March 28, 2024, 03:44:57 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ray Agostini

Pages: [1] 2
1
I'm not a Bolt fan. Admire him, but don't class myself as a "fan". I was hoping that Spearmon (who has beaten Bolt) might take the 200M crown, but it was not to be. Lewis' claim, or "suspicions", seems to be based on his own experiences, having failed drug tests, and as far as I know, Bolt has never failed a drug test. While Bolt was running phenomenal times as a teenager, even mid-teens, Ben Johnson was running phenomenally slow times over 100 metres in his early-mid teens. We don't see this dramatic, sudden and surprising improvement in Bolt as we witnessed in Johnson, which naturally gives rise to warranted suspicions (not to mention Johnson admitting to using steroids and going from "scrawny" to "muscle-bound").

Bolt's progression seems to be in line with, for example,  Don Quarrie, who as a 15 year old was running 10.3-10.5 100M, and was consistent throughout his whole career. There was no point at which Quarrie lowered his 100M time from 11.5 to 10.3 (as a teenager, which Johnson did). We also see discrepancies like This in Johnson.

As for Lewis' claim in regard to Bolt's "amazing performances", and that "time will tell", time has already spoken. Michael Johnson ran 19.32 to win the Atlanta Olympics 200M Final. And what was Bolt's winning time at the 2012 London Olympics 200M Final?  19.32. Sixteen years between finals, and both record the same time. Is there something "suspicious" there?

If Bolt had broken the 19 second barrier, then maybe Lewis might have something to crow about, but even so, Spearmon predicted about two years ago that Bolt might be the first to break the 19 second barrier. Maybe Bolt needs to "up" the drug intake?  ;)

2
What about Track & Field / Re: Men's 800 m
« on: August 16, 2012, 07:27:22 PM »
Rudisha was sensational but the 2nd and 3rd places went to teenagers. The times these guys ran were unbelievable for teenagers. Those who tried this event will know what I'm talking 'bout.

It took 31 years for the 800M record to drop 8/10th second. Coe: 1:41.73 (1981). Rudisha: 1:40.91 (2012). Silver medalist, Amos, who turned 18 last March, equaled Coe's 1981 time.  Maybe we're looking at a sub-1:40 800M in the near future?

3
What about Track & Field / Re: The Golden Boy Keshorn Walcott Thread
« on: August 16, 2012, 06:50:51 PM »
I'm a bit late with this, but in any case, some reports from Down Under:

ABC News (6.16am)

ABC News (With report, 6.18am)

Red carpet rolled out for teen medal winner (The Canberra Times)

Javelin pot of gold for Walcott in Trinidad (The West Australian)


4

They have a proper structure and plan. Therefore they will always produce athletes. And alot of hard work 

I think we have that too - AIS - but there's a lot of "introspection" going on even in regard to swimming. One controversial theory was aired in the media:

Australian swimming boss Leigh Nugent blames 'easy life' blamed for medal dive

Quote
"We live in a society where people look for the easy way," Nugent said.

"We do have people prepared to work, but the coaches have to sell the whole package to them.

"We don't have 1.3 billion people like China. We have a small population and most sports are looking for the same thing we are looking for in terms of athletes. Those taller, leaner men, especially the 200m freestyler's physique ... AFL and rugby union love that mould. It's very competitive for body types."

Wood, Leisel Jones's first coach in Brisbane, works with top Chinese swimmers at his academy in Queensland.

His volatile comments - that Chinese swimmers work far harder than their Australian counterparts - is a broadside: "Fat cats don't fight; they sleep in front of the fire. And there are no fat cats in China.

5
Nice tribute.

However our umbilical cords bury in T&T so please big up T&T athletes!!

