.5'. VERSO: Exposed in reverse in lower third of image, 'apparent dimensions of the Moon at its extreme and mean distance from the Earth'.
Credit: Shared by Auckland War Memorial Museum, Tāmaki Paenga Hira, as part of the Clement Lindley Wragge collection.
Rights: No known copyright restrictions.
Reference: 235690|PH-1984-1-LS78-2-16
For more details, please visit: www.aucklandmuseum.com/discover/collections/record/1033522
San Gimignano.
Collegiate Church of Santa Maria Assunta.
Nave.
Wiki -
"New Testament cycle
The six decorated bays of the right aisle, with scenes of the New Testament, pose a problem of authorship. Giorgio Vasari states that they are the work of "Barna of Siena" and relates that Barna fell to his death from the scaffolding. The name "Barna" in relation to paintings at the Collegiate Church of San Gimignano appears to have originated in Lorenzo Ghiberti's Commentaries. In 1927 the archivist Peleo Bacci made the suggestion that Barna had never existed and that the paintings are the work of Lippo Memmi. This hypothesis received no support and little comment for fifty years. In 1976 discussion of Bacci's attribution was revived, with Moran suggesting that there had been a mis-transcription of "Bartolo" as "Barna", with the name "Bartolo" referring to Bartolo di Fredi, painter of the Old Testament cycle.
The attribution of the New Testament cycle to Lippo Memmi, perhaps assisted by his brother Federico Memmi and father Memmo di Filippucci, is now generally agreed.[13] Lippo Memmi was influenced by his more famous brother-in-law, Simone Martini. Lippo Memmi also painted a large Maesta in the Town Hall of San Gimignano, in imitation of that done by Simone Martini at the Town Hall of Siena. The New Testament cycle of the right aisle appears to pre-date the Old Testament cycle and is generally accepted to date from c.1335-1345.
The scenes within the New Testament cycle are organised into four separate narratives, and do not follow a clear left-to-right pattern as do those of the left aisle. As with the left aisle, they are divided into three registers, the upper being the lunettes between the vaults.
Upper level
The upper register shows the Birth of Christ. The series reads from right to left, in six bays.
The Annunciation
The Nativity and adoration of the shepherds
The adoration of the Magi
The Presentation at the Temple
The Massacre of the Innocents
The Flight into Egypt
Middle level
Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey
Jesus calls Lazarus forth from the tomb
The middle register shows scenes of the Life of Christ, beginning at the 4th bay, below the picture of the Presentation at the Temple, and reading left to right, with eight scenes. The scenes have been skilfully juxtaposed so that narrative elements may be compared or contrasted. Within the fourth bay is shown the Presentation of the Temple, Jesus sitting among the Doctors of the Temple of Jerusalem as a twelve-year-old, and Jesus before his crucifixion, enthroned, crowned with thorns and mocked.
Jesus among the Doctors of the Temple of Jerusalem
The Baptism of Jesus
The Calling of Peter
The Wedding at Cana of Galilee (damaged in WWII)
The Transfiguration
The Resurrection of Lazarus
Jesus enters Jerusalem
The people welcome Jesus to Jerusalem (the final two scenes are a single event spread over two frames)
Lower level
Judas receives thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus
The Last Supper all from the New Testament cycle by Lippo Memmi
The lower register, showing the Passion of Christ, continues beneath the Entry into Jerusalem, and is read from right to left in eight scenes over four bays.
The Last Supper
Judas agrees to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver
Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane
The Kiss of Judas
Jesus at the Praetorium
The Scourging of Jesus
Jesus crowned with thorns and mocked
Jesus carrying the cross to Calvary
Bays five and six
Bay five, beneath the lunette of the Slaughter of the Innocents, has a single large scene of the Crucifixion
Bay six, beneath the lunette of the Flight into Egypt contained four scenes (destroyed in the 15th century) of post-crucifixion events which are thought to have been:
The Deposition
The Descent into Limbo
The Resurrection
Pentecost. "
This lantern slide relates to a photograph taken by Clement Lindley Wragge (b.1852, d.1922), likely dating between 1890-1922.
