However it's put, the point is the same. And for the sake of argument let's accept it as true. We'll concede the point for now: Jesus obeyed the Law perfectly; we do not, and so our ability to be accepted by an absolutely holy God in the face our own absolute unholiness (our "fallen state") depends entirely upon Jesus's perfect obedience. That perfect obedience means perfect innocence before the Judgment Throne, which is then applied to the guilty—or at least those whom God has given the grace to receive it (the doctrine of "election")—and this is how we can be saved.
Now, a dizzying amount of intellectual gymnastics must be performed to make this case, complete with a landing that doesn't quite stick. Christian soteriology is one long smorgasbord of rational error, with contradictions tripping over themselves as they fight for space, and it begs a lot of questions. Questions which of course are never really covered in the church, let alone answered…not at least since John Calvin "answered" them by burning Michael Servitus at the stake. But, like I said, we willl accept the aforementioned explication of the salvation process for now.
Also, I ask the reader to please note that in accepting the terms of Christian soteriology in this article I must ignore the fact "choose to obey" is a contradiction in terms, as obedience is simply forced compliance which has nothing actually to do with choice ("you will obey or die" is NOT a choice, but is, in reality, quite the opposite). So, I will assume for now that Christ, in keeping the Old Testament commandments, used his will and chose to do so, as opposed to God using threats and force to compel him. In other words, I will assume that Christ's relationship to the Law is one of voluntary acceptance and not authoritarian coercion, even though by definition law demands that you obey it, it doesn't accept that you may choose not to. Of course the law would accept it if the law had anything really to do with choice. But then it wouldn't be the law.
In looking at the claim that Christ fulfills the Law for us, we naturally ask how? To which the orthodox reply is that he ACTED in a way which satisfied the commandments, perpetually, for those who accept the imputation of the righteousness that this implies. In other words, Christ's behavior reflected the commandments of the Law. The Law commanded, and Jesus acted accordingly.
We could thus say that it was Jesus's obeyance of the Law which allayed the wrath of God towards us (through him) and not because he WAS God (accepting, only for now, the veracity of the Trinity doctrine). In other words, we must assume that Christ was not given an automatic dispensation simply for being God. His willful obedience of the Law thus is the only possible explanation for his fulfillment of it. In fact, being God doesn't imply fulfillment the Law as as much as it implies a circumvention of it.
Let's pose this as a question.
Is Christ's fulfillment of the Law a function of his willful obedience or a function of him simply BEING Christ (which equals being God)?
Here is where we find the problem which undermines the entirety of Christian theology, I submit. As usual, greed gets in the way of truth. Like all authoritarian ideologies, they want their metaphysical cake and to eat it, too. For Christians answer this question predictably. They will say both. And why is this predictable? Because contradiction is ALWAYS their response to questions concerning doctrinal premises.
But reason, and therefore objective truth, doesn't contain a rational frame of reference for contradiction…which in this case is the claim that Christ merits what isn't actually merited. Either Christ CHOSE to obey the Law or he fulfills the Law by metaphysical fiat. To say it's both is to say it's neither. And that's nonsense, of course. Fake words.
…it gets worse, because Christianity further fuses the false "thought/choice" singularity with an ABSOLUTE ETHICAL value. It makes ALL of Christ's choices ethically GOOD by applying to Christ a "metaphysically ethical" (or we could say moral) value of Absolute Goodness; and it conversely makes ALL of man's choices EVIL by applying to man a "metaphysically ethical" value of Absolute Evilness. This is why man cannot CHOOSE to keep the Law, and Christ always CHOOSES to do so.