Mine does too. However, my adult body resides in Australia. I have been following T&T athletes through the Olympics, but specifically Track & Field. I still have a lot of catching up to do on the results as I haven't had the time (because of work) to watch everything. I ask the same question I do of Australia in regard to T&F - What happened? The '50s, '60s and '70s seemed to be a better and more productive era, generally speaking. Jamaica has always excelled. I watched Ed Roberts run a virtually effortless 20.5 200M on the grass track at Point-a-Pierre at the Southern Games in the mid-'60s, and as a teenager attended a half-day clinic coached by Wendell Mottley, two who sort of epitomise that era, though it was still not as great as the Jamaican dominance, eventually with sprinters like Don Quarrie. Most of the "up and coming" T&T sprinters always seem to fade away, while we see occasional flashes of brilliance in-between (even that can't be said for Australian male T&F athletes, and the women still "carry the flag").

Is it something they eat (or smoke) in Jamaica?   

6
Sally Pearson.

Female Athlete of the Year.

World Junior Champion (2003), 100M Hurdles. Commonwealth Champion (2010), 100M Hurdles. World Champion (2009), 100M Hurdles. World Indoor Champion (2012), 60M Hurdles. Olympic Champion (London 2012), 100M Hurdles. Silver medalist, Beijing Olympics 2008, Gold medalist in London.



Sally Pearson, an athlete worthy of honour.

7
Other Sports / Fighters Rated.
« on: May 04, 2012, 06:47:31 PM »
Just popping in to post a link to my son's website Fighters Rated, for those who may be interested.

Hope that's okay with the mods.

8
What about Track & Field / Re: Drug Testing & The Doping Debate
« on: January 27, 2012, 09:19:53 PM »
I don't know if there will ever be a solution to this. Doping/drug-taking in sport is as prevalent as bacteria that eventually overcomes anti-bacteria "immunisation". The cheats will always be one step ahead of the "dope police". As soon as they find a "cure", or detection method, the cheats will find a way to circumvent it. That's how evolution works too.

9
General Discussion / Re: 24 Murder in 17 days
« on: January 27, 2012, 08:54:04 PM »
I agree with you on that one t. But not making any excuses for the TT police, it is a problem in lots of countries. CNN, this afternoon showed a piece on Honduras, where the unsolved murder rate is 90%. The Mex. are doing a real job in that country.

Take a look at San Salvador, too. Life in San Salvador.

Watch the whole video, it's worth the time.

10
General Discussion / British Historians and the West Indies.
« on: July 18, 2011, 11:48:53 PM »
I'm just curious how many here have read Eric Williams' British Historians and the West Indies, and if so, your opinion of it.

11

I didn't read the preceding discussion so I'm just responding to this in a vacuum.  There's nothing racist about having subjective notions of beauty, but as it relates to the issue in this particular case, the Japanese author (from what I recall from when the controversy first broke 2 months ago) is beginning with the proposition that blacks are inherently less attractive than other races... and he has a history of being a racial provocateur.  So in that light, he was definitely being racist.

But perhaps you were just commenting on the larger subjective notions of beauty that we all have.

Yes I did read the article, and that's the notion I got too, although I hadn't heard of him before. I'm not really fond of patsy "Irvingite" interpretations of "truth".

12
Growing up in colonial (read: “white”) Trinidad, I suppose I was indoctrinated with the idea that Blacks were “inferior”, and in this regard I confess to once having inferior views (i.e., unhealthy ones). The real problem is that we generally judge people by looks, even among whites. So I’m really not sure that this is a “racial” problem. There are “ugly” white women (in some eyes), and beautiful Black women, and this is usually defined not by skin colour, but by features. So that tells me that it’s probably an evolutionary trait (which is quite arbitrary), and applies “across the board”, to whites and blacks.  How does one define a “handsome dog”? Is an Afghan more “handsome” than a Boxer? Is a German shepherd more “handsome” than a pug? So, as one poster said, “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”, and there’s nothing “racist” about this. It’s all in our personal perceptions, and, as I said, applies “across the board”.