The slide shows text on black background, 'Death is like the change of water into steam, only a sheet as of frosted glass lies between this life and the next- learn the great lesson-the grand secret- in the observatory'.
Inscription Details: Handwritten in black ink at top of plate '[Re..] Written on plate 'Death is like the change of water into steam, only a sheet as of frosted glass lies between this life and the next- learn the great lesson-the grand secret- in the observatory.' Handwritten in blue ink at bottom of plate 'U37'.
Credit: Shared by Auckland War Memorial Museum, Tāmaki Paenga Hira, as part of the Clement Lindley Wragge collection.
Rights: No known copyright restrictions.
Reference: 236036|PH-1984-1-LS78-4-29|37
For more details, please visit: www.aucklandmuseum.com/discover/collections/record/1033180
The term 'special kids' often relates to kids with special needs. Special needs imply that a child has a medical, psychological or mental disorder. However, these kids are just similar to all the kids around except for that they have some disability, perhaps in the form of poor communication abilities, disruptive behaviors, sensory integration challenges or lack of focus in a kid concerning learning. It is for these kids and their parents that art therapy was formally introduced as a solution.
Art therapy has proven to be one of the best treatments for kids having emotional behavioral and psychological problems. In fact, art therapy dates back right to the 19th century when French psychiatrists Ambrose Tardieu and Paul-Max Simon viewed it as an effective diagnostic tool to identify specific types of mental illness or traumatic events. The popularity and the growth proliferated to such an extent that art therapy was seen as an important form of treatment by psychiatrists in the 20th century! In the contemporary world, adapting to art therapy enables kids to communicate and express their ideas using art tools and supplies rather than having a verbal communication. This way, kid helps their counselor understand various facts that he/she wasn’t able to express in words.
Art therapy is a part of special education provided to the kids with special needs where the kids are encouraged to express their feelings through art and their latent creativity. This therapy not only helps us understand these kids but also in building them up in terms of cognitive growth, learning of social skills, practicing sensorimotor like the hand-eye coordination and sensory stimulation. The artwork done by the kids are of different types which include drawing, collage making, crafting, sculpture creation and much more. Naturally, all these artworks are implemented to help a child express what he/she feels and what he/she imagines.
The art therapy is one of the most valuable tools that can in a way help the therapist understand the kid and provide better treatment.
Ever wondered what are the benefits of introducing your child to art therapy?
Following are the general benefits of art therapy for kids with special needs.
• It helps the kids to put their thoughts and ideas in a creative manner which they might have found difficult to communicate verbally.
• From the counselor’s point of view, this therapy helps them understand the child better. It also helps him/her understand various areas of interest and skills of the child along with a sense of achievement.
• It has helped kids with various disabilities like trauma, physical, learning or visual impairment, behavioral issues, etc.
• Engaging in art therapy helps children to develop different skills like emotional skills, cognitive, motor and relational skills. It also promotes relaxation in the mind of a child as he can communicate and express his ideas that he/she couldn’t do verbally. Art therapy reduces anxiety and provides a sense of accomplishment for the kids.
• Many kids also have sensory disabilities. Art therapy is one of the best therapies for them as they can enjoy pleasurable sensory experiences through this therapy.
How to find a good therapist?
Always remember that art isn’t just for the “special” kids. In fact, art is beyond solving disabilities! Art helps your kids in overcoming their sensory disabilities and improving their creativity! Your child’s imagination can profile deeper and deeper with art. You can find a good therapist/art class by doing a good amount of research online as well as offline. For example, Braingroom is online marketplace for educational, recreational & wellness classes with defined target segment. Through BrainGroom, academies & individual tutors sell their classes in the form of individual class tickets to end users. Isn’t this the perfect place to find the right mentor for your child?! Furthermore, there are numerous other reputed “child-therapists” who have built up their websites. You can check for their reviews given by the customers and also understand about the services mentioned on the website that they provide. Also, connect with people around in the society and try to find out people who have had prior experiences with the therapists. Keeping all the factors, reviews and services of a therapist in mind, you can go the best therapist you might get.