Man, we are told, cannot keep the Law because he is fallen. By dint of his birth, or the fundamental existential depravity he acquires at birth (same difference), he CANNOT consistently ("perfectly" is the religious euphemism) follow God's commandments. He has free will—this the Christian will concede—and CAN thus freely choose to do so, but because of his depraved nature WILL NEVER ACTUALLY choose to do so. In other words, his disobedience is a free choice that is utterly determined by his nature. His free will will only ever lead to a confirmation of his root metaphysical wickedness. His "choice" is always simply a reflection of his root moral-metaphysical Identity: Evil. Man is free to sin…but to ONLY to sin. Man is choosing his own condemnation, which is HIMSELF. Because he acts from his root moral-metaphysical Identity, and his root moral-metaphysical Identity is Evil, it is only possible for him to choose to disobey the Law.
Now, the reason I say it is a "moral-metaphysical Identity", and not a simply metaphysical Identity, is because Christianity, as I mentioned earlier, merges metaphysics with ethics. In other words, it fuses two completely distinct philosophical categories. And in this way they believe they can claim that man is responsible for his own condemnation, via choice, and yet ALSO claim man's CATEGORICAL moral degeneracy as a function of simply existing at all.
Christ's choices are determined by a singular source—his moral-metaphysical Identity of GOODNESS—that represents the inevitable conclusion of every choice. All of Christ's choices will be in obedience to the Law; he cannot choose any other way, and yet still he is choosing. He is PRE-DETERMINED to always chose to keep the Law, just as man is PRE-DETERMINED to always choose to break it.
Remember, I am not making the argument that ANY of this makes sense. On the contrary, it is entirely EMPTY of sense. It is gnostic determinism in Enlightenmnet garb. This eradication of the lines between meaning and meaninglessness, between metaphysics, epistemology and ethics; the ascribing of blame to man and credit to Christ whilst also claiming that all choice is a pre-determined function of one's declared root moral-metaphysical Identity; the clumsy integration of reason and mysticism…this is only what passes for truth in the Christian faith, not was truth actually is.
Behind it all is a fulcrum of intransigent nonsense upon which the entire theology pivots and directs itself. Thousands of years of equivocation, propaganda, and fear mongering have made the faith enigmatic and arcane enough, and the masses uncertain and anxious enough, to allow it to permeate the souls of billions of people, and to settle there with almost no resistance, and concommittantly without love. There is no love without truth. And there is no truth in the church.
How does Christ fulfill the Law for us? Is it because he is God, or because he chose to obey?
If we say it is because of his choice, then morality is a function of making the right decisions in the face of moral options. And thus man can likewise choose to make the right decisions and likewise fulfill the Law. But if we say that man cannot choose to make the right decisions because he is man, whereas Christ is God and thus can, morality and the fulfillment of the Law have nothing to do with choice at all, but are simply a pre-determined function of what one IS (his moral-metaphysical Identity) and not what one BELIEVES.
You see, belief drives the distinction between right and wrong and thus informs all of choice…which doesn't actually exist because it is absolutely pre-determined, which makes it a contradiction in terms. Of course this nullifies "belief in Christ" as having any rational meaning and thus any moral value. One's belief in Christ is irrelevant given the fact that he doesn't actually choose or not choose to follow Christ; his nature DICTATES and DETERMINES his choice.
Choice, being determined by one's moral-metaphysical Identity (e.g. Christ = Good and Man = Evil) is not actually choice. Which means that Christ did not in fact make any right choices in fulfilling the Law and man did not make any wrong choices in disobeying it. Christ was ALWAYS going to do good because he IS Good, and man was always going to do evil because he IS Evil.
So in conclusion, here is the truth that we all really need to accept; we need to stop holding on to childish, fantastical interpretations of reality. For fantasy, when we attempt to make it reality, is just hell.
If what we believe matters, and from that belief we act, and those actions matter, and thus both belief and action have real moral value, then man is capable, in and of himself, of fulfilling the Law because he is capable of making REAL and EFFICACIOUS choices. His nature is to apprehend right and wrong and to make REAL DECISIONS accordingly. For man THINKS, and to think is to believe, and belief matters because it drives actions and consequences, and those consequences are what the Law morally values. To say that man cannot fulfill the Law in and of himself BECAUSE HE IS MAN is to render thought and belief and action and consequence irrelevant, which makes the moral valuing of consequence irrelevant, which makes the LAW irrelevant, which makes CHRIST irrelevant.
