text:
Ali Barter Is Our Special Guest Editor This Week
In the lead-up to the release of her debut album, A Suitable Girl, this Friday.
Posted By Guest Writer 4 years ago
This Friday 24 March sees the release of Ali Barter's debut album, A Suitable Girl, and to celebrate it over at Pilerats we thought we'd try something a little different, and invite Ali to be our "Guest Editor" for the week in the lead-up to its release. What does that entail exactly, well we'll pass over to the lady herself to fill you in:
ALI BARTER / GUEST EDITORIAL
Hey guys. My name is Ali Barter and I am the guest editor on Pilerats this week in the lead up to my album release, which comes out this Friday!
I have a few fun things I'll be sharing about my record, what inspired me, the recording process and some other bits and pieces about my life.
It starts today where I'll be taking over the Pilerats Instagram to get the ball rolling, but first, a little about my album:
The record is called, A Suitable Girl.
The title is a play on the name of a novel written by Indian author Vikram Seth called A Suitable Boy.
It's the story of a young girl finding a suitable husband, and discovering herself in the process. I wanted to name the album after this book because that's kinda what my album is about - not finding a husband, but figuring myself out in my 20s. Coming to terms with who I am, navigating expectation and rocking out in my own way.
I listened to a lot of Weezer, Liz Phair, Varuca Salt, Juliana Hatfield and Smashing Pumpkins while writing and recording this album. Guitar heavy, quiet verse/loud chorus, heart on your sleeve kind stuff.
I recorded it at Sound Park in Northcote and The Aiviary in Abbotsford with Oscar Dawson (producer and guitarist), Tyler Millott (bass) and Andrew Braidner (drums) over about eight months.
I'm looking forward to sharing more about the album, and myself, over the next few days, including a video about releasing it independently, a track by track on release day, sharing some behind the scenes of the zine I've created for it, and a look back at my time spent in India last year.
And once it's all said and done, I'll be hitting the road over April/May, so come say hey!
Calling all aspiring vocalists - LDRU wants you to join him on stage at Touch BassTo help belt out a live version of his latest single, To Be Free.
Maker Agency launch a new club night headlined by some of Australian electronic's biggestDom Dolla, Yolanda Be Cool and others are set to take over And Then, launching April 8.
That double Vicks Stick champ is raising $$ for the Leukaemia Foundation and you can help
Participating in the World's Greatest Shave after 3 long years of untouched hair growth.
This iPhone case's built-in speakers look epic
And you thought watching Golden Retriever pups live was cool...
Cure your hangover with pics from inside Costa Rica's Sloth Institute
An excuse to post some damn cute sloth pictures, with a nice story about conservation behind it too.
By Hayden Davies
A Couple Of Ripping All-Girl Parties Were Announced Today
Track By Track: All the girlie bits and pieces of Ali Barter's debut album, A Suitable Girl
A look at Ali Barter's 'A Suitable Girl' zine and "History Grrrl", Vivienne Westwood
Ali Barter's Travel Guide To India
Ali Barter drops video clip for Cigarette, announces Oz tour
Jamie xx is coming to Perth!
Joined by Four Tet.
And now for some good news - Sir David Attenborough is touring Australia next year
The world's finest man will be bringing an all new live show.
Stella Donnelly is bringing her new live show to Freo for an unmissable homecoming show
She'll be joined by San Cisco's Jordi Davieson and the Burundi Peace Choir at Fly By Night Club in July.
PSA: WAM Song Of The Year Submissions are now open
With 16 categories up for grabs, and a whole heap of great prizes valuing up to $45K.


text:
Shop US site
WWE Championship Replica Title Belt (2014)
Ends Jan 25, 07:59 GMT
Home Superstars SmackDown Superstars Roman Reigns Roman Reigns "Tougher Than Cancer" Authentic T-Shirt
Roman Reigns "Tougher Than Cancer" Authentic T-Shirt
Superstars SmackDown Superstars Roman Reigns
https://euroshop.wwe.com/en_ES/roman-reigns-tougher-than-cancer-authentic-t-shirt/15612002E6.html
Product: 15612002E6
Size Chart View size chart
Select Size for Availability
BEATING CANCER IS IN OUR BLOOD
The mission of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) is: Cure leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and myeloma, and improve the quality of life of patients and their families.
WWE will donate 20% of the Sales Price (before applicable sales taxes) of Roman Reigns "We Believe" and "Tougher Than Cancer" apparel and 100% of the Net Proceeds* from sales of "Believe in the Fight" Bracelets sold on www.wweshop.com to The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, an organization whose mission is to cure Leukemia, Lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and Myeloma, and improve the quality of life of patients and their families. For more information about The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society go to www.lls.org. While supplies last. This purchase is not tax-deductible.
* Net Proceeds means all revenue received from the sale of bracelets, less the cost of merchandise, fulfillment fees and any applicable credit card processing fees.
At SummerSlam 2018, Reigns finally vanquished his greatest rival when he defeated Brock Lesnar to win the Universal Title. He then set out to be what he had always been, a fighting champion. That all changed on the Oct. 22 edition of Monday Night Raw, when Reigns announced that the leukemia that he had lived with for 11 years had returned. Because of this, he relinquished the Universal Title and returned home to fight it.
Thankfully, Reigns' battle was a successful one, and he returned to Raw on Feb. 25, 2019. With a renewed focus, The Big Dog battled Drew McIntyre at WrestleMania 35 and defeated The Scottish Psychopath, proving that he was as powerful as ever.
Now as a member of SmackDown LIVE after the shocking 2019 Superstar Shake-up, The Big Dog is more motivated than ever and ready to take a bite out of the blue brand.
Soft, lightweight 30 singles ring-spun cotton
100% Cotton (Heather colors contain polyester)
Dual Defense™ odor control technology and moisture wicking
WWE Authentic T-Shirts: Wear What The Superstars Wear
Official WWE
Authentic Apparel
High Quality & Durable
Screen Printed in the USA
#WWEShopShots
Follow us @WWEShop & Share Your Superstar Style With Us
Roman Reigns Championship Replica Side Plate Box Set

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The Statutes at Large, the United States from ..., Band 19
Voransicht des Buches »
Ausgewählte Seiten
Cavalry enlistments An act to increase the cavalry force of the United States to aid in suppressing
Centennial celebration Joint resolution on the celebration of the Centennial in the several counties
Survey of Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railways Joint resolution amending the eighth section
The Statutes at Large, the United States from ..., Band 41,Teil 2
The Statutes at Large of the United States from ..., Band 33,Teil 1
amended America in Congress amount appropriated Approved Army article of treaty assistant August authorized building cents CHAP chief City claims clerks of class Commissioner Company Congress assembled contingent County court deceased Department directed dollars and fifty eighteen hundred enacted expenses fifty cents fifty dollars fiscal five hundred dollars forty four hundred Government hereby House of Representatives hundred and fifty hundred and seventy hundred and twenty improvement Indian installments James John July June laborers lands late letters mails March mark Michigan namely necessary nine hundred paid payment pension person Post postage presented President printing Provided purchase received relief removed repairs River salaries seal Secretary Senate and House seven hundred seventy-five six hundred sixty Stat Territory thereof third thirty thousand dollars thousand five hundred thousand two hundred three thousand tion Treasury twenty twenty-five United Washington
Beliebte Passagen
Seite 227 - A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted as in this act provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate...
Wird in 176 Büchern von 1856 bis 2007 erwähnt
Seite 229 - Hall not provided for the Senators ; for the tellers, Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House of Representatives, at the Clerk's desk ; for the other officers of the two Houses, in front of the Clerk's desk and upon each side of the Speaker's platform.
Seite 573 - ... provided that this shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the crime or offence had there been committed...
Seite 667 - the Date at which it may come into operation, and further ' until the Expiration of Twelve Months after either of the ' High Contracting Parties shall give Notice to the other of ' its Wish to terminate the same...
Seite 227 - Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.
Seite 229 - Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared ; and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under this...
Seite 654 - Magistrates, respectively, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered ; and if, on such hearing, the evidence be deemed sufficient to sustain the charge, it shall be the duty of the examining Judge or Magistrate to certify the same to the proper executive authority, that a warrant may issue for the surrender of such fugitive. The expense of such apprehension and delivery shall be borne and defrayed by the Party who makes the requisition and receives the fugitive.
Seite 227 - ... the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote...
Seite 651 - ... committed within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum, or shall be found within the territories of the other...
Seite 510 - STATE. — The foregoing act having been presented to the President of the United States for his approval, and not having been returned by him to the house of Congress in which it originated within the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, has become a law without his approval.] Fob.
Titel The Statutes at Large, the United States from ..., Band 19
Autor/in United States
Verlag U.S. Government Printing Office, 1877


Moving into a new home or apartment and looking for a fresh start? Or are you moving out and wanting to leave your place looking better than ever? We'll make it easier than ever.
Why a Move In/Move Out Clean?
Whether you're renting your home or apartment and hoping to get your deposit back, or you're a property owner preparing the space for new tenants, keeping up a clean space is key. Pocket Maids is here to help reduce the stress that comes with moving into or out of a home or apartment. We will leave your place clean, leaving you with more time for bigger things!
What is the different between a Deep Clean and a Move In / Out Clean? BASEBOARDS!! But seriously.. We understand there's a difference between cleaning a home for you and cleaning it for the market. In a move in / out clean we include baseboard cleaning, cleaning vents, and inside of cabinets.
If your looking for regular cleaning on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis check out our Standard Cleans.
If it's your first time booking a maid service consider a Deep Clean.
If moving in or out of a new home, you're in the right place!
We've provided four easy to select from options on our booking form for you to choose from. We recommend to be home for your first clean so you can meet the team and familiarize yourself with them.
Check out our easy to use booking form online to schedule, reschedule, or cancel an appointment. You're also welcome to call or use our contact page.
We have plenty of options when your home needs a little extra love.
If you would like any of the above extra's make sure you select them on the booking page.