Final word
The kids with special needs are no less than the normal ones. All that they need is a special attention and better care than the normal kids. It is important to understand the special kids and help them at every stage of their life. This therapy is so simple yet usually so ignored due to lack of awareness and understanding. However, researches have shown it to have highly benefited the special kids who are seen to be doing well in their lives.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Photo credit: UNDP
Relates to the project 'Reducing the Vulnerability of Cambodian Rural Livelihoods through Enhanced Sub-National Climate Change Planning and Execution of Priority Actions' www.adaptation-undp.org/projects/reducing-vulnerability-c...
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Re: Dying Crafts (relating it to food)
Lam: [When the high expectations of a craft] are no longer, that’s the day that it becomes extinct. When you eat a bun and it’s soggy, but you have no problem with it, “it’s tasty,” – that means [the traditional requirements behind what’s good] has gone extinct. Like I was relating to egg rolls, if it is no longer shattering crisp (to the point where it crumbles to the floor), and you’re okay with it, then the egg roll master should retire.
“There are a lot of simple, relatable things. This is our society; there is no compassion, because the financial mindset is driven by market demand. It’s always market demand. No demand, no one will make it.”
(Roy picks up a bamboo steamer mat and asks about its popularity.)
Lam: “This is due to technology and the resurrection of these needs. Why do I say this? Because the modern rice cookers use Western coating on the bottom, so it scratches easily when you put a metal object on it. Using bamboo or wood can protect that so it lasts longer. So that’s why old things can have a second wind.
“If there wasn’t new technology, and we were still using ceramics, using gold, brass… it’s not a problem. When it’s not a problem, then that’s when things go extinct.”
PM Dr Ngirente presented before Rwanda parliament, Government of Rwanda achievements relating to ICT in the knowledge-based economy | Kigali, 2 December 2019
One story relates how, while Nicholas was visiting a remote part of his diocese, several citizens from Myra arrived with the news that, in his absence, the ruler of the city, Eustathius, had condemned three innocent men to death. Nicholas set out immediately for home. Reaching the outskirts of the city, he asked those he met on the road if they knew what had happened to the prisoners. Informed that their execution was to be carried out that morning, he hurried to the executioner's field, where he found a large crowd of people and the three men kneeling with their arms bound behind them, awaiting the blow of the sword. Nicholas passed through the crowd, took the sword from the executioner's hands and threw it to the ground, ordering that the condemned men be freed from their bonds. Later the ruler sought the saint’s forgiveness. Only after a period of public repentance did Nicholas absolve him.
Ilya Repin's painting of the same scene: www.flickr.com/photos/jimforest/995851770/
The Problems Relating to the Management & Excavations of the Archaeological Ruins of Herculaneum / Pompeii as Reported in Foreign Press (1904-2002). " The Finds At Pompeii A Treasure For Naples," The Times, Jan. 21, 1931. p. 13.
This lantern slide relates to a photograph taken by Clement Lindley Wragge (b.1852, d.1922), likely dating between 1890-1922.
The slide shows an illustrated round image of the surface of moon with a view of Earth in the distance surrounded by stars, with details of the craters of moon visible in foreground.
Inscription Details: RECTO: '20' printed in black ink on white paper, top right hand corner. VERSO: '20' printed in black ink on white paper, top left hand corner. Illegible black text on lower left edge and upper right edge of image.
Credit: Shared by Auckland War Memorial Museum, Tāmaki Paenga Hira, as part of the Clement Lindley Wragge collection.
Rights: No known copyright restrictions.
Reference: 235693|PH-1984-1-LS78-2-19|20
For more details, please visit: www.aucklandmuseum.com/discover/collections/record/1033519
Relator-geral do Orçamento 2023, senador Marcelo Castro, concede entrevista coletiva e fala sobre o relatório do orçamento para 2023.