What this probably magnifies, is our penchant to judge people, of any “race”, by looks rather than “what’s inside”. That cute sentimental expression is meant quite seriously, though.  We probably can’t help our evolutionary tendencies in regard to outwardly judging what’s beautiful, and what’s not, but I think we should bear in mind that it’s all “relative”, to our personal tastes too (environment, upbringing, etc.). The “black stud” phenomenon has been rampant, but I do think that Black females are making their way too, and becoming increasingly more attractive to white men, and I don’t think it’s the “rebound” effect, but I do think that it partly lies in features, rather than skin colour, at least as far as “first impressions” go. To tell the truth, I’m not who I once was – and I’m now (and have been for a very long time) totally colour blind (if not superficially “feature blind”, to whites and blacks).  The Times They Are a-Changin'....

Just my opinion. 

13
General Discussion / Re: Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday
« on: May 27, 2011, 02:12:18 PM »
Ray yuh mad or what... buss bamboo in deez people dem country?  Yuh eh see what dey doing tuh anybody suspected of terrorism or what?  Next thing yuh know I wake up in Saudi Arabia with ah bag over mih head?  ;D

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, check out some of the laws in that country, especially in regard to the consumption of alcohol. Might we be heading the same way? While this stems a lot from religious tradition, I wouldn’t under-estimate it happening in the “West” at some future point. Alcohol is a far more serious social issue than tobacco and SHS.

Quote
Alcohol is a legal drug sanctioned by cultural and social norms in Australia. In 2007 84% of the South Australian population over the age of 14 years reported that they had consumed at least 1 standard drink in the previous 12 months. Alcohol contributes to gross national product yet the annual cost to the Australian community of alcohol-related social problems is estimated to be $15.3 billion.

Drug/Alcohol/Services.

Alcohol-Related Statistics

Doh worry, eventually Big Brudder go get us all.


But in all seriousness, even that ABC article flawed... the man making comparison between campfire smoke and tobacco smoke and claiming that they contain the same ingredients.  Really?  Why he didn't list them?  That's the kind of pseudo-authoritative journalism that some in the media use to push their own agendas.  Unless the logs you're burning around your campfire contain carcinogens then I maintain that cigarette smoke much more detrimental.

I still agree with his basic premise that in regard to outdoor smoking we’re over-reacting, and here’s one reason why:

Automotive Exhaust Chemicals: disease causing effects

How would you address this serious health risk, Bakes?


Kicker, as a one-time McDonalds devotee (Mc Chicken if you please) I know what yuh saying... I dunno how people could eat that crap.

I’ll have a double-beef and bacon burger, thanks.



14
General Discussion / Re: Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday
« on: May 27, 2011, 01:22:14 PM »
Did you even read the law?  Exactly what is your argument... the law does NOT ban smoking, it limits where people can smoke?  There are already similar prohibitions about the use of alcohol in public parks in NYC and many other major US cities.  There are similar laws regarding where pornography can be sold.  Somehow the world hasn't come to an end and criminal elements haven't taken over the underground market for selling alcohol in public places.  Instead, people who want to drink know that they will have to find another place to imbibe their mood altering beverage of their choice.  I'm willing to bet that smokers will follow suit.  You argue that "the choice to stop doing something detrimental to health must remain an individual decision"... agreed which is why your hamburger example fails... this law doesn't prevent smokers from killing themselves, it just prevents them from killing the rest of us who consider it a nasty, dirty, filthy habit.

Ray your Analogy is very flawed - just accept it and move on.

The smoking laws will (hopefully) have an indirect effect of discouraging cigarette smoking but the law itself is really to protect non-smokers who are offended by second-hand smoke.  There is no direct comparison to unhealthy eating.  Should there be a stronger movement to discourage consumption of junk food? Sure why not?  But the answer to that question has no bearing what so ever on what is being done to prevent non-smokers from dangerous 2nd hand smoke... A more pertinent question might be why is cigarette smoking on the whole not illegal to begin with considering how harmful it is to health- I think we all know the answer to the question...or we can probably piece it together if we tried hard enough . 