text:
Q: DVD files not appear in file manager both windows and os x Many thanks for reading.
I have a DVD - R containing a set of MRI images along with the viewer (GE MRI machine dvd write).
In my effort to browse the DVD it appears empty in both Apple and Windows Vista / 7 machine.
Disk properties shows 0 used and 0 free (windows).
The friend that brought this to me,  told me that the MRI files are inside and the dvd media is good.
I have used Nero disk info utility and it reports that a track of 644MB is allocated .
This shows that files are inside which unfortunately I cannot browse.
Do you have any idea why this is happening and If I can somehow get the disk contents.
Many thanks again

A: The program isobuster allowed the browsing and the simple drag and drop movement of the DVD files, into the desktop of a windows machine.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Jazz Summer League Game: Kanter, Michael Stockton, and More - The Downbeat - #791
By andylarsen Jul 10, 2012, 5:06am MDT
Share All sharing options for: Jazz Summer League Game: Kanter, Michael Stockton, and More - The Downbeat - #791
Presswire
So the Jazz lost yesterday afternoon's Orlando Summer League game, 73-76. The story, though, is the play of the big name players: it was non-ideal. Subpar would be another word you could use. Let's investigate further:
There's the list of players who have had significant NBA experience (besides Simmons and Weaver, who didn't play). They all played extremely poorly, except for Ahearn, who knocked down his 2 three point shots and went 3-4 overall. On the other hand, you'd expect better than 1 assist from a team's starting PG who played 18 minutes.
Each of the other players on this list, though, shot at or below 33%. Combined, they were 7-27. That's worse than Kobe's 6-24 in Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals, the classic standard of a terrible game performance. Addressing them individually:
DeMarre Carroll had the best game of the 4, by only making 2 of his 6 shots, and picking up 3 assists, 1 rebound, and 1 steal in his time on the floor. Unfortunately, he got his shot blocked twice, missed his two threes, and didn't have an especially good defensive game either (check out the stats of the Detroit starting forwards). It wasn't a terrible performance, but let's just say you would hope for more.
Enes Kanter should probably be doing better against this level of competition. In almost 30 minutes, he only got 3 points on 1-7 shooting, only got 5 rebounds (all defensive), had his shot blocked twice, and turned the ball over 4 times. That's just not good enough from a #3 pick with NBA experience. Yes, he's young. Yes, it's only the first game of summer league. Yes, he had much better games at the NBA level last year. Still, it's worrying.
Alec Burks, sadly, wasn't much better. While he got to the free throw line some, he managed 4 turnovers and only 1 assist. His shots weren't always in the flow of the offense either, which is somewhat worrying for someone who should probably know the system pretty well by now. His saving grace is the scoring, though, 10 points in 20 minutes isn't Kanterian (I hope and pray that "Kanterian isn't an adjective that sticks).
Stephen Graham wasn't good, but his NBA M.O. was being not good, and so his not good performance here isn't a surprise. You can make an argument that he's the worst NBA starter of all time. Here's a list of players who started more than 25 games with a PER under 5:
Jason Collins 2006-07 28 NJN 80 78 1844 .364 .000 .465 3.0 0.6
Jason Collins 2007-08 29 TOT 74 26 1172 .469 .000 .459 3.4 0.1
Stephen Graham 2010-11 28 NJN 59 28 959 .405 .238 .816 4.4 -0.3
DeShawn Stevenson 2011-12 30 NJN 51 30 960 .285 .283 .563 4.3 -0.3
Uwe Blab 1989-90 27 TOT 47 33 531 .398 .541 3.3 -0.4
Rafael Araujo 2005-06 25 TOR 52 34 601 .366 .000 .536 4.5 -0.8
So, let's just not sign Steven Graham. Cool.
Interestingly, though, the second team unit played well, taking the team on a huge run at the end of the first quarter through much of the second. This effort was primarily guided by one Michael Stockton, which is pretty neat.
Listen, all of the odds are against Michael. He's probably not NBA-good at basketball. (Evidence: He averaged 11 PPG, 3.6 APG in 28 MPG in the German 2nd league. He didn't start for Westminster until his senior year. He's already 23. I sort of guarded him once.) That all being said... it was really fun to have him leading the charge with and against real NBA players. It will be exciting to see how he plays over the next few days.
At some point, I'll write about the cognitive dissonance that came from watching Stockton play, but I told myself that this Downbeat would stay reasonably short.
Now, the second summer league game comes for the Jazz, as they take on the Philadelphia 76ers at 9 AM. This should be a better opportunity for Kanter and Burks to shine, if Philadelphia keeps the same starting lineup, because they will be matched up against Devin Searcy and Xavier Silas. I regret to inform the readers of this blog that I know next to nothing about those players. Silas is a pretty famous basketball name, and Searcy is a town in Arkansas with this motto:
I'll admit, I was surprised that millions wished to live like Searcians do in the middle of Arkansas, but you learn something new every day. If you really want to learn about the Sixers summer league team, Sixers.com put up this article.
Seriously, though, Kanter and Burks will have heard the criticism, and this is an excellent opportunity to respond with a better performance.
I have a semi-weekly series win which I ask you, the Jazz fan, to contribute suggestions with the goal of improving some part of Jazz fandom off the court. This week, we look at the intro videos shown at the beginning of each Jazz home game, made by @brownboy1473. There were two, I never figured out the pattern in which they were shown:
Let's start with things I like about this one:
The first is pretty professionally done. The text, the cuts, the action is all sharp, quick, and high quality. Cool.
Splicing cool game moments: standard, but still a good idea. I also like having good calls of moments spliced in.
Okay, and things I don't like:
Boler yelling "WHAT A SHOT!" after Devin Harris' extremely average layup.
The pacing. Look, this is a intro video. We don't have time for the weird drum intermission with Ty clapping and the dancers dancing and Millsap getting the ball stolen from him. It's the opposite of exciting. And then you don't transition back into dramatic time very well. I also don't have time for you to splash every player's name on the board. My excitement for Bell is limited.
Favors in what looks to be a Knicks jersey at 0:57. What?
The end: cool Jazz explosion. Would have been nice if anything else had been leading up to that. Basically, at only limited points is excitement generated.
My problem with this one is mostly conceptual. "We are Utah Jazz", while terrible grammatically, is at least a copy of another cool and famous slogan ("We Are Marshall"). That doesn't mean it's a good idea to make it personal. When the video says "I am unity", WTF does that even mean? Who is the I speaking here? Is it you, the maker of this video? And how does a single person become unified? It's not as if the Jazz players were out there reading Walt Whitman during games: "I am large. I contain multitudes." And then to follow that up with a nice big Al assist to Hayward means the subject of this sentence is totally confused.
"I am team" suffers from the same conceptual flaws, but is especially broken due to the existence of the phrase "there is no I in team". Next, cut to "I am tenacity", showing Millsap making a wide-open dunk. Confused with the imagery, now.
Finally, the video gets to "I am fearless", which has the incredible positive that it is an actual adjective. And then Jeremy Evans dunking, which is always awesome and fun. Unfortunately, this is followed up by a Memo three and the phrase "I am intensity", which is just a mean joke to play post-injury.
The music and finale montage is pretty good, leading up to the final shot at 0:39 when a boy is so excited about the upcoming game that he and his neighbor are on their cell phones as he holds up the sign. At least we're being realistic.
I just think that we can do better. Grammar is not a particularly high bar, nor is making sense. If we could get that as well as excitement building, we might really have something.
The big topic of conversation in Jazzland before this morning's game is the performance of Kanter. Thus, I wanted to get your take on his game yesterday: was it indicative of big problems in his game, or should it be ignored (after all, it was only preseason)? Poll time!


text:
Q: Apache equivalent of Nginx I have the following Nginx configuration, but I need to convert it to be compatible with Apache. I have almost zero experience in networking and have no clue where to begin.
location ^~ /static {
    proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:8501/static/;
}

I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me some hints.

A: It's pretty self-explanatory... (Apache Docs)
Your equivalent command syntax in Apache would basically be, I believe, something like this:
ProxyPass "/static" "http://127.0.0.1:8501/static/"

(You may also have to do `"/static/" possibly, but I would have to do further testing.)
Alternatively, this may be what you want instead:
<Location "/path/to/docroot/static">
    ProxyPass "http://127.0.0.1:8501/"
</Location>


There is no doubt that Calisthenics requires a combination of strength, flexibility, speed, and stamina. Josh Delgado, one of New York's best Calisthenics athletes, shows us what it takes in his workouts to stay on top of his game and be the best.
High-intensity workouts are usually quick and to the point, yet leave you at a fat burning machine for the remainder of the day. They are great if you have a busy schedule and need to get into the gym and get out as quickly as possible.
Josh take us through his moves for this full body high-intensity interval session. Not a calisthenics athlete? Don't worry! Josh goes through the options for us mere mortals who need to start somewhere a little more basic.
Josh lets us know that we need to work on your fundamentals before progressing to an advanced level. If you attempt this workout ensure you have your fundamental movements in place before you progress to a more advanced movement.