Foto: Roque de Sá/Agência Senado
All these pictures relate to my blog for Gardeners World Magazine
while you are at it, try my other blog
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
الي يبي يلعوزها يسسوي لها جي #kitten #cute #petstagram #cat #kitty #tumblr #followback #aww #trippy #lifeisgood #relateable #catstagram #tagsforshare #garden #shorts #outerspace #florida #instagroove #likes #galaxy #workout #instacat #kittens #love #park #chill #keepcalm #liam #high #catsofinstagram
154 Likes on Instagram
7 Comments on Instagram:
sweet_so0s0o: هههههههه تجنننن مايصير اخذها عندي كم يوم
aliadnanabel: @sweet_so0s0o ماستغنى عنها هاذي تنام عندي وتقعدني من النوم اذا تبي تلعب ههههههه
theshortbuslimo: That is awesomee :D
maha___66: كيووووووت
noude_: Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
sweet_so0s0o: ههههه ياحياتي عليها
havonaabbydawn_6: Hahaha kitty !!! I love cats !!! Omg >,<
It relates to the so-called green pass, showing that you are vaccinated, that had to be shown for all kinds of activities, such as eating in restaurants.
As in other countries, there is debate about the covid measures, which are all but abolished in most European countries.
#relatable
#jcgotitbumpin #beatmaker #trapmusic #hiphopproducer #musician #boombap #newyork #beat #hiphopinstrumentals #nyc #pop #singer #musicvideo #oldschool #unsignedartist #hiphoprap
Conceptual means relating to or based on mental concepts. My conceptual self portrait is of football. Not only is it my favorite sport but football consumes 10 months out of my year. From strict dieting, to lifting twice a day, this picture of a football represents a major portion of my life.
Copyright - All Rights Reserved - Black Diamond Images
See all images relating to the Rocky Hill Gloucester mine proposal HERE
If coal and coal seam gas companies and the NSW O'Farrell Government get their way rural communities like Gloucester and Stratford, on the Bucketts Way just North of Newcastle, will become increasingly impacted by coal mining.
A recent application by Gloucester Resources Ltd (GRL) to the NSW Government for a new mine at Rocky Hill 3.5 to 7.0km south east of the Gloucester urban area has raised serious concerns among Gloucester and southern suburb, Forbesdale, residents.
Since 1995, another company, Gloucester Coal, (merged with Yancoal in 2012), has had a mine about 13 km south of Gloucester at Stratford. In 2003 Gloucester Coal opened the Duralie mine, 20 km further south. Both mines have been expanded in recent years with extensions being sought to extend the life of both mines. The two mines employ about 380 people.
Gloucester Resources Ltd (GRL) have just released (August 2013) the Rocky Hill Mine Environmental Impact Statement, preliminary to establishing an open cut mine which according to GRL, at its closest point will be 1.7 km from the nearest Gloucester residence and 5 km from the nearest school.
Forbesdale residents dispute that the nearest residence will be 1.7 km from the mine citing Gloucester Council documents which show that the closest home at Forbesdale will be as close as 900m from the mine boundary. It is believed that the figure of 1.7km provided by GRL is to the actual pits since this makes the distance seem greater. There is also Coal Handling and Processing Plant between the pit and the boundary
Gloucester Resources Ltd believe, as stated on their website, that the EIS puts to rest some misconceptions about the Rocky Hill Mine project. GRL argues that :
Impacts on surface water and groundwater will be negligible.
No prime agricultural land (Class 1, 2 or 3) will be disturbed by the Project.
The company will continue to use land not used for mining for agriculture.
There will be no final void or hole left behind when the mine closes.
All coal will be taken away by rail rather than trucks on roads.
The project will use trucks and excavators,not a dragline.
GRL have indicated that the life of the mine is expected to be up to 21 years with an investment of $150 million by the company.