Truth which cannot be acted upon and confirmed by REAL CHOICE by man and Christ precludes ANY Law based upon its moral implications. There is no moral value to the Law then if one cannot CHOOSE to follow it. And if the Law has no moral value then it can serve as no measure of Christ's perfect life which is thus imputed to man so he can be saved.
The entirety of Christian theology is top-heavy with intellectual error: determinism, the suffocation of morality, the death of meaning, and the rejection of the will. It totters and collapses accordingly.


text:
Restoration and Remediation Industry News
EPA Launches Modernized Design for the Environment Logo for Disinfectant and Other Antimicrobial Products
Image courtesy of the U.S. EPA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is launching a new, modern Design for the Environment (DfE) logo that will appear on antimicrobial products like disinfectants and sanitizers within the next year. EPA's DfE logo is designed to help consumers and commercial buyers identify antimicrobial products that meet the health and safety standards of the normal pesticide registration process required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as well as other criteria required by the agency.
"Protecting the health and safety of our families and our homes is central to EPA's mission," says Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. "EPA is excited to take the DfE program to the next level with a bold, new logo to further empower consumers to make environmentally and health-conscious buying decisions."
To further EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment, in 2009 the DfE program began including products that sanitize and disinfect, including wipes and sprays used to treat surfaces like countertops, tubs, tile and toilets. To qualify for the DfE logo, every ingredient in a product must meet a set of chemical and toxicological standards.
The EPA says it has seen a surge of engagement in the last few years from consumers, schools and other organizations who want to know more about how the products they use affect their health and the environment — and who are eager to make the most responsible purchasing choices they can. The updated logo aims to make DfE-certified products easier for purchasers to find, which in turn will encourage companies to seek certification for their products.
Companies who make products carrying the DfE logo have invested heavily in research and reformulation to ensure that their products meet the DfE certification requirements. Pursuing DfE certification provides an opportunity for companies to work toward their sustainability goals.
DfE products meet criteria that evaluate human health and environmental effects, product performance, packaging, and ingredients. The requirements are intended to:
minimize any possible risks to human health by excluding ingredients that might have the potential to negatively impact young children, cause cancer, or have other negative effects;
further protect fish and other aquatic life;
minimize pollution of air or waterways and prevent harmful chemicals from being added to the land; and
ensure products have no unresolved compliance, enforcement, or efficacy issues.
EPA does not consider the logo to be an endorsement. Similar to saying a pesticide is "EPA-registered" because EPA has found it meets the registration standard, the DfE logo indicates that the product has been reviewed and meets the FIFRA registration standard as well as the standards for the DfE program.
To learn about the process for seeking DfE certification for antimicrobial products, see EPA's website.
KEYWORDS: business branding chemicals mold remediating products sustainability
Design for the Environment: the Federal Standard for Environmentally-Friendly Disinfectants
5 Criteria for Choosing a Disinfectant
ICP's Benefect® Products Certified as the First and Only 100%-Biobased Disinfectant Technology by the USDA

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Film Walrus Reviews
Meth labs, child neglect, chill weather, cattle shows, Cardinal's regalia, squirrel hunting, military aspirations, yards full of trucks, bales of hay and barbed wire, framed pictures of cats, bad roots and worse facial hair.
Yup, "Winter's Bone," already being declared one of the best films of the year so far, is definitely set in my adopted home state of Missouri. It won the top prize at Sundance this year.
Ree Dolly is a young girl in the Ozarks who's become a rather self-sufficient parent to her younger siblings in lieu of their mentally absent mother and physically absent father. When she learns that her dad, who until recently was serving a jail sentence for drug production, put up their home for bail and then skipped town, she has no choice but to hunt him down through his unsavory relatives and coconspirators. Her questions stir up a hornet's nest. The resulting nightmare is film noir served Missouri-style.