text:
IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Private Limited v/s National Highways Authority of India
ARB.P. No. 860 of 2019 & IA. No. 208 of 2020
Decided On, 27 August 2020
At, High Court of Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
For the Petitioner: Atul Nanda, Brij Bhushan Gupta, Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocates, Saket Sikri, Jai Sahai Endlaw, Kapil Midha, Terresa R. Daulat, Sarthak Sachdev, Wattan Sharma, Pritika Juneja, Advocates. For the Respondent: Maninder Acharya, Sr. Advocate, Padma Priya, Dhruv Nayar, Viplav Acharya, Advocates.
1. The present petition under Section 11 (6)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeks appointment of a presiding Arbitrator to the three member Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes between the parties in relation to the Concession Agreement dated 25.07.2011, as the two nominee Arbitrators of the parties have failed to arrive at any consensus on the aspect of such appointment.
2. The primary ground on which the petition has been filed is that once the two nominee arbitrators were unable to appoint the presiding arbitrator, either by consensus or by draw of lots, it implied that there is no further procedure agreed upon between the parties for such appointment and, therefore, the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this Court under the Act.
3. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to briefly note the factual matrix of the matter.
i. The petitioner is a company engaged in infrastructure development in India and the respondent, National Highway Authority of India/NHAI, is a statutory body entrusted with the responsibility of development, maintenance and management of national highways in the country.
ii. On 25.07.2011, the parties entered into a Concession Agreement for conversion of 102.300 km of NH-8 between Ahmedabad and Vadodara into a six lane highway and improvement of existing Ahmedabad-Vadodara Expressway in the state of Gujarat on a design, build, finance, operate and transfer basis (hereinafter referred to as 'the project'). Under the said agreement, the petitioner was required to undertake the entire cost of the project and pay a fixed annual premium of INR 309.60 crores to the respondent to be enhanced by 5% annually till the subsistence of the agreement. In lieu thereof, the petitioner was granted the exclusive rights, license and authority to operate the project for a period of 25 years and satisfy the costs incurred in setting up the project, from the toll collected on this stretch of the highway.
iii. As per the terms of this Concession Agreement, disputes between the parties were required to be first sent for conciliation, failing which the same were to be adjudicated through arbitration decided by reference to arbitration by a Board of Arbitrators to be appointed in accordance with clause 44.3.2. The arbitration clause specifically provided that arbitration would be held in accordance with the rules of arbitration of the International Center for Alternative Disputes Resolution or such other rules as may be mutually decided by the parties and would also be subject to the provisions of the Act. Clauses 44.3.1 and 44.3.2 of the agreement read as under:
"44.3 Arbitration
44.3.1 Any Dispute which is not resolved amicably by conciliation, as provided in Clause 44.2, shall be finally decided by reference to arbitration by a Board of Arbitrators appointed in accordance with Clause 44.3.2. Such arbitration shall be held in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi (the "Rules''), or such other rules as may be mutually agreed by the Parties, and shall be subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The venue of such arbitration shall be Delhi, and the language of arbitration proceedings shall be English.
44.3.2. There shall be a Board of three arbitrators of whom each party shall select one and the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the two arbitrators so selected, and in the event of disagreement between the two arbitrators, the appointment shall be made in accordance with the Rules."
iv. While the project work was underway, on 06.06.2014 the parties executed a supplementary agreement in relation to deferment of premium payment required to be paid by the petitioner. Shortly thereafter, on 14.07.2014, when disputes between the parties had already started surfacing regarding the petitioner's claims for compensation on account of a competing road constructed by the respondent as also the premium deferment arrangement between the parties, the parties executed another supplementary agreement to the Concession Agreement, for the purpose of substituting the International Center for Alternative Disputes Resolution with the Society for Affordable Redressal of Disputes (SAROD). To that extent, clauses 44.3.1 and 44.3.2 of the Concession Agreement were modified to read as under :-
4. "Amended clauses 44.3.1 & 44.3.2
(1) That the clause 44.3.1 & 44.3.2 of the Concession Agreement is hereby amended to be read as follows:-
"Any dispute/difference arising out of aforesaid Concession Agreement which is not resolved amicably as provided in clause 44.2 shall be finally settled by Arbitration as set forth below:-
(i) The dispute shall be referred to SAROD for resolution by Arbitration in accordance with Rules of SAROD and Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended from time to time (or which is pending with Arbitral Tribunal presided over by ........... shall be referred to SAROD). The Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of Sole Arbitrator in case total claim of dispute is Rs. 3 crores or less and in case the disputed claim is more than Rs. 3 crores, the Tribunal shall consist of odd number of Arbitrators to be nominated by the parties. The Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Arbitrators nominated by the parties in terms of Rule11.2 of SAROD. Further, the terms of appointment of Arbitrators shall be governed by Rule 11.3 to Rule 11.5, 12.2 and 13 of SAROD.
(ii) The Arbitral proceeding shall be held at Delhi (India) and the language of Arbitral proceeding and that of all correspondence between the parties shall be in English,
(iii) While the curial law of proceedings shall be Rules of the SAROD and various provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the dispute shall be governed by substantive law of India e.g The Indian Contract Act 1872 and Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, National Highways Act 1956 etc,
(iv) Code of Ethics for Arbitrators shall be governed by Rule 15 of SAROD.
(v) Fee of Arbitrators and expenses incurred in the Arbitration proceeding shall be shared by the parties in equal proportion in terms of Rule 15.10 of SAROD.
(vi) All procedural aspects in Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in terms the Rules of SAROD.
(vii) The parties shall respect the award in letter and spirit and the award shall be binding upon the parties unless the parties invoke the provision of Section 34of the Arbitral and Conciliation Act 1996 for challenging the award."
v. Since the amended clauses 44.3.1 and 44.3.2 in turn refer to the Arbitration Rules of the SAROD, it would be apposite to note hereinbelow the relevant extracts of Rule 11 thereof which deal with the appointment of Tribunal and form the fulcrum of the present dispute:
"11. Appointment of Tribunal
11.1 The disputes shall be decided by a Sole Arbitrator when the total claim of dispute is Rs.3 crores or less
11.2 In all cases of disputes claimed for more than Rs.3 crores, the tribunal shall consist of odd number of Arbitrators to be nominated by the parties. The Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Arbitrators nominated by the parties from amongst the panel maintained by SAROD. For deciding the Presiding Arbitrator, a draw of lots can be carried out from amongst the names suggested by the Arbitrators nominated by the Parties. The eligibility criteria for empanelment of Arbitrators will be decided by the Governing Body.
11.3 If a Sole Arbitrator is to be appointed, the Governing Body will appoint the Arbitrator within 21 days from the date the Respondent's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (if any) is filed or falls due, whichever is earlier. The Governing Body will appoint the Arbitrator from the panel of Arbitrators by draw of lots.
11.4 An Arbitrator/Presiding Arbitrator to be appointed under these Rules shall be a person on the SAROD Arbitration Panel as at the date of the appointment.
11.5 In the event of any party failing to appoint Arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of the notice of Arbitration, the Governing Body shall appoint the Arbitrator or Presiding Arbitrator as the case may be by a draw of lots".
vi. Once disputes grew between the parties and all attempts to conciliate failed, the petitioner invoked arbitration on 03.05.2019 and 01.06.2019 in accordance with the arbitration rules of the SAROD and on 01.06.2019, the petitioner appointed Justice (Retd.) Sh. Amitava Lala, a member of the SAROD panel, as its nominee arbitrator. Though the petitioner had proposed two separate arbitrations in respect of its two different claims, the respondent proposed a single arbitration for adjudication of all the disputes between the parties and on 01.07.2019, nominated a former judge of this court as its nominee arbitrator. However, since the said learned Judge expressed his inability to act in this capacity as he was not a member of the panel of arbitrators of the SAROD, the respondent then nominated Sh. Dedar Singh, IAS (Retd.) as its nominee arbitrator on 28.08.2019.
vii. As previously noted, Clause 11.2 of the SAROD Rules required the two nominee arbitrators to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator. However, since the two nominee arbitrators of the parties were unable to agree upon a name, the petitioner's nominee arbitrator vide its email dated 04.12.2019 informed the petitioner that no consensus could be arrived at between the two nominee arbitrators as the respondent's nominee Arbitrator was repeatedly suggesting only the names of persons who are directly or indirectly associated with the respondent.
viii. It is in these circumstances, that the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act came to be filed before this Court on 23.12.2019 on the premise that the procedure agreed upon between the parties for appointment of the presiding arbitrator had failed.
4. In support of the petition, Mr. Atul Nanda, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised two primary contentions. His first and primary contention is that the amended Clauses 44.3.1 and 44.3.2 of the supplementary agreement dated 14.07.2014 required the presiding arbitrator to be appointed by the parties' nominee arbitrators strictly in terms of Rule 11.2 and no other rule could be applied for appointment of the presiding arbitrator. As per Rule 11.2 the presiding arbitrator was required to be appointed by the parties' nominated arbitrator out of the panel of arbitrators maintained by the SAROD. For this purpose, the rules permitted the two nominee arbitrators to shortlist names from the SAROD panel and then resort to a draw of lots in order to select the presiding arbitrator therefrom, but since they have failed to do so, the prescribed procedure could not be honored. He submits that once the nominee arbitrators expressed their inability to concur upon the name of a presiding arbitrator, the respondent began claiming, contrary to the provisions of Rule 11.2, that the presiding arbitrator could be chosen by the Governing Body. He urges that this contention and the respondent's reliance on Rule 11.5 in support thereof, is wholly misplaced; once the parties had agreed, by way of the supplementary agreement, to appoint the presiding arbitrator by resorting to Clause 11.2 alone, the Governing Body cannot be said to have any role to play in his appointment. He submits that the respondents have failed to appreciate that the parties had specifically agreed to apply Rules 11.3 to 11.5, 12.2 and 13 of the SAROD Rules to the appointment of the arbitrators but have nothing to do with the procedure of appointment. His contention thus is that even though the presiding arbitrator had to be appointed from the panel of SAROD, the procedure for his appointment has to be as per the provisions of Rule 11.2, without referring to any other Rule. In support of this contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delta Mechcons (India) Ltd. v. Marubeni Corporation (2008) 15 SCC 772. Mr.Nanda, thus, contends that once this mechanism provided under Rule 11.2, which is the only procedure applicable to the parties, has collapsed, it is only this Court which is competent to appoint a presiding arbitrator under Section 11 (6)(b) of the Act.
5. Mr. Nanda further submits that while exercising its power under Section 11(6)(b) of the Act, this Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the dispute between the parties primarily relates to interpretation of a contract, would be justified in appointing any suitable person as the presiding arbitrator, irrespective of whether such person is on the SAROD panel or not. By placing reliance on Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Fiannce Ltd (2000) 8 SCC 151, he contends that once the agreed mechanism for appointment of an arbitrator has failed, the respondent's insistence on appointing the presiding arbitrator from the SAROD panel stands extinguished.