Submissions regarding the EIS for the Rocky Hill Coal Mine close on 28th October 2013 - Have your say HERE
The Rocky Hill Coal Project is however being vigorously opposed by Gloucester Shire Council and a coalition of 'No More Mines in Gloucester' groups such as the Gloucester Residents in Partnership and Groundswell who argue that mining so close to the town of Gloucester and the nearby Avon River, which is part of the Manning River catchment, seriously threatens water tables and that dust, noise and other environmental impacts will place both the environment and the health of citizens at significantly greater risk. They also argue that the $28 million dollar per annum tourism industry and the traditional agricultural industries of dairying,beef cattle production, viticulture and other industries will be severely impacted.
For these and other reasons they argue that the economic arguments in terms of job creation don't stack up, with most employment created being filled by imported specialists and commuter workers from other nearby unaffected towns. Any mine job creation must also be balanced against any loss of jobs from other industries such as tourism and agriculture which could be attributed to the mine.
The opposition groups had been pinning their hopes on the fact that a recent application for a coal mine at Bulga in the Hunter Valley had been refused by the NSW Land and Environment Court, arguing that Gloucester's situation is equivalent to that of Bulga. The closest residence to the proposed mine at Bulga is 2.5km in comparison to the 1.7 km buffer proposed at Rocky Hill.
Recently, however, Rio Tinto and the NSW O'Farrell Government announced that they would be appealing the Land and Environment Court ruling and that there will be an expedited hearing in the Supreme Court of the appeal. At the time of writing, 1.8.2013, the outcome of that appeal is not yet known.
In a further demonstration of how the goal posts are shifting away from citizen opposition groups and in favour of mining companies the NSW O'Farrell Government is considering changes to State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) which, when it comes to mine approvals, would position mine economics over and above all other considerations.
The NSW Government are clearly hedging their bets in case their appeal is lost in the Supreme Court.
In that eventuality, the law will be changed so that, Rio Tinto can potentially just re-submit their application for their mine at Bulga and it will likely be approved.
This new development has potential to have ramifications for the Rocky Hill Mine as far as any Land and environment Court challenge that the people of Gloucester might mount in future should the Gloucester Resources Ltd mine application be approved.
Some cynical people speculate that once the Rocky Hill Mine is approved Gloucester Resources Ltd may seek to sell the mine to Chinese coal giant, Yancoal, following that company's recent merger with Gloucester Coal who have 2 mines at Stratford and Duralie 13km south of Gloucester.
CSG - AGL has approval for 110 Coal Seam Gas wells in Gloucester to commence operation in 2016 - See this Four Corners program. The Gloucester segment starts 3/4 way through. Do yourself a favour and watch this program.
For an excellent overview of coal mining activities in the Gloucester Valley read - The Race To Mine The Hunter Valley
Listen to interview with Julie Lyford of Groundswell HERE
Postcard
The Fay Thomas Collection includes family archives relating to the Thomas family. Moses Thomas (1825-1878) was a significant figure in the history of the area now known as the City of Whittlesea, Victoria, Australia. Thomas and Ann and their family lived at "Mayfield", Mernda, Victoria.
Miss Lily Thomas (1871-1946), Thomas and Ann’s fourth daughter lived there all her life. She collected postcards which her family and friends sent her on a very regular basis. It was an easy and enjoyable way to keep in touch. Production of postcards blossomed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Lily’s collection encompasses the so-called Golden Age (1890-1915) with many postmarked 1906-1907. Some were sent to other members of the family.
The collection document the natural landscape as well as the built environment—buildings, gardens, parks, and tourist sites. Topographical Postcards showing street scenes and general views from Australian and international locations, some of which are artistic views. Popular postcard manufacturers such as Tuck’s Postcards are included in the collection.
Decorative cards, many embellished with floral motives (as a nod to the receiver Lily?) and embossing. Greeting cards are common for Christmas, New Year, Easter and of course birthdays.
Regular senders can be identified from Kyneton and the Great Ocean Road area, Victoria and there is a siginifant collection from Scotland (but not sent from there).
YPRL hold digital copies of the Papers of the Moses Thomas Family held at State Library Victoria
Copyright for these images is Public domain but a credit to the Fay Thomas Collection and YPRL would be appreciated.