Jennifer Lawrence is superb in the central role and the supporting cast is memorably colorful without sacrificing the degree of development and realism necessary to avoid the usual 'evil hillbilly' clichés. The plot builds with just the right level of mounting suspense and foreboding and plays out like a Coen brothers film without the amused detachment.
Daniel Woodrell, author of the source novel, has previously had his novel "Woe to Live On" adapted by Ang Lee as "Ride with the Devil" (released by Criterion this April).
Posted by FilmWalrus at 4:09 PM 3 comments:
Labels: 2010s, News and Trivia, Noir, St Louis Film Scene, Sundance, USA
Review of Night Bacon
I generally try to avoid writing negative reviews, and I've vowed as much before, but catching an advanced screening of "Night Bacon: The Movie" (2010) a few days ago, I feel actively obligated to break that vow. Being moderately familiar with the television show I had pretty low expectations to begin with, but decided to attend because (a) it was free, (b) I try to keep up on even bad animation and (c) a friend invited me who claims, incomprehensibly, to be a big fan. I'm assuming his enthusiasm is all part of that inexhaustible 80's nostalgia thing, but I hated the show even as a kid.
Though "Night Bacon," the cartoon series, was an indelible part of my childhood and that of most people growing up in 1980's Kansas, I realized later (when it came up in conversation at college) that almost nobody outside of the Midwest has even heard of the show. That's not surprising, in retrospect, since I find on Wikipedia that it was funded exclusively by Wichita Pork Agglomeration and produced by their small animation subsidiary, Porktoons, not far from where I grew up. The low-grade animation, moronic plots, obnoxious music and appalling misinformation served as little more than an extended commercial for pork products and the show, sensibly enough, was never carried by any station outside of Wichita Pork Agglomeration's sales region.
So for those of you from the west coast, east coast and the world at large, who missed out on the experience, I present a pseudo-summary of the television series cobbled together from my distant memories and a few quick internet searches:
The star was Francis, a rather generic all-around boy genius and pop singer who transforms, at dusk, into dashing crime-fighting superhero Night Bacon. Night Bacon looks exactly like a giant strip of bacon, but retains Francis's eyes and mouth. In a strangely cannibalistic twist, which never seemed to bother me as a kid, Night Bacon eats large quantities of regular-sized bacon for energy.
I never saw the earliest episodes, but my friend (the "big fan") says that the origin involved Francis's mother being bitten by a Pork Fairy while pregnant, causing Francis to be born with all the intelligence of a human boy, but with the innate superpowers of bacon. The list of these superpowers was endless, but apparently in constant flux due to the show's total lack of continuity. The writers would invent or forget about powers depending on the needs of the current episode, but the one semi-consistent element was the Bacon Ray, which was usually deployed at the last minute as an irresistible killing blow.
Even the Bacon Ray alternated inexplicably between a lightning bolt that fried villains into, you guessed it, more bacon and a laser beam that caused foes (even chickens) to explode into bacon bits. I have a fuzzy memory of one occasion when the Bacon Ray was portrayed as a rainbow (a la the Care Bears), but with the colors restricted to the meat spectrum (dark red to pulpy yellow), in keeping with the show's exhausting, though immediately-recognizable, color scheme.
I do remember the Pork Fairies, which were a reoccurring element of the show and, though surreal, actually kind of adorable. The Pork Fairies were smiley, winged, nearly-circular pigs that frolic and flutter happily in the woodlands of some unspecified third-world country. Their habitat is constantly under threat by foreign conspiracies to cut down the forest and plant oat fields and vegetable gardens (invariably portrayed as menacing and undesirable). Francis, his best friend Roger and the rest of the gang (all members are his father's Friendly Meat Corporation) are constantly trying to save the lovable Pork Fairies from misguided activists and vegetarians. These scenarios are typical examples of "Night Bacon" appropriating, and inverting, environmentalist rhetoric towards its own twisted ends.