6. Mr. Nanda further submits that in any event, given the close nexus between the Governing Body of SAROD, in that many of the personnel and key officials of the society are employees of the respondent, allowing the Governing Body of SAROD to appoint the presiding arbitrator would tantamount to the respondent being bestowed with unilateral power of appointment in this case. This would be in violation of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Another v HSCC (India) Limited 2019 SCC Online 1517 whereunder an interested party in a dispute was precluded from unilaterally appointing the arbitrator in order to ensure impartiality and independence of the arbitrator adjudicating the disputes between the parties. He submits that in any event, the respondent's contention regarding the power of the Governing Body to step in and assume powers of appointment in this case, are de-hors the agreement between the parties. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, he submits that the petitioner has no objection to the appointment of a suitable member from the panel of arbitrators maintained by SAROD, as it existed on the date when the cause of action for appointment arose, or on the filing date of the present petition. He submits that even though as recently as on 31.05.2020 the SAROD panel had 177 names and was fairly broad based, the same has been arbitrarily curtailed to almost 1/6th of that number w.e.f. 01.06.2020 and as on date there are only 33 arbitrators on this panel. He further submits that the said panel is even otherwise very lopsided as it has only four legally trained arbitrators and is, therefore, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Voestalpine Schienen GMBH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (2017) 4 SCC 665. Without prejudice to his aforesaid submissions, Mr.Nanda urges that in case the respondent's plea that the presiding arbitrator must belong to the panel as it exists today - were to be accepted, then even the nominee arbitrators of the parties would require to be reconsidered as they are not on the panel as it exists today. He submits that once the two nominee arbitrators failed to appoint a presiding arbitrator, then this Court, while exercising its power under Section 11(6)(b) of the Act, can automatically relate such appointment back to the date on which the two nominee arbitrators failed to agree and the date of filing of the present petition on 19.12.2019. In these circumstances, he prays that the petition be allowed and this Court be pleased to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned senior counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposes the petition and submits that the same is premature and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. She submits that the petitioner's interpretation of the SAROD arbitration rules arises out of an incongruous reading of the provisions and is, therefore, unsustainable. On the aspect of appointing arbitrators, notwithstanding the fact that both Rules 11.2 and 11.5 make provisions in this regard, the petitioner has consciously and myopically laid emphasis only on Clause 11.2 to assert that the Presiding Arbitrator had to be appointed by the agreement of the nominee arbitrators. Yet, in the same breath, the petitioner fails to give due regard to Rule 11.5 which entrusts the Governing Body with the responsibility of appointing the nominee Arbitrators and/or the Presiding Arbitrator in case the parties fail to nominate an arbitrator within 30 days' of invocation of arbitration. In fact, Rule 11.5 cannot be neglected in this discussion considering that it is the only provision which addresses a situation where the parties have failed to reach agreement in respect of appointment. By relying on the decision in Radha Sundar Dutta Vs. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim & Ors. 1958 SCR 1309 she submits that although it is admitted that the rules do not specifically provide for the instant situation, but the resolution to this dispute lies in a harmonious construction of Rule 11 in entirety. The very fact that the Governing Body has been granted the power of appointment in a particular situation, that too for appointment of not just the nominee arbitrator but also for the presiding arbitrator, shows that the Governing Body, in essence, possesses the general power of appointing the presiding arbitrator. She submits that when the power has been restricted in a circumstantial fashion and a situation has arisen which has not been specifically envisaged but requires exercise of such power, then surely the rules can be harmoniously interpreted to allow the Governing Body to discharge this power even in this case. She further submits that in view of this position, the SAROD had accordingly issued a letter to the parties on 12.12.2019 to inform them that its Governing Body shall, in pursuance of Rule 11.5 of the SAROD arbitration rules, appoint the Presiding Arbitrator by draw of lots to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Instead, after a short period of 13 days from the date of SAROD's correspondence, the petitioner chose to institute the present petition without permitting the Governing Body to discharge its duty of appointing the Presiding Arbitrator, as stipulated under the SAROD rules. This implies that, as on date, the prescribed procedure has neither been allowed to conclude and reach fruition nor has there been a departure from the arbitration agreement till date. She submits, by relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India vs. Bumihiway D.D.B. Ltd. (JV) (2006) 10 SCC 763, State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Jindal Steel and Power Limited & Ors. C.A. No. 2747/2020, Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO MCML (JV) 2019 SCC Online SC 1635 and Voestalpine (supra), that in such a case, the mechanism which the parties have agreed upon, i.e., the procedure prescribed by the SAROD Rules, cannot be deemed as having failed and warranting the intervention of this Court. She further submits that in any event, the power of the Governing Body is not arbitrary and is subject to a prescribed procedure to ensure absolute impartiality while doing so, viz. draw of lots. She submits that the provision for draw of lots has been especially made to ensure that no allegations of partiality can ever be invited upon the Governing Body. Therefore, while the petitioner's allegations of a close nexus between the Governing Body and the respondent are entirely baseless, its apprehensions regarding any impartiality in the process of appointment are answered by the provision in the Rules for a draw of lots, which ensures maximum transparency and equality of opportunity. She further submits that ultimately, the petitioner moved this Court with the intent to have a judicial officer appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator, which is completely contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bumihiway (supra). Since the SAROD arbitration rules do not permit the parties to appoint arbitrators based on their whims, these rules have fallen out of favour with the petitioner, who is now attempting to resile from the agreed upon procedure by seeking this Court's intervention. She contends that since the present petition has been filed even before the procedure, which has been set out under the agreements executed between the parties, could be allowed to complete, the same is premature and not maintainable.
8. Ms. Acharya further submits that this petition is an attempt on the petitioner's part to suppress the respondent's party autonomy. Once the parties executed the contract which laid out a certain process for arbitration and appointment of arbitrators, they have to adhere to the same and, therefore, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the process simply because the rules are now inconvenient. In fact, the unsustainability of this petition is reflected in the fact that the petitioner's primary argument is not that the Governing Body has failed to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator under Rule 11.5, but that (1) the panel of arbitrators in the SAROD were restricted which reduced the number of judicial members therein and (2) that the Rules neither specifically provide for this situation nor envisage granting any specific power to the Governing Body to step in. In response to these objections, in addition to the submissions noted hereinabove, she submits that the petitioner knew that all panel of arbitrators are fluid and not cast in stone. In practice, panels often undergo modifications to accommodate the circumstances of the arbitrators included therein and the sudden reduction in the number of judicial members in the panel is a result of the expiry of the tenure of its members. Contrary to the petitioner's arguments, such a reduction in the number of members in the panel is neither malicious, nor intentional, it is only a result of the fact that the terms of empanelment of these arbitrators came to an end on 30.05.2020. She also contends that the reduction of the number of arbitrators in the panel cannot, in any event, be a ground to allow the petitioner to resile from the agreement or deny the Governing Body an opportunity to resolve this issue as per the Rules. In these circumstances, she prays for the present petition to be dismissed.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and, with their assistance, perused the record.
10. From the rival submissions of the parties, it is evident that both sides are ad idem that a petition under Section 11(6) would be maintainable only if the procedure agreed upon in the arbitration clause for appointment of the Arbitrator or the Presiding Arbitrator, as the case may be, has failed or alternatively when a party or the person concerned failed to adhere to the procedure they agreed upon. The parties are also ad idem that the procedure for appointment of a Presiding Arbitrator under Rule 11.2 of the SAROD Rules has failed once the nominee arbitrators were unable to agree upon the name of the Presiding Arbitrator. However, the petitioner has pleaded that in the light of this failure, only this Court is empowered to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator in exercise of its power under Section 11(6) of the Act. Per contra, the respondent has urged that once the procedure under Rule 11.2 failed, the procedure for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator as set out not only in Rule 11.2 but also in Rule 11.5 would come into effect.
11. As can be seen from a perusal of the rules reproduced in paragraph 3(v) above, Rule 11.2 provided that in all disputes involving a claim exceeding INR 3 crores, the Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of an odd number of Arbitrators; this comprises of arbitrators who are nominated by the parties, and the presiding Arbitrator selected from a list of arbitrators suggested by each nominee arbitrator. All arbitrators and the Presiding Arbitrator are required to be members of the panel of arbitrators maintained by the SAROD, as on the date of their appointment. The Rules further provide that in order to select the presiding arbitrator, resort can be made to a draw of lots in order to finalise a name from the suggestions of the nominee arbitrators. Now, while Rule 11.2 only vests the nominee Arbitrators with the right to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator by consensus or draw of lots, Rule 11.5 vests the Governing Body of the SAROD to appoint arbitrator/Presiding arbitrator, through a draw of lots. The respondent, therefore, does not deny that if it were to be held that only the procedure under Rule 11.2 is applicable to the parties, the Governing Body would have absolutely no role to play in the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator. However, as per the respondent, the procedure for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator has to be determined only upon a conjoint reading of Rules 11.2 and 11.5 which implies that as soon as the procedure under Rule 11.2 fails, Rule 11.5 automatically kicks in and the Governing Body is vested with the power to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator by a draw of lots.
12. The first and foremost question, therefore, which needs to be determined is whether Rule 11.2 has to necessarily be read in conjunction with Rule 11.5, as urged by the respondent or whether, even when the parties have unequivocally agreed to carry out the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator only as per Rule 11.2, are they still governed by the procedure under Rule 11.5 for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator.
13. The respondent, while advocating a conjoint reading of Rules 11.2 and 11.5, has vehemently urged that notwithstanding the fact that Rule 11.5 addresses situations where the parties, not their nominee arbitrators, have failed to nominate the Presiding Arbitrator, this Rule has to be interpreted pragmatically so that the implied power given to the Governing Body to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator is not rendered nugatory. Although the petitioner has contended that Rule 11.5 does not vest the Governing Body with the power to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator as it refers only to the inability of the parties and not that of the nominee Arbitrators, I am not persuaded by this argument. Once Rule 11.5 empowers the Governing Body to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator by the method of draw of lots, the provision has to be construed purposively and understood to imply that the Governing Body has the general power to carry out appointments of arbitrators and the Presiding Arbitrator once the procedure under Rule 11.2 fails. Thus, I am of the view that even though Rule 11.5 uses the phrase "In the event of any party failing to appoint Arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of the notice of Arbitration,", the same has to be read to include a situation where the nominee Arbitrators fail to appoint a Presiding Arbitrator. Merely because Rule 11.2 does not specifically provide for such a situation or invoke Rule 11.5, the same cannot used to deny the power of the Governing Body to carry out such appointments. Undoubtedly, the attempt of the Court must always be to interpret the terms of a contract in such a manner that it gives effect to all the clauses of the contract and does not render one or more clauses therein meaningless. The respondent is therefore justified in urging that Rules 11.2 and 11.5 ought to be read harmoniously and, notwithstanding the noticeable absence of any stipulation in Rule 11.5 pertaining to the failure of the nominee Arbitrators to agree upon a Presiding Arbitrator, conjointly vest the Governing Body with the power to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator by a draw of lots.
14. In the light of my conclusion that Rule 11.5 does indeed apply to cases involving appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator, it is time to examine the petitioner's plea that, notwithstanding the general application of Rule 11.5 in the appointment of a Presiding Arbitrator, since the agreement between the parties selectively provides for application of Rule 11.2 while appointing the Presiding Arbitrator, only the procedure under Rule 11.2 can be applied. Significantly, this issue will also determine whether the present petition is premature, as contended by the respondent, since the procedure prescribed under the SAROD Rules has not been allowed to conclude. Ordinarily, once I found that Rules 11.2 and 11.5 ought to be read conjointly to meet the gap in the Rules insofar as they fail to provide for such situations where consensus is lacking between the nominee arbitrators, the second question would have found a quick resolution. However, each petition has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and I find that there is a crucial point on which the facts of the present case pivot. For this purpose, it may be useful to recollect that the parties had signed a second supplementary agreement on 14.07.2014 which substantially amended the dispute resolution mechanism between the parties as contained in Clauses 44.3.1 and 44.3.2 of the original agreement signed between them, i.e. the Concession Agreement, this amendment read as under:
(i) The dispute shall be referred to SAROD for resolution by Arbitration in accordance with Rules of SAROD and Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended from time to time (or which is pending with Arbitral Tribunal presided over by ........... shall be referred to SAROD). The Arbitral Tribunal shall consist of Sole Arbitrator in case total claim of dispute is Rs. 3 crores or less and in case the disputed claim is more than Rs. 3 crores, the Tribunal shall consist of odd number of Arbitrators to be nominated by the parties. The Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Arbitrators nominated by the parties in terms of Rule 11.2 of SAROD. Further, the terms of appointment of Arbitrators shall be governed by Rule 11.3 to Rule 11.5, 12.2 and 13 of SAROD." (emphasis supplied)