I’m not familiar with US laws in detail, but I gather (from perusal) that they are similar to Australian laws. I know the laws in Oz in detail, and I have no problem with them as presently constituted. What is alarming me is talk, and at this stage it’s only talk, but coming from the powers that be, of extending smoking bans to all outdoor venues, which means that you’ll basically only be able to smoke in your home/yard, or perhaps outdoor areas away from people. This drew a response from ABC journalist Simon Chapman, with which I entirely agree, and this should give to a clearer idea of where I stand (the following are only excerpts, and I encourage a full reading of the article):

Quote
I commence with these images because they provide salutary perspective on the debate about secondhand tobacco smoke -- hereafter, SHS and my concern on whether policy and advocacy for the regulation of SHS might sometimes go "too far". Many people are comforted by the smell of camp and log fires, even seeking out such exposures.

But the same people will sometimes become outraged by the occasional, fleeting exposure to tobacco smoke. While nearly identical in terms of their noxious content both forms of smoke have entirely different meanings.

Among the many key determinants of meaning and outrage are whether a noxious agent is seen as voluntary or coerced; natural or artificial; and whether the risk has been amplified by lots of media attention. We don't read much about the dangers of inhaling campfire smoke, smoke from incense or candles or cooking, but we read a lot about the dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke.

"Going too far" connotes several undesirable features in policy. It can imply a questionable departure from the evidence base, a loss of proportionality, and the abandonment of important ethical principles in the development of public health policy. A careless attitude to matters of such importance can have repercussions that will be regretted and which do not stand up to close ethical audit.

To me, "going too far" in SHS policy means efforts premised on reducing harm to others, which ban smoking in outdoor settings such as ships' decks, parks, golf courses, beaches, outdoor parking lots, hospital gardens and streets. It is also the introduction of misguided policies allowing employers to refuse to hire smokers, including those who obey proscriptions on smoking indoors while at work.

I emphasise that I am very supportive of preventing smoking in crowded, confined outdoor settings such as sports stadia, in most outdoor dining sections of (particularly small) restaurants and in unblocking the entrances to buildings by having smokers move further away. In outdoor stadia, the concentration of smokers and their sardine can proximity to others can result in significant prolonged SHS exposure over many hours.

The evidence used to justify restricting smoking in public settings has always rested on a bedrock of studies concerning the relationship of chronic diseases like lung cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular disease to prolonged and repeated exposures in domestic and indoor occupational settings, generally over many years.
Added to this, are studies which show that even brief exposures to SHS can produce measurable changes in coronary flow velocity and distensibility of the aorta to name just two.

However, these studies of acute exposure, most recently reviewed by the US Surgeon General, typically define "brief" exposure to SHS as lasting between 15 to 30 minutes - considerably more than the typical encounter with SHS in a park, beach or street -- and were all conducted in indoor environments designed to replicate typical indoor exposure conditions. These effects are also considered to be partially reversible.
In an increasing number of nations, public policy has moved to outlaw all indoor occupational exposures, where the implication is that the exposure is both prolonged and involuntary. So the question we face today is whether it is reasonable to outlaw involuntary, fleeting outdoor exposure…..

Outdoor smoking bans imply zero tolerance for exposure to SHS. In 2005, the WHO announced that it would no longer employ smokers in any capacity. Presumably, it would not matter to the WHO if the world's most potent health workers in, for example, malaria, HIV/AIDS or the prevention of injury smoked: they would no longer be welcome inside the world's peak health agency.
The WHO policy came under heated debate on an international tobacco control listserver. Several participants -- also advocates for outdoor smoking bans -- supported the WHO policy. They advanced a bizarre argument relevant to the debate on zero tolerance for SHS exposure….

Should we encourage the WHO to also refuse to hire tanned Caucasians (for sending the wrong message about skin cancer risk); people who rode motorcycles (hugely risky as attested by insurance premiums); anyone who chose to participate in extreme sports (eg: mountaineering, lone ocean sailing, base jumping where again the risks are immense); anyone who was overweight or obese; anyone who made a virtue out of not exercising; anyone who drank excessively after hours? The list could go on…..


The 2006 US Surgeon General's report on involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke made no recommendations and reviewed no evidence in its 709 pages on the dangers of outdoor exposure or the public health importance of controlling it.
There should be a lesson in this for all of us.

Going too far on smoking bans (Emphasis mine)

Bakes, I hope yuh eh bussing bamboo anymore, because dem kerosene fumes go kill yuh man.