Francis had a laboratory where he produced the inevitable stream of wacky gadgets that appeared in every animated kid's show of that era. He also had Maria Porkova, a sexy lab assistant whose outfits and pork-based innuendo never seemed appropriate for the target audience and never had anything to do with the plot. Her one task seemed to be running the Baconizer, a hovering, spinning golden ring. The Baconizer is the one part of the show I will never, never forget, though I often wish I could. The Pork Fairies, willingly self-sacrificing to assist Francis, would leap through the Baconizer which magically transformed them into a flurry of energy-providing bacon to fuel Night Bacon's superpowers.
While the Baconizer completely misrepresents the complicated and gory process by which bacon is actually made, one decision by the creators, doubtlessly intended to make us worry even less about the poor Pork Fairies, made the entire thing almost traumatizing. This was the shrill, giddy, hysterical giggle that the Pork Fairies emitted as they passed through the Baconizer. Watching clips on YouTube, this hideous laughter still sends chills down my spine. Nothing and nobody should ever be so… happy. According to the trivia on the official fan site the Baconizer was originally going to be called the Super Laughter Ring, or SLaughteRing for short (whose idea was that?), and the sound bite was recorded with that in mind. Since the show regularly recycled whatever animation they already had, it was never changed.
Like with a lot of other Saturday morning cartoons, the best part of Night Bacon was often the villains. These fell into two categories. The first were miscellaneous monsters-of-the-weeks like the Asian stereotype Master Veggie Med-Lee, psychotic Professor Health Nut, clueless vampire Count Calory and the nefarious Vitamen from Venus. Even as a kid I remember thinking these villains were awfully tasteless and sent a horrible dietary message for impressionable kids.
The other type of badguy was poultry, usually chickens, but drawn to look more like vultures, harpies and gargoyles. They were frequently depicted as bumbling, unsanitary and suffering from leprosy. The birds lived segregated from the rest of society (my friend claims this was a race metaphor) and were usually just ignored by Night Bacon (though due to a favor he performed in some episode I never saw, he was occasionally allowed into their exclusive Turkey Club), but they inevitably turned out to be working as henchmen for the main villains.
One of the shows running gags will give you some idea of the shocking amount of violence (to say nothing of the sex) that eventually caused so many complaints that "Night Bacon" was moved from Saturday mornings to Tuesday Evenings. This running gag involved the chickens, who often ended up in police custody or were otherwise subdued by Night Bacon by the end of the episode. Then, mere moments before the episode ended and for no reason whatsoever Night Bacon would slash off the heads of the captive chickens and their bodies would dance around spastically to the closing credit music. If that weren't enough, the intermittent gouts of blood that squirted from their necks splattered, as though on a camera lens, to form the names in the credits.
I remember that my mom HATED "Night Bacon" (she never knowingly let us watch it) and nothing more so than the gratuitous violence directed at chickens. And yet, on cleaning out my closet in my parent's home some years ago, I discovered that it was a plastic toy chicken that was the sole item of "Night Bacon" merchandizing that I apparently ever possessed. The chicken was meant to be filled with ketchup through (I kid you not) a cap right where the anus should be and the head could be removed so that the ketchup could be squeezed out through the neck. I never liked ketchup and my "Night Bacon" chicken has, consequently, never been used. I'm tempted to see if I can get anything for it on Ebay.
The animation was always abysmal, even lazier than the worst moments in Rocky and Bullwinkle or Schoolhouse Rock, from which it borrowed many of its money-saving techniques. These included not only repeating clips, but lengthy segments of looping, most notably during the shows insufferable musical interludes. These involved two practically interchangeable bands: (1) Francis and the Sausage Links, who played mindless techno beats with Francis singing in falsetto and a trio of sausages providing backup, and (2) Sergeant Pepperoni's Hearty Breakfast Band, which featured bad pork-themed parody songs and commercial jingles.