15. A perusal of the aforesaid extract of Clause 1(i) of the second Supplementary Agreement signed between the parties on 14.07.2014 clearly shows their specific intent to limit the procedure of appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator exclusively to Rule 11.2. Had the parties intended to carry out appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator as per Rule 11 in entirety, they would not have restricted the amendment in this manner by solely referring to Rule 11.2 and would have instead stipulated that such an appointment would be governed by the SAROD Rules in general. I find that such specific reference to Rule 11.2 in Clause 1(i) of the second supplementary agreement is conspicuous and ought to be given full effect. Clearly, the parties had specifically agreed to apply only the procedure under Rule 11.2 for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator. Although I find merit in the respondent's contention that the procedure to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator ought not to be always restricted to Rule 11.2 but may also include the methodology of draw of lots by the Governing Body as prescribed in Rule 11.5, however, the same would be applicable only in cases where the parties have agreed simpliciter to apply SAROD rules. On the other hand, in situations like the present one where the parties have consciously and explicitly crystallized their intent to restrict the procedure for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator in terms of Rule 11.2 alone, I find that no resort can be made to Rule 11.5.
16. Conversely, in case the respondent's plea in this regard were to be accepted, the specific phrasing of Clause 1(i) of the supplementary agreement dated 14.07.2014, whereby the parties categorically agreed to vest their nominee arbitrators with the power to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator, would be rendered nugatory and would imply that contrary to their express intent, the Governing Body can still intervene in the process and appoint the Presiding Arbitrator by draw of lots. Rather, a perusal of the aforesaid amended clauses shows that the parties only intended to apply Rules 11.3 to 11.5, 12.2 and 13 for the purpose of determining the terms of appointment of the Arbitrators, but not the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator which has to be determined with reference to Rule 11.2 alone.
17. In this regard, I find merit in the petitioner's plea that while the original concession agreement executed between the parties had specifically stipulated that appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator, in the event of disagreement between the two nominee Arbitrators, shall be determined as per the rules of International Centre for Alternate Dispute Resolution, but the supplementary agreement bearing the amended arbitration clause shows the parties' conscious decision to depart therefrom by specifically stating that the appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator could be made by the two nominee arbitrators only in accordance with Rule 11.2. Although it is not for this Court to comment on the reasons for the parties to choose the procedure set out in Rule 11.2, but I find that these reasons are fairly obvious. To begin with, Rule 11.2 is significant in that it authorises only the nominee arbitrators to select their preferred Presiding Arbitrator from the panel maintained by SAROD, in which case only the two nominee Arbitrators on whom the parties have reposed their faith would have a say. On the other hand Rule 11.5 leaves this decision to chance, in that the Governing Body can simply select the Presiding Arbitrator by resorting to a draw of lots conducted out of the names of all the arbitrators in the SAROD panel which, at the time when the present petition was filed, contained around 177 names. Evidently, the parties did not desire to abandon the crucial act of appointing the Presiding Arbitrator to chance, and therefore entered into a specific agreement to decide on a Presiding Arbitrator as per Rule 11.2. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that in the facts of the present case, Rule 11.5 cannot be applied in the process of selecting the Presiding Arbitrator.
18. As noted hereinabove, the respondent has not disputed that the procedure under Rule 11.2 has collapsed and on this aspect, I have considered the respondent's reliance on the decisions in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (supra), Voestalpine (supra), and Bumihiway (supra). I find that the ratio of these decisions reiterate that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11(6) can be invoked only once the procedure for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator provided in the contract has been exhausted and has failed. Once I have come to the conclusion that it is only the procedure under Rule 11.2 which was applicable for appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator in the present case, it is evident that the agreed procedure has failed and the only remedy available to the parties is to approach the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.
19. In view of my aforesaid conclusion that the agreed procedure for appointment of Presiding Arbitrator as set down in Rule 11.2 has collapsed, the only surviving question is as to who should be appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator. The petitioner has argued, rightly so in my view, that once the mechanism to appoint the Presiding Arbitrator failed, there is no reason to restrict such appointment to an arbitrator present in the panel maintained by the SAROD. On this aspect, the respondent has contended that, notwithstanding the collapse of Rule 11.2, Rule 11.4 which strictly mandates appointment of arbitrators/Presiding Arbitrator from the SAROD panel shall still survive and determine any appointment for resolution of these disputes. The reason behind the respondent's insistence on appointing the Presiding Arbitrator out of the panel maintained by SAROD is not difficult to surmise since, admittedly, the fee structure applicable to arbitrators/Presiding Arbitrators on the SAROD panel is much lower than the fee ordinarily charged by the Arbitrators. However, admittedly, when these disputes came to be referred for arbitration to SAROD, there were 177 arbitrators in the SAROD panel, which number has been drastically reduced to 33 w.e.f. 01.06.2020. I am unable to fathom the reason behind the decision of the SAROD to constrict its panel of arbitrators from the broad based existence of 177 Arbitrators, as on 31.05.2020 to 33 arbitrators and that too with only four members with legal training. The need of having a broad based panel of arbitrators, containing persons possessing technical qualifications as also persons of a legal background, has been greatly emphasized over time. In Voestalpine (supra) the Apex Court, while dealing with the panel of Arbitrators maintained by the DMRC, had emphasized the necessity to maintain a broad based panel of arbitrators. Following the ratio in Voestalpine (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bernard Ingenieure ZT-GMBH vs. IRCON International Ltd., 2018 SCC Online Delhi 7941, after noticing the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that arbitration clauses restricting the parties' right to appoint an arbitrator of their choice ought to be deleted, had allowed the nomination of an arbitrator who was not on the DMRC panel. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the decision in Bernard Ingenieure (supra) read as under:-.
"9. In Voestalpine Schienen GMBH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited AIR 2017 SC 939, the Supreme Court was considering a similar Arbitration Agreement as in the present case. After considering the effect of Section 12(5) being introduced into the Act, the Supreme Court passed the following directions:-
"27. As already noted above, DMRC has now forwarded the list of all 31 persons on its panel thereby giving a very wide choice to the petitioner to nominate its arbitrator. They are not the employees or ex-employees or in any way related to DMRC. In any case, the persons who are ultimately picked up as arbitrators will have to disclose their interest in terms of amended provisions of Section 12 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find it to be a fit case for exercising our jurisdiction to appoint and constitute the Arbitral Tribunal.
28. Before we part with, we deem it necessary to make certain comments on the procedure contained in the arbitration agreement for constituting the Arbitral Tribunal. Even when there are a number of persons empanelled, discretion is with DMRC to pick five persons therefrom and forward their names to the other side which is to select one of these five persons as its nominee (though in this case, it is now done away with). Not only this, DMRC is also to nominate its arbitrator from the said list. Above all, the two arbitrators have also limited choice of picking upon the third arbitrator from the very same list i.e. from remaining three persons. This procedure has two adverse consequences. In the first place, the choice given to the opposite party is limited as it has to choose one out of the five names that are forwarded by the other side. There is no free choice to nominate a person out of the entire panel prepared by DMRC. Secondly, with the discretion given to DMRC to choose five persons, a room for suspicion is created in the mind of the other side that DMRC may have picked up its own favourites. Such a situation has to be countenanced. We are, therefore, of the opinion that sub-clauses (b) & (c) of Clause 9.2 of SCC need to be deleted and instead choice should be given to the parties to nominate any person from the entire panel of arbitrators. Likewise, the two arbitrators nominated by the parties should be given full freedom to choose the third arbitrator from the whole panel.
29. Some comments are also needed on Clause 9.2(a) of GCC/SCC, as per which DMRC prepares the panel of "serving or retired engineers of government departments or public sector undertakings". It is not understood as to why the panel has to be limited to the aforesaid category of persons. Keeping in view the spirit of the amended provision and in order to instil confidence in the mind of the other party, it is imperative that panel should be broadbased. Apart from serving or retired engineers of government departments and public sector undertakings, engineers of prominence and high repute from private sector should also be included. Likewise panel should comprise of persons with legal background like Judges and lawyers of repute as it is not necessary that all disputes that arise, would be of technical nature. There can be disputes involving purely or substantially legal issues, that too, complicated in nature. Likewise, some disputes may have the dimension of accountancy, etc. Therefore, it would also be appropriate to include persons from this field as well."
10. The above judgment was passed by the Supreme Court as far back, as 10th February, 2017. More than a year has passed, however, even now the so-called broadbased panel of the respondent still does not contain names of Engineers of prominence and high repute from private sector, persons with legal background like Judges and lawyers of repute, people having knowledge and expertise in accountancy etc. The panel of Arbitrators now framed by the respondent is, therefore, in my opinion, still not in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Voestalpine Schienen GMBH (supra) and, therefore, in my opinion, the respondent has failed to act in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the arbitration agreement between the parties. It is again emphasised that even the Supreme Court in the above judgment had suggested, if not directed, that a clause in
the arbitration agreement restricting the right of the contracting party to appoint/nominate his own Arbitrator should be deleted. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has already nominated Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Ex.- Addl. Member Civil, Railway Board as its nominee arbitrator. As suggested by the counsel for the petitioner, I appoint Mr.Anand Kumar, Retired Chief Engineer, Haryana Water Resources and Irrigation Department as nominee arbitrator for the petitioner. The two Arbitrators now appointed shall appoint the Presiding Arbitrator." (emphasis supplied) 20. Even though no justification has been placed on record for this drastic downsizing of the panel of arbitrators maintained by the SAROD, the respondent has sought to explain this reduction in the number of panel members as an ordinary consequence of the arbitrators' failure to seek extension of their terms which expired on 31.05.2020, on account of the ongoing pandemic. It has thus been contended that the downsizing of the panel was not a result of any deliberate attempt attributable to the SAROD, but is merely a result of change in circumstances. I am unable to appreciate this explanation as, in my view, once the SAROD is discharging an important duty of providing affordable options for arbitration to those who need it, it is incumbent for it to ensure the existence of a broad based panel in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Voestalpine (supra). Steps in this direction could have been easily taken by inviting applications for extension of term from those persons who were already members of its panel and whose terms had expired during the pandemic. The conduct of the SAROD appears to be in complete disregard of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Voestalpine (supra). Thus, even though I am inclined to appoint an Arbitrator who would be agreeable to accept the fee schedule prescribed by the SAROD, the choice cannot be limited to the present panel of SAROD which is hardly broad based, with only 4 empanelled arbitrators from a legal background viz. the other 29 arbitrators possessing administrative experience/engineering qualifications. Compared to that, the erstwhile panel, which continued to exist till 31.05.2020, was broad based in nature and was scaled down not because of any deliberate, malicious or willful removal of the arbitrators by the SAROD but on account of the expiry of the panel members' terms, which were never extended on account of the extenuating circumstances ushered in by the global pandemic. 21. At this stage, it may be noted that the petitioner has objected to appointment of the Presiding Arbitrator from the SAROD panel before this Court. It has been averred that the SAROD is a society formed by the respondent along with the National Highways Builder Federation and, as per the petitioner, is run under the aegis of the respondent. By relying on the decision in Perkins Eastman (supra), the petitioner has urged that since the secretary and other Office bearers of the governing body of SAROD are serving employees of the respondent, an independent person not related to SAROD be appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator. The petitioner apprehends that in case an arbitrator is appointed from the SAROD panel, they may not be impartial while adjudicating the disputes. I am of the view that this apprehension of the petitioner can be addressed by appointing a person from a legal background out of the erstwhile panel of arbitrators maintained by SAROD, as it existed on the date of filing of the present petition. Though the respondent has urged, by relying on the decision in Bhumihiway (supra), that the petitioner cannot insist on the appointment of a Presiding Arbitrator hailing from a legal background, I do not deem it necessary to delve into this aspect as the petitioner has not pressed its submissions on this aspect. I therefore deem it appropriate to appoint a person from the erstwhile panel maintained by the SAROD, as it existed on the date of filing of the present petition since it was the date on which the petitioner sought the intervention of this Court in the process of appointing the Presiding Arbitrator. 22. The petition is accordingly allowed and Justice (Retd.) Iqbal Ahmed Ansari (+91 99739 99900) is appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of the Concession Agreement dated 25.07.2011. It is further directed that his fee will be governed by the SAROD Rules. 23. Needless to say, before commencing arbitration, the learned Presiding Arbitrator will ensure compliance with Section 12 of the Act.