15
General Discussion / Re: Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday
« on: May 27, 2011, 12:59:43 AM »
You can regulate burgers all you want (just as tobacco is regulated), but you CANNOT prevent people from eating them.  What exactly are you calling for then?  The two issues are NOT the same, therefore "consistency" is not in issue.

Non-smokers shouldn't be exposed to carbon monoxide fumes... agreed, but that is a necessary evil, we need vehicles to efficiently live our lives, you as a taxi driver would know this of all people.  Besides all of that, the twio aren't even comparable as CO2 fumes don't kill the way lung cancer from second-hand smoke does.

Still waiting on your example of how second-hand burgers affect the casual bystanders. 

Bakes, do you think that you can prevent people from smoking? Just like you "cannot prevent people from"...eating burgers? What makes you think that eating unhealhty hamburgers and other fattening stuff which contribute $billions to our health costs is "better"? Weigh the bottom line, in terms of costs and lives. Did prohibition work? What happened during the Prohibition era? What we are going to create now is  underground tobacco sales, and places like Afghanistan will willingly provide it. Cigarettes will become cheaper, and even more available in an underground market. You're not going to stop people smoking, any more than you're going to stop people having sex. I'm all for limitations on where people can smoke, but if this is going to lead to another kind of dreaded "Prohibition era", I'm totally against it. I really do get the feeling that some fanatics want smoking banned altogether, and this will have disastrous consequences, and it will only fuel criminal elements. The choice to stop doing something detrimental to health must remain an individual decision based on accumulated knowledge, whether it be fat, or smoke. Having a certain section of society imposing rules and regulations on "what's best for society" is a complete can of worms. Should we ban pornography? Shall we get into this debate? Should we ban alcohol because of the negative effects it has on society? How about we limit you, and other pub goers to only two alcoholic drinks per pub? For "the greater good of society"? Are you yet comprehending how this is "Orwellian"? If people are going to stop obssessively eating or drinking or inhaling what they shouldn't, then they need a "higher vision", which transcends "laws". Punitive measures will never work.

16
General Discussion / Re: Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday
« on: May 26, 2011, 10:48:00 PM »
Again you're missing the point though... this isn't about what the individual chooses to do with/to themselves, the goal isn't to prohibit smoking, but rather to limit smoking in public where others might be harmed.  Until you can come up with an example of the fatty at the picnic table eating the Big Mac and endangering the health of the family walking their dog nearby... then the hamburger argument fails.

I agree that non-smokers should not be subjected to smoke, in public or private. They also shouldn't be subjected to carbon monoxide fumes.

The obesity epidemic in Australia costs taxpayers about $1.2 billion per year.

All I'm calling for, Bakes, is consistency. I've never been a fan of the "health police", but if we are going to have the "health police", then they should enforce their rules and regulations across the board, and not to one specific segment of the community. So McDonald's (and like fast food outlets) will either have to shut down, or offer only "healthy meals".
 

17

He is a scientist and there is no scientific basis for a god or God...

Surely you make this statement in jest?

Stephen Hawking:

Quote
"It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God.

Even Richard Dawkins can't say with 100% certainty that "God doesn't exist".

God vs. Science - A debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins

Quote
DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.


Emphasis mine.

"If there is a God"???

18
General Discussion / Re: Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:54:05 PM »
Sorry Ray... you're off your rockers on this one.  This has NOTHING to do with personal "agendas" as you put it.  Your McDonald's example is complete non-starter.  The person gouging themselves on Big Macs is harming no one but themselves... and in a more remote sense, their families.  The smoker is harming himself and everyone else around him.  This isn't about people not being able to stand the smell of cigarettes... that's ridiculous.  Second-hand smoke offends more than just the nostrils, it is a health hazard.

No problem, Bakes. A McDonald's advert, on TV, on the Net, and "all around" town, inviting people to fatten their arteries and experience hardening of the arteries and an early death is no less harmful. Smoke is at least visible, and noxious to many, but fat (raised cholesterol) is the silent killer. So it's like shooting the dog who barks, but leaving the one who may not bark, but inflict a serious bite.