Enquiries: Yarra Plenty Regional Library
Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.
Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.
Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.
ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES
Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.
The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).
Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).
A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".
In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.
In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.
ICONOGRAPHY
Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.
Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.
The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.
COMMON ATTRIBUTES
Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.
Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.
VAHANAS
The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.
Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.
The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.
ASSOCIATIONS
OBSTACLES
Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."
Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.
BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)
Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".
AUM
Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:
(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).
Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.
FIRST CHAKRA
According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".
FAMILY AND CONSORTS
Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.
The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.
Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.
The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.
WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS
Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.
Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).
Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.
Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."
GANESH CHATURTI
An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.
TEMPLES
In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.
There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.
T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.
RISE TO PROMINENCE
FIRST APEARANCE
Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:
What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.
POSSIBLE INFLUENCES
Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:
In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.
Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."
One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.
A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.
First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).
VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE
The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .
Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".
Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.
PURANIC PERIOD
Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.
In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:
Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.
Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.
SCRIPTURES
Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.
The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.
R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.
BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM
Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.
Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.
Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.
Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.
Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.
The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
WIKIPEDIA
Photo credit: UNDP
Relates to the project 'Reducing the Vulnerability of Cambodian Rural Livelihoods through Enhanced Sub-National Climate Change Planning and Execution of Priority Actions' www.adaptation-undp.org/projects/reducing-vulnerability-c...
This rambling text relates to these 3 images but they are not necessarily posted in order… I am not sure that you will all (or any of you!) be able to make sense of it …but here goes
I have recently seen a few explanations of how to draw ellipses by enclosing it in a square that is in perspective. I discovered that setup trick quite a few years back but it never really helped me draw teacups because I never setup a perspective for my tea cup sketches and it is hard to work out where the square is anyway. At one stage I had a little sheet of plastic I would put over the top of the cup to help me see the square…but that was SILLY (kept the tea warm though while I was draw the cup!)
Coincidentally around the time of those other explanations appeared, I happened to be doing my own crazy analysis of circles and centre-points. This was in preparation for the start of my class (way back in late April) I took some photos of a lid with centre-points marked and tried to get a grip on how the centre-point varied and with very inaccurate photos I did some crazily accurate measurement on my CAD programme. This was a true left brain moment!
I then had a total brain switch (to the right hand side) and thought.."the shape I am looking at is a true ellipse which is bounded by a rectangle and the centrepoint is in the centre. My head went into a spin and I need an emergency call to the perspective guru - Gerard. Anyway, he set me straight. But I didn't get around to putting it all together…or how to find a way to explain my dilemma about how the circle can have a different centre-point from the ellipse… but it normally does! (Gerard agrees!)
The long and the short of all this rambling is that totally regardless of my analysis…
to draw a tea cup all I do is
1. establish a vertical axis that will pass through the centre of cup rim, base and saucer
2. 'measure' the height and the width of the cup. And draw a cross-hair with these distances meeting at the centre-point.
3. Draw an ellipse connecting these points… if you need more set up- think of a squashed circle in a rectangle and use the 'little less than 3/4 rule for the diagonal)
4. do this for each of the edges of the cup/saucer
5. accept that they might be wonky… colour and pattern will make up for it!
Especially wonky to be expected if one draws slower than normal speed like I did here
Ok… have I confused everyone???
My best advise: go and make yourself a cup of tea and draw what you see!!!
The Dublin Canvas sponsored cabinet is Mapped Out but no information relating to the other cabinets is currently available to me.
Artwork Location: Blackhall Place, Stoneybatter, Dublin 7
Contact Artist: FB: Rebeccawalshartwork
Dublin Canvas is an inclusive public art project. To date they have had a variety of artists from all age groups - schoolchildren to retirees, all walks of life - barristers to baristas, all nationalities and variety of art disciplines. Graphic designers, illustrators, stencil artists, fine artists, street artists and landscape artists to name but a few. The main objective of Dublin Canvas is to ‘Colour in the City’. Artists have complete freedom on how to achieve this.