At approximately 6 p.m. on January 21, 66-year-old Ronnie L. Jones was attending a gathering of longshoremen at Selden Park in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The park is located on U.S. Highway 341 near Brunswick. Jones was in a pickup truck and stopped to talk to someone. He thought he placed the truck in park, but it was in reverse.
Jones exited the vehicle, and the open door hit him and knocked him to the ground. The pickup truck then rolled backward and ran over him. Jones suffered severe injuries, and an ambulance crew transported him to the Southeast Georgia Health System hospital in Brunswick. He tragically died at the hospital that evening.
Jones had been the owner of R.L. Jones and Sons Funeral Home since 2002. He is remembered by friends and family as someone committed to his community. Every year, Jones organized a drive for clothing, food, and Christmas toys for families in the area. He was also known for bringing food to elderly community members and nursing home residents.


People keeps talking about del.icio.us, MySpace, Digg.com, Flickr, Folksonomies, Second Life and you name it.
So you don't really understand all this stuff and want a very quick lesson in the wonders of social media and a pretty big chunk of what this Web 2.0 thing is all about? Thanks to Spannerworks you can read this free eBook: What is social media. A very nice introduction!


Perth, capital of Western Australia, is Australia's fourth largest city and is situated on the Swan River with its suburbs being located on the Indian Ocean. Although seemingly cut off from the rest of Australia, it has an easy-going, friendly and relaxed atmosphere and for those travellers with some extra time one of our Perth tours is a great addition on an Australia vacation.
It is the sunniest state capital and enjoys glorious sunny weather most of the year. This might explain the reason for the reputation of its beaches, 19 in total, all beautifully clean and uncrowded. Perth has been likened to a picture postcard.
A visit to Kings Park with its botanical garden will impress as it is larger than Central Park in New York. It is made up of not only sculpted gardens but also natural bushland.
You can take a cruise along the Swan River and view the surrounding parks and skyscrapers then discover Swan Valley and the Perth Zoo on Perth tours.
Nearby Rottnest Island is an excellent scuba diving centre and Rockingham is known for snorkeling and dolphins. Historic Fremantle is Perth's oldest port where you can sample fresh seafood.
Nearby are Monkey Mia Resort in Shark Bay with its world famous bottlenose dolphins, Margaret River, a regional wine area and the Pinnacles Desert with its sand dunes and white sand beaches.
Perth is about as far away as you can travel. However if you have the time, one of our Perth tours is a great addition to your Australian tours . C'mon say G'day Downunder. Book one of our Australia vacations today and start exploring!
Take a break from your tourist rhythms with a stay on a farm outside of Perth in Western Australia. Live on the land as you milk cows, groom horses, and learn about the rural lifestyle from a hospitable family of farmers.
Ningaloo Reef is a virtually untouched 260 km long coral reef where you can dive or snorkel with magnificent manta rays and at certain times you may be able to swim with whale sharks.
Discover Perth by embarking on a tour of Nambung National Park and the mystical Pinnacles Desert. Sample wine in the Margaret River Wine Region and drive through the Boranup Forest.
Perth is an aquatic paradise with clean beaches and pleasant river foreshores. It is an ideal base to explore the diverse surrounding areas including the colourful port city of Freemantle.
Explore the rugged and contrasting landscapes of Kimberley and the West Coast on this epic journey through Western Australia. As you pass from the Top End to Perth, you'll cruise on rivers, hike to waterholes, tour working diamond mines, explore coral reefs, relax on pristine beaches, and engage with unforgettable Indigenous cultures.