19
General Discussion / Re: Judgment Day! May 21, 2011
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:35:05 PM »
d world end yet??

It's been ending since at least 44AD.

THE END OF THE WORLD!!!

20
General Discussion / Re: Outdoor Smoking Ban Effective Monday
« on: May 26, 2011, 09:24:22 PM »
Just a reality check here.

Why McDonald's May Be Worse Than Marlboros

Quote
The study's findings also confirm that obesity causes more illnesses than smoking and that it's a greater contributor to disease and a shorter life expectancy.

Is Obesity Worse Than Smoking?

Quote
They found obesity was equal to, or possibly greater than, smoking in decreasing quality of life. Smoking has a primary impact on death, but obesity has a greater effect on the development of disease leading to mortality.

I've only given two links, but anyone who cares to Google will find many more confirming that obesity is as bad as, and probably worse than smoking.  Anyone can tolerate the smell of a Big Mac and chips, even though they know it's equally bad for them, but not everyone can tolerate smoke. As usual we're off with the pixies on misguided personal "agendas".

21
An interview with the (former) world's most famous atheist:

Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew

22
General Discussion / Re: Aliens allyuh!!!!! It close now.
« on: April 20, 2011, 08:25:47 PM »

23
Queensland faces financial ruin. Insurers say no to Brisbane flood victims.

Earlier I posted:

Quote
Queensland will be an economic and financial mess for a long time to come, and price-hikes on interstate and international exports will be inevitable. It isn't the flood that will really devastate this state, but the destroyed economy.

Have a good day, and spare a thought for the victims of greed. It's a universal problem.

24
Didn't realize that Australia extended that far north.

Bake, Darwin is definitely slight cooler than Trinidad, and I'm actually Glad Die Hard pointed this out, because I need to be more accurate in my descriptions. At least the citizens of T&T don't have to look behind their back for crocodiles :) Unless things have drastically changed since I was last there.

25
No part of Australia could be on the same equatorial line as Trinidad, not meaning to nit pic, but.........

Well, I'll concede that "about the same" may be an exaggeration (I didn't say "exact equatorial line").



But Darwin has wet and dry seasons (no winter), and is subject to cyclones, which the southern states are not.

Quote
Darwin has a tropical savannah climate (Köppen Aw)[18] with distinct wet and dry seasons and the average maximum temperature is similar all year round. The dry season runs from April/May to October (the southern hemisphere winter), during which nearly every day is warm and sunny, and afternoon humidity averages around 30%.[19]

There is very little rainfall between May and September. In the coolest months of June and July, the daily minimum temperature may dip as low as 14 °C (57 °F), but very rarely lower, and frost has never been recorded.

The wet season is associated with tropical cyclones and monsoon rains.[20] The majority of rainfall occurs between December and March (the southern hemisphere summer), when thunderstorms are common and afternoon relative humidity averages over 70 per cent during the wettest months.[19] It does not rain every day during the wet season, but most days are warm to hot with plentiful cloud cover; January averages under 6 hours of bright sunshine daily.

The hottest month is November, just before the onset of the main rainy season. Because of its long dry season, Darwin has the most daily average sunshine hours (8.4) of any Australian capital with the most sunshine from April to November. The sun passes directly overhead in mid October and mid February.[21] Climatically Darwin has more in common with Singapore than Sydney because it sits well inside the tropical zone.

Darwin, Northern Territory.


26
Only several years ago Australia was in a serious drought. Council "water police" would drive around looking for offenders watering gardens outside of restricted times, with accompanying heavy fines. Darwin in the Northern Territory is about on the same equatorial line as Trinidad (with wet and dry seasons), though the last serious cyclone (hurricane) there was in 1974 - cyclone Tracy (the most devastating cyclones have female names :) . The weather in the southern states has been pretty consistent each week: rain, showers, or possible showers most days. Temperatures can vary so much that you can start the day with a singlet and fan, and end it with a heater and jumper. 