Dublin Canvas is fully funded and supported by Dublin City Council. The project came into being from Dublin City Council's Beta project. The aim of Beta projects is to trial new ideas, to innovate and to experiment. In 2013 Beta Projects experimented with a traffic light control box community art project. This trial was deemed successful. Leading on from this, Dublin Canvas was set up to expand on the concept, taking it further, eventually leading to a citywide rollout comprising of 200 boxes.
PM Dr Ngirente presented before Rwanda parliament, Government of Rwanda achievements relating to ICT in the knowledge-based economy | Kigali, 2 December 2019
Plaque relating to William Potts Memorial Clock 1901 on Parkhouse.
Image from the Darlington Local Studies picture collection. If you would like a copy of this image please contact local.studies@darlington.gov.uk quoting picture reference 'E730007542', or if you would like to see other images of the Darlington area please visit the Centre for Local Studies, at Darlington Library.
Dundalk overwhelm Bangor in All Ireland Final
by Roger Corbett
Bangor’s amazing run in the All Ireland Junior Cup came to an abrupt end when they were comprehensively beaten by Dundalk, eventually losing by 55-5.
Where do you start when trying to relate and absorb the events of Saturday’s final at Chambers Park? Firstly, congratulations to worthy winners Dundalk who nullified the Bangor attack, then went on to produce some stunning plays which racked up no less than 8 tries, each by a different player. For Bangor’s part, they were unable to respond to the intensity of Dundalk’s game, and lacked the cutting edge which their opponents used to great effect.
The day started full of promise, as the strong support from North Down made their way to Chambers Park in Portadown, knowing Bangor would be fielding their best team. Once again, the pundits had Bangor as the underdogs – just as they had done so in the previous three rounds! In confounding the experts earlier, Bangor produced some awesome performances against top quality opposition to get to the final. Dundalk had produced some convincing wins in the early rounds of the competition, but had struggled to get past CIYMS in the semi-final, just managing to squeeze ahead at the second time of asking. However, with a number of key players returning to the side in time for this game, they were now back at full strength and would be a formidable force to contend with.
Having won the toss, captain Jamie Clegg elected to play into the stiff wind in the first half. For the first 5 minutes, Bangor doggedly retained possession and tried to play their way into Dundalk’s half through a series of determined forward moves. However, little ground was made and, when possession was finally lost, the Dundalk back line produced a burst that simply cut through the Bangor defence resulting in an easy touch down under Bangor’s posts for a 7-0 lead.
Bangor stuck to their plan and slowly, but patiently, got their attack moving forward, eventually winning a penalty to the left of Dundalk’s posts, but Mark Widdowson’s kick into the wind drifted just wide of the mark.
The contrast in play between the two teams was becoming clear, with Bangor trying to keep the ball close while Dundalk were throwing it wide. The latter strategy was proving to be the more effective as, with 20 minutes gone, a quick back line move with players looping around resulted in an overlap on the right wing which gave a clear run in to again, score under the posts. A further 9 minutes later, they did it again and, although the Bangor defence had sensed the danger and moved across to cover it, their tackling let them down allowing Dundalk to get over in the right hand corner, taking their lead to 19-0.
By now, Bangor were trying to hang on until half time when they could regroup and come out with the wind at their backs. Dundalk, on the other hand were anxious to press home their advantage and give them a more comfortable lead. To Bangor’s credit, although camped on their own line for lengthy spells, they dug in and managed to hold on until the referee’s half time whistle.
As the teams reappeared from the dressing rooms, it was obvious Bangor were ringing the changes, particularly in the backs. With the wind advantage having lessened considerably, Bangor got the second half underway. It was now Dundalk’s turn to adopt the slow, steady approach, just as Bangor had done earlier. However, their more confident off-loading and support play was, once again, taking play deep into Bangor’s territory. Frustration at not being able to gain possession and take play out of their danger area eventually resulted in a yellow card for Clegg after a succession of penalties. Dundalk kicked the penalty to touch, won their lineout and drove for the line. Although initially held up by the Bangor defence, Dundalk’s repeated drives were eventually rewarded with another converted score, extending their lead to 26-0.