The Face of Deception – After her daughter vanishes, Eve Duncan survives by immersing herself in her work. The best in her elite field at rebuilding faces from fragments of skull bones, she helps to put a name to a face, to identify missing children. It is Eve's way of coming to terms with her personal nightmare. But more terror lies ahead when she accepts a job from billionaire John Logan. Beneath Eve's gifted hands, a face begins to emerge from the skull he has given her to reconstruct—a face that no one was ever meant to see.
The Killing Game – The killer knows Eve Duncan all too well. He knows that as one of the nation's top forensic sculptors she'll insist on identifying the nine skeletons unearthed on a bluff near Georgia's Talladega Falls. He knows she won't be able to resist the temptation of believing that one of those skeletons might be her daughter's. But that is only the beginning of the killer's sadistic game.
The Search – As part of an elite K-9 search and rescue team, Sarah Patrick and her golden retriever, Monty, have a gift for finding what no one else can. But their latest assignment is not like the others. This time Sarah is being forced to take part in a deadly mission … by a man who knows enough about her past to ensure her cooperation. Billionaire John Logan's top-secret venture has been sabotaged, its facilities destroyed, and its handpicked staff massacred. The sole survivor is being held for ransom.
Body of Lies – Eve Duncan has finally found peace from her own tragic past. Then a stunning series of seemingly unrelated events turns Eve's new world upside down. Now, in a special government facility, she takes on the project of identifying the victim's skeleton. But she hasn't even begun when another death occurs.
Dead Aim – When a dam breaks in Arapahoe Junction, Colorado, celebrated photojournalist Alex Graham is once more at the site doing more than just snapping pictures—she is in the mud with a shovel digging for survivors. She finds more than she bargained for. Billionaire financier John Logan has his own reasons for protecting Alex, and these reasons alone are likely to get her killed.
Blind Alley – Eve Duncan is working on the skull of a newly discovered Jane Doe, her face destroyed beyond recognition. But whoever killed this poor girl wasn't trying to hide her identity. The plan is far more horrifying. As the face begins to appear under Eve's skilled hands, she gets the shock of her life: The victim is someone she knows all too well. Someone who isn't dead. Yet.
Countdown – After a shocking attack shatters her world in an instant, Jane MacGuire is determined to find out who is after her, without the help of her adoptive parents, forensic sculptor Eve Duncan and her Joe Quinn–because whoever is after her won't hesitate to hurt those she loves the most. Now Jane will go on the run with the only man who may be more dangerous than those who are pursuing her.
Stalemate – One of the world's most wanted men, little is really known about Luis Montalvo except that he is extraordinarily dangerous and that he never takes no for an answer. Now he wants Eve Duncan's help in the worst way. For he believes they have something in common.
Eight Days to Live – It all begins with a painting called Guilt. Eve Duncan's daughter, Jane, has no idea why she painted the portrait of the chilling face that now hangs in a Paris gallery. But those who belong to a powerful cult―one that dates back to the time of Christ―know both the face and the significance behind it… They believe that Jane must die.
Chasing the Night – A CIA agent's two-year-old child was stolen in the night as a brutal act of vengeance. Now, eight years later, this torment is something Catherine Ling awakens to every day. Her friends, family, and colleagues tell her to let go, move on, accept that her son is never coming back. But she can't. Catherine needs to find someone as driven and obsessed as she is to help her— and that person is Eve Duncan.
Eve, Quinn and Bonnie are to be read together, this is a trilogy.
Eve – After teaming up with Agent Ling to find her missing son, Eve Duncan and Catherine share a bond forged by their mutual pain. Now, Catherine challenges Eve with a name: John Gallo. A man from Eve's past. A man, seemingly raised from the dead, whose whereabouts are unknown. Could Gallo be the missing piece to the puzzle that has haunted Eve for years?
Bonnie – With the help of Joe Quinn and Catherine Ling, Eve Duncan has come closer than ever to the truth. But the deeper she digs, the more she realizes that Bonnie's father is a key player in solving this monstrous puzzle. And that Bonnie's disappearance was not as random as everyone had always believed . . .
Sleep No More – Eve Duncan knows what it's like to be haunted by the past. Now, as she strives to begin anew, she finds herself on another missing-persons case. A woman named Beth Avery, who has been locked away in a psychiatric facility for years, has vanished. And her connection to Eve is deeper than she can imagine.
Taking Eve, Hunting Eve and Silencing Eve are also to be read together, this is another trilogy.
Taking Eve – Jim Doane wants the same kind of answers that Eve Duncan always longed for. His twenty-five-year-old son may or may not be dead, and he has only burned skull fragments as possible evidence. But he cannot go to the police for answers without exposing his dark past, so instead he chooses a bold step to find the truth―one that takes Eve down a twisted path of madness and evil and into the darkest heart of her own history.
Hunting Eve – Abducted by the deranged father of a serial killer and forced to reconstruct his dead son's skull from bone fragments, Eve Duncan is running for her life. She must use all of her strength, courage, and wits to survive this madman's obsession. But Jim Doane is not the only player in the game.
Silencing Eve – Eve Duncan appears to have been killed―that's what everyone attending her funeral thinks, at least. But even if Eve is still alive, how much longer can this charade continue before she falls into even greater danger? CIA agent Catherine Ling will waste no time trying to find out.
Shadow Play – When a California sheriff asks Eve Duncan for help with reconstructing the skull of a girl whose body has been buried for eight years, his fierce investment in the case puzzles her. But Eve experiences an immediate connection with the girl she calls Jenny, and vows to solve the murder and bring closure to the crime.
Hide Away – Eve Duncan and Joe Quinn have sworn to protect an innocent young girl, Cara Delaney, whose enemies are getting closer by the hour. Weighing her own health against Cara's safety, Eve decides they must disappear―and so she turns to her daughter, Jane MacGuire, for an unexpected solution. To be concluded in Night and Day.
Night and Day – The conclusion of the Hide Away story. Despite all precautions, Cara is taken, Eve Duncan must hunt down the very people who want to kill her. At a time in her life when she has more at stake than ever before, Eve doesn't hesitate to put it all on the line in a pulse-pounding mission of rescue and survival. . .while a brutal enemy, who watches her every move, lies in wait.
Mind Game – Scotland holds a treasure that Jane MacGuire has been hunting for years. But as she scours the Highlands in search of it, she's plagued by dreams of a girl in danger. Things are further complicated when Seth Caleb comes back into Jane's life.
Shattered Mirror – Eve Duncan receives a cryptic package containing a skull and a two-sided mirror. She is determined to reconstruct the skull and uncover the mystery of the person's identity, and when she does, the face of a beautiful woman begins to emerge. But who is she?
Dark Tribute – Despite her tragic childhood, violin prodigy Cara Delaney has finally found peace. If only Jock Gavin, Cara's lifelong friend and a man with his own twisted history, would come back into her life, everything would be perfect. But the carefully constructed world Cara has built for herself is suddenly threatened when she is kidnapped by a mysterious man trying to settle a score against her family.
Smokescreen – A journalist shows up on Eve Duncan's doorstep with a plea for help. Jill Cassidy has just come from a small African village with a heart wrenching story: half the villagers have been killed in a horrific attack by guerilla soldiers, the bodies burned beyond recognition. Now, the families desperately need Eve's help to get closure and begin to heal. But when Eve arrives in the remote jungle, she begins to suspect that Jill's plea may have been a cover story for a deeper, more sinister plot.


text:
The award-winning speech therapy site where Play Advances Language...
PAL Award
2020 PAL Awards
Play on Words speech and language expert Sherry Artemenko recognizes exceptional toys, games and books that encourage language, spark fun and invite creative play.
all PAL Award winners
Win a PAL Award for toys, books & games:
Apply for a PAL award... ►
video toy reviews
Video reviews of our PAL Award winners with tips on how to advance language through play • see PAL tips... ►
See more video reviews... ►
Birth-2 yrs ►
2 years + up ►
Sherry, thank you so much for working with my girls for so long. Your kindness, thoughtfulness, insight and professionalism made our experience so meaningful. My husband and I appreciate all you have done for them. Let's keep in touch. Thanks again. Mother of 3 and 5 year-old girlsGreenwich, CT
Sherry, thanks for giving us back our son. We are so grateful for everything you did for Ben and our family. Not seeing you every week makes me feel that something is missing… but we look forward to a summertime walk! We miss you, Nicole, mother of 2 year-old boy who was dismissed from therapyWestport, CT
Thank you Sherry! You are a BIG help and Max adores you. Maria, mother of a 5 year-old boyFairfield, CT
About: Sherry Artemenko, Speech Language Pathologist
Sherry Y. Artemenko M.A., C.C.C.
Speech Language Pathologist, Writer, Toy Consultant
For more than 35 years, Sherry Artemenko has worked with children to improve their speech and language, serving as a speech language pathologist in both the public and private school systems and private practice.
Working and playing with children daily, Sherry has become an expert in evaluating children's toys, games, and books for their language-building value. She founded the PAL Award (Play Advances Language), to recognize exceptional examples of these products. She has been referenced as a speech expert in Parents Magazine, parenting.com, San Francisco Chronicle and The Chicago Tribune, as well as contributed guest blogs to ASHAsphere, Love That Max, and ASTRA's blog. Her blog, playonwords.com is frequently highlighted in ASHA Leader Magazine.
Sherry is featured regularly as an expert and her insights shared on FOX and NBC TV News affiliates recommending "Smart Toys" and her "Top 10 PAL Picks."
She advises children's authors and startups for children's toys and media.
Sherry started Play on Words LLC in 2003, after 16 years with the Fairfield Public Schools. The mission of her practice is threefold: 1) to serve as a therapist to children with special needs, helping to build their speech and language skills and 2) to assist new moms and dads of typically developing children, ages birth to 3 years, as a personal trainer, teaching parents how to talk, read and play with their child to enhance language, and 3) to advise parents, companies and authors on the attributes of the best toys, games and media to build language.
Prior to establishing Play on Words LLC, Sherry's career as a speech language pathologist spanned 22 years in the Illinois and Connecticut public and private schools, where she worked with pre-school to high school-aged children with special needs. In this capacity, she served on multidisciplinary diagnostic teams at the preschool and elementary levels. In addition, she helped to develop programs for teaching language through literature and worked in collaboration with classroom teachers to bridge language, reading and writing in school curriculum.
Sherry graduated from Northwestern University with a Bachelor of Science and Master of Arts degrees in Communicative Disorders. Licensed in Wisconsin, she is a certified member of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. She is Chair of the National Board of Directors for "YoungLives," providing support for single teenage moms and their babies.
Sherry and her husband Bob were long-time residents of Connecticut and recently moved to Wisconsin. They have three sons who served as Sherry's first Play on Words clients: Bill, Yale 2000, Andrew, Northwestern University 2003, and Peter, Duke University 2005, and acquired three amazing daughters through marriage. Sherry and Bob are blessed with 10 precious grandchildren who love to play with Sheshe and Artie.
Robert Artemenko
B.A., Economics, M.M. Marketing, Northwestern University
Word Lover, Toy Builder and Reviewer
Bob Artemenko began his 34 years with IBM selling and managing sales in Chicago and New York. He was an executive in international marketing and strategy, working with computer server, services and financing divisions. He was recognized for his abilities to interpret complex, competitive and organization challenges, communicate coherent problem statements with solutions, and lead teams toward issue resolution and growth.
Translating his experience to other industries has come naturally.
1. Working at IBM, teaching in Fairfield University's business program, and getting his Masters from Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management have shown him that "marketing" is centered more around the profession's principles and disciplines than the plethora of products introduced continuously. Assembling Lego and Playmobil's pretend play vignettes and vehicles, playing all kinds of spinner and strategy games, wowing kids with realistic Folkmanis hand puppets or lovingly created books – have demonstrated that it's still all about satisfying markets with uniqueness and value as seen through that consumer segment's eyes. "Knowing their hearts, you can delight them and build successful business models serving them – everyone wins."
2. Serving the Toy Industry advances on the written and spoken word like other ventures. Customers, developers, producers, publishers, influencers and their management all need to be understood and helped via communicating. An avid reader and writer, Bob has always honored the value of words.
3.He loves to play. An All-Big Ten Big Ten shortstop, Yankee minor league pitcher and cyclist riding thousands of miles a year (with Sherry!), he's always balanced the cerebral and relational with the recreational. His love of airplanes lead him to get his pilots license in 2009.
Bob finds great fulfillment in partnering with Sherry at Play On Words LLC to help parents, care givers and educators use the pervasive media of mass marketed toys, games and books to go beyond the $ Billions spent entertaining, to show the ways that the very best of them can fortify language, the power of which enables productive lives, careers and character.
"The limits of my language means the limits of my world."
― Ludwig Wittgenstein
Follow Play on Words...
sherry in the news
See more Sherry's news... ►
sherry's FAQ
Copyright © 2020 Play On Words. All rights reserved. Terms Of Use