Summers were never like this 20-30 years ago, though. I remember when it was summer - it was summer, with consistent high-range temperatures. Now, you can have summer and winter in one day. Not that I particularly mind, since the cool relief is welcome. I don't think I could ever live in the tropics again.

Queensland will be an economic and financial mess for a long time to come, and price-hikes on interstate and international exports will be inevitable. It isn't the flood that will really devastate this state, but the destroyed economy.

27
General Discussion / Re: yuh BEST xmas memories growing up at home......
« on: December 31, 2010, 12:52:09 AM »
A pine tree imported from Canada, then dressed with tinsel, threaded globes, with an angel atop, and artificial “snow” from a spray can. The pine aroma filled the house not only during, but many days after Christmas.  Going to meet Santa Claus, and wondering how he could be dressed like that in the heat, and wondering why I never saw his reindeer, and why he sometimes arrived in a helicopter at the savannah. Midnight mass at St. Mary’s, the only time my mother ever attended Church; the smell of incense and Christmas hymns of praise. It was always packed to overflowing, with people standing at the doors, and anticipation that after midnight mass would be the opening of presents, usually sometime before 1am. As a young teenager, my complimentary one Carib beer a year allowed by the old people. Never two. Relatives pouring in from all quarters, including uncles, aunts, and cousins whom you only saw once a year. Having Christmas come and go without shopping hassles. Bamboo busting all around in the lead up to Christmas, and doing some bamboo-busting ourselves. Cutting the bamboo seven rings long; incising a square opening one ring from the back, pouring kerosene in, lighting and waiting for it to warm up, and then bang, bang, bang! The sound of Christmas approaching. At any other time it would be considered a nuisance and noise pollution, but what would any pre-Christmas be without hearing the sound of bamboo-busting? And pudding, spicy-pegged ham-crackling, pastels, and as we got older Fernandes White Star with coke or ponche crema. Then at at 19 I bid goodbye to my "island in the sun", and all the good memories, especially the Christmas memories. 

It has never been the same since. Thirty-six Christmases have come and gone, and not one is so fondly remembered as – Christmas in Trinidad.

Quote
“There is a garden in every childhood, an enchanted place where colors are brighter, the air softer, and the morning more fragrant than ever again.” - Elizabeth Lawrence.

May you all have a happy and prosperous New Year 2011.

28
Football / Re: Luciano Woodley Passes Away
« on: December 20, 2010, 05:41:47 AM »
Okay, well here's one from the 1969 CIC Annual, the 2nd Eleven (the previous one was from the 1970 Annual). No need to guess names from this one:








29
Football / Re: Luciano Woodley Passes Away
« on: December 19, 2010, 11:59:37 PM »
I know this is an old thread (I was notified to consider starting a new one, but I think/hope this is appropriate anyway), which I actually saw months ago, and was I shocked to learn of Woodley’s death. While not a close friend, I competed against Woodley off and on at CIC, but mostly in training, as he (fortunately) was a Juniors runner when I was in Giants. When often ran neck and neck, with Woodley usually edging me out over the last few yards. But we did play soccer together, if I recall correctly, sometimes in CIC “A Colts”, though I never played in the First XI. All of the descriptions of him in this thread fit perfectly with what I remember of the unassuming and humble Luciano Woodley.   
   
I presume most CIC old boys would have kept old school annuals, as I have, but this particular photo was too good to pass up (just in case):

Woodley is second from the left in the front row, next to Hannibal Najjar, on his right.




30
General Discussion / Re: Muslims
« on: August 27, 2010, 12:49:24 AM »

Enright was highly intoxicated when he hailed the cab, the police spokesman said. Once inside the cab, Enright asked Sharif whether Sharif was Muslim. When Sharif responded yes, Enright stabbed him several times with some type of utility knife.

Unfortunately, a Muslim workmate of mine (I'm a cab driver) was recently physically assaulted under almost identical conditions. He was asked if he was a Muslim, and when he answered in the affirmative, was punched in the head.

I think those circulating vicious emails about Muslims, may have contributed to things like this.

Pages: [1] 2
1]; } ?>