From the touchline, the Bangor faithful had felt that if their players had managed to score first in the second half, they may have been able to mount a fight-back and close the gap to their opponents. As it was, this Dundalk score simply bolstered their confidence and pushed Bangor deeper into trouble. With Bangor still a man down, Dundalk added to the score with a penalty and then another score in the corner. Everything was now working for the Leinster men, as even the difficult touchline conversion into the biting wind successfully split the posts, bringing the score to 36-0.
As the game entered the final quarter, and with Dundalk all but holding the cup, Bangor were now on the ropes. By contrast, the Dundalk players were in almost total control, and were not going to slow down now. In a 10 minute spell, they ran in a further 3 tries, making the scoreline 55-0. By now, any sense of dejection the Bangor supporters may have been feeling was now moved to feelings of sympathy for their players. However, pride was at stake and once again Bangor rallied as the game entered its final minutes. At last, the forwards got within striking distance of the Dundalk line and, although their repeated attacks were repelled, they finally managed to do what their opponents had done so effectively, and quickly passed the ball wide to Davy Charles. Even though they were 55 points ahead, the Dundalk defence made Charles work hard to drive through the tackles and score Bangor’s consolation try, bringing the final score to 55-5.
From Bangor’s point of view, the final score doesn’t tell the whole story of this competition. While the final may have resulted in a sad anti-climax for Bangor, the remarkable journey to get there will be remembered for some time. On the day, Dundalk were by far the better side, and Bangor would have to concede that their game was not up to the usual standard. However, there is no doubt the experience of competing at this level is something to relish and the goal now will be to secure a top four place in the league and try again next year.
Everybody at the club has nothing but the highest respect and praise for what has been achieved this year by not just the 1sts, but all the senior teams, and one poor result isn’t going to change that – the welcome at Upritchard Park for the returning players is testament to that. With that in mind, the players now need to put this disappointment behind them and provide the best possible response against a struggling Portadown side at home in the league next Saturday.
Bangor side: J Leary, A Jackson, P Whyte, F Black, G Irvine, R Latimer, J Clegg, C Stewart, R Armstrong, K Rosson, D Charles, M Aspley, M Weir, M Widdowson, C Morgan
Subs: S Irvine, O McIlmurray, D Kelly, M Rodgers, C Harper, D Fusco, M Thompson
Bangor scores: D Charles (1T)
Dundalk Storm To Title Dundalk 55 v Bangor 5 from KnockOn.ie
Dundalk Scorers: Christopher Scully, Owen McNally, Jonathan Williams, John Smyth, Ultan Murphy, Tiernan Gonnelly, James McConnon and Stephen Murphy 1 try each. Ultan Murphy 6 cons, 1 pen.
Bangor Scorers: David Charles 1 try.
In front of a big crowd at Chambers Park on Saturday afternoon Dundalk delivered a stunning and ruthless display to see off the challenge of Bangor and capture the All Ireland Junior Cup title for the very first time.
Three first half tries had them firmly in control at 19-0 ahead having played with the elements at the Portadown venue during the first half and while the wind dropped somewhat after half time the Dundalk intensity most certainly didn’t as they cut loose scoring five more tries.
Dundalk returned to a heroes welcome at their Mill Road clubhouse on Saturday night after a display of pure brilliance throughout the afternoon.
Precision, pace and skill from the Louth men from start to finish left Bangor playing second fiddle for long periods.
Memorabilia relating to Robert Raikes in St. Mary de Crypt Church in Southgate Street, Gloucester. This is a Grade I Listed Building that was first recorded in 1140, but is mainly dates from the 14th, late-15th and early-16th centuries, although it incorporates some 12th and 13th-century structure and features. It was extensively restored in 1844- 5, by SW Daukes and JR Hamilton, with further restoration in 1866, 1876, 1903, and 1908.