22 Jul - 8 min - Uploaded by bitburner THIS VIDEO IS OLD SEE A HD UPDATED BETTER VIDEO HERE: http://www. lakecitychambertn.com 13 Jan - 2 min - Uploaded by MigsMadness MAME Tutorial - Arcade Games on PC! ▻ MAME DOWNLOAD LINK: http://www. How to Use MAME For Playing Arcade Games On Your Windows PC. Download MAME Binaries. Extract the files. You will want to download roms to use with MAME. When you download MAME Roms, they come in ZIP format. Bring up a DOS command prompt. Type "cd\" to go to the root directory. Type "cd mame" to go into the "C:\mame".
MAME is the name that matters for arcade game and PC emulators. Its aim is to preserve the PC and gaming past—and let you enjoy them. MAME, which stands for Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator, is a program that allows you to play arcade games directly from your Windows computer. To install and use MAME, you must first download MAME from the developer's official website, then download ROMs and move them to your MAME folder. MAME, or Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator, is a software that allows you to play several games on your computer and, therefore, without.
Check out this super easy tutorial, that will have you playing any kind of MAME roms on your computer! Today's tutorial will only outline how to. Over time, MAME (originally stood for Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator) absorbed Recent improvements in NEC PC emulation have seen dozens of titles. MAME latest version: Emulator that lets you play thousands of games. MAME . How to play thousands of retro arcade games for free on your PC. MAME Emulators for Windows. MAME Download: lakecitychambertn.com Size: 58M Version: Homepage · RetroArch. Download: RetroArchz.


In Num 10:11 the people of Israel begin to "set out by stages from the wilderness of Sinai" where they have been since Exodus 19:1. Following the cloud by day first to the wilderness of Paran (Num 10:11, 34). Next, following the quail incident, "the people journeyed to Hazeroth" (Num 11:35). "After that [the seven days Miriam was unclean with a skin disease] the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran" (Num 12:16). So we are still in the same general region where we started. From this wilderness went the spies into the land of Canaan. It looks like the people successfully move again when they "came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh" (Num 20:1). Next they would journey from Kadesh to Mount Hor (Num 20:22), and then on eventually to the plains of Moab (Num 22:1). A more specific account of the places where they stopped is given in Num 33:16-49.
The people left in a particular order — "the people of Judah set out first" (Num 10:14). Issachar and Zebulun followed (Num 10:15-16). The tabernacle was dismantled and the Gershonites and Merarites set out (Num 10:17). Reuben, Simeon, and Gad followed (Num 10:18-20). Then the Kohathites set out (Num 10:21), followed by Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin (Num 10:22-24). And finally the people of Dan, Asher, and Naphtali set out (Num 10:25-28). The order follows from east, south, west, north through the tribes by prominence as discussed in the previous post. But the order of the Levites does not follow in the same way but seems to be for practical reasons. Then Moses encouraged his father-in-law to come too (Num 10:29-32).
But the next chapter begins ominously, "And the people complained in the hearing of YHWH about their misfortunes [evil], and when YHWH heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of YHWH burned among them and consumed some outlying parts of the camp" (Num 11:1). Moses interceded for the people who had tested God and the fire died down (Num 11:2). Afterwards, they named the place "burning" (Num 11:3). This is the first test of chapter 11.
The second test, as Duguid explains it, begins with verse 4 where the people complained about the manna, which was excellent food (cf. Num 11:7-8). The story begins, "Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving" (Num 11:4) and ends, "Therefore the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah [footnote says this means "graves of craving"], because there they buried the people who had the craving" (Num 11:34). In the middle should have been the intercession of Moses to follow the pattern of verses 1-3. But this time Moses complained instead of interceding for the people.
Therefore the second episode is much longer as it tells us about the judgment against Moses. In this judgment, some of the Spirit that was upon him was put on seventy of the elders of Israel (Num 11:16ff). These briefly prophesied (Num 11:25) as a sign that they had received the Spirit including two that remained in the camp (Num 11:25ff). But even though this was a judgment against the leadership of Moses and the people now would ramp up their complaints about the leadership of Moses, he said, "Would that all YHWH's people were prophets, that YHWH would put his Spirit on them!" (Num 11:29). I have referenced this in the past as a text helpful in understanding the Day of Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. The people would then also prophesy briefly (speaking in tongues) as a sign showing they had received the Spirit, but this time the Spirit would be poured out indiscriminately. The basic point here being that Moses learned his lesson and sees that God can turn this curse (like those in Genesis) into a blessing. Thus we have one of the elements of the gospel — the promise of the giving of the Spirit.
Not surprisingly then, Aaron and Miriam, especially since Aaron had a portion of the Spirit that should have been on Moses, confront Moses "because of the Cushite woman whom he had married" (Num 12:1). We have the interesting aside, "Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth" (Num 12:3). Interesting since the meek will inherit the land (Psa 37:11, Matt 5:5), but Moses does not get to enter it. In any case, Aaron and Miriam also have prophesied and so they resist the leadership of Moses (cf. Num 12:2). And YHWH came down in a pillar of cloud (like the previous judgment against Moses, Num 11:25) to declare His verdict regarding Aaron and Miriam saying, "If there is a prophet among you, I YHWH make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of YHWH. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Num 12:6-8). And the anger of God was kindled against them and made Miriam unclean for seven days (Num 12:10ff).
In the next wilderness, Moses sent the spies into the land. The order of the spies' tribes (Num 13:4ff) is: Reuben, Simeon, Judah (Caleb), Issachar, Ephraim (Hoshea the son of Nun, otherwise known as Joshua), Benjamin, Zebulun, Manasseh, Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad. There are a total of twelve tribes, Levi is again not included. Joshua's tribe of Ephraim is promoted. The usual order of prominence would continue with the other son of Leah, Zebulun. Instead, Issachar is followed by Ephraim and Zebulun by Manasseh. Thus the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh are split apart. Benjamin, Joseph's little brother, follows Ephraim. A Jewish article observes that they are in chiastic order — four sons of Leah, two sons of Rachel, son of Leah and son of Rachel (Joseph, that is Manasseh), four sons of maidservants. The sons of Joseph open and close the center of the chiasm. Since it is the tribes of Israel there is still order.
Not insignificantly the spies spied for forty days (Num 13:25) and at the end of this time of testing they, with the exception of Caleb (Num 13:30, 14:6) and Joshua (Num 14:6-9), returned demonstrating a lack of faith (Num 13:28-29, 32-33). That the point is about faith is clear in YHWH's question: "How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them? (Num 14:11). Thus God says that He will make a nation of Moses but Moses interceded for Israel. The judgment: "none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the test these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their fathers. And none of those who despised me shall see it (Num 14:22-23). The people failed the forty day test of the spies and the number of times the people tested God was full (ten), many followed by plagues (i.e., Exo 32:35, Num 11:33, 14:37). The ten unbelieving spies died in a plague and those twenty years and up in the census besides Caleb and Joshua later died in the wilderness (this would not include the Levites). Some a few verses later as the people presumptuously attacked the Amalekites and Canaanites (Num 14:39ff).
The theme of the gospel going to the nations also is prominent in this text. After all, Aaron and Miriam are complaining because Moses' wife is a Gentile and Moses pleads with his father-in-law to stay with them in the journey of faith. And yet all of the grumbling demonstrated a lack of faith in this generation of Israelites. As of this point in Scripture we still await the one who is the son of the Father spoken of by the servant in His house (Heb 3:5-6).


This APK is signed by Kabam Games, Inc. and upgrades your existing app.
• Alliance Mission Map 3 has been reworked providing increased difficulty and rewards!
Calling all Autobots, Decepticons, Predacons and Maximals!
Join Optimus Prime, Megatron, Bumblebee, Waspinator, Rhinox, Grimlock, Soundwave and many more of your favorite bots in the battle for supremacy where Transformers universes collide. This exciting action-fighting RPG brings the heroic storytelling and spectacular action from over 30 years of Transformers history to your mobile device!
TRANSFORMERS is a trademark of Hasbro and is used with permission. © 2019 Hasbro. Licensed by Hasbro. TRANSFORMERS: Forged to Fight software © 2019 Kabam Games, Inc. Developed by Kabam. All rights reserved.