Francis and the Sausage Links would often play for several minutes at a time with no visual accompaniment other than the titular strip of bacon and the three sausages waggling around in front of microphones. The whole thing was mysteriously hypnotic and vaguely obscene. Sergeant Pepperoni's Hearty Breakfast Band only stuck around for half a season, partly because of Porktoon's failure to negotiate music rights and partly because their blatantly unhealthy advice caused several accidents amongst young viewers. Lyrics varied from the stupid and disgusting ("sausage grease brings world peace, but bacon fat is where it's at!") to the dangerously self-serving, like telling kids that "vegetables are a fad" and to eat a pack of bacon "once a day and twice at night!"
Even less animation effort was involved with the once-an-episode speeches delivered by Pork President Alexander Hamilton, who was drawn as a strip of bacon with a blue square face in one corner, designed to look like an American flag with the streaks of meat and fat serving as the red and white stripes. Only the mouth would move during the speeches, which could run for five minutes and consisted of little but dishonest propaganda about the health benefits of pork products and the dangers of a diet high in fruits and vegetables.
For example: "You wouldn't eat a dirty penny you found on the ground, would you? Or a trampled gob of bubble gum? Or a hunk of dog excrement? And yet many people eat stuff that grows in and on the ground every day! I ask you, is that wise? Is that sanitary?" These rants often sounded closer to Mussolini than any American president, let alone our first Secretary of the Treasury. The FCC made Porktoons cease airing these segments after a 1984 court decision.
The movie adaptation includes cameos from Hamilton and almost every other character from the series, although the chickens are conspicuous absent and are, in fact, never even referred to. Hamilton commissions Francis and Roger to stop a group of terrorist Neutritionists [sic] who have convinced the world that bacon is dangerously high in fat and sodium and should only be eaten only in moderation. Night Bacon soon discovers that the Neutritionists are not what they seem. Their real motive is to enslave the human race by turning them into health-obsessed zombies using their Neutriton bombs, which can only be resisted by eating excessive amounts of bacon. As Maria Porkova says, "At least a dozen strips of bacon per meal is the only guarantee for immunity. And after a strip, a big juicy sausage is just the thing!"
Night Bacon is captured after taking a bath in his restorative grease reservoir, which Doctor von Vegan has maniacally replaced with strength-sapping vegetable oil. Just when all seems lost, Francis administers a light "pork chop" to Doctor von Vegan's scrawny neck, and he withers like a punctured balloon, but not before activating his Organic Farming Doomsday Device. Night Bacon remembers his trusty Bacon Ray just in time (the device's countdown shows one billionth of a second remaining) to destroy the machine and save the day. In celebration, his father's Friendly Pork Corporation hosts an ultimate world concert for Francis and the Sausage Links. Despite the fact that plot has completely petered out, the concert scenes continue for another 25 minutes before the film ends.
Personally, I don't think any amount of 1980's nostalgia can justify how bad the film is. The transition to 3D CG is somehow even uglier than the original. The show's humor remains clunky and unpleasant and there is no attempt to make the story even slightly interested. The sole mildly funny moment, in a sick kind of way, occurs when the cast of Veggietales shows up to the concert and are offhandedly slaughtered by Francis and Roger.
Do I have anything good to say about "Night Bacon: The Movie"? It could have been worse: it could have been live action.
Walrus Rating: 1.0
Labels: Anime/Animation, Humor, USA
Welcome to the Film Walrus
The Film Walrus is a movie review blog with a particular love for foreign, cult, arthouse, gialli, SF and noir. Here the forgotten, the overlooked and the strange are given their due.
In addition to reviews you can find essays, discussions, lists, rants and screenshots. Check out the HOME page for more information.
The Film Atlas is my latest project, a series reviewing a favorite film from each of 120+ countries.
The Never-Ending Movie Game
Welcome to the movie game.
Press the button to display 2 things.
Think of a movie that fits both.
Card 1:
Category: All Genres Plots Time periods Characters Actors & directors Sets Props Themes Styles Colors & patterns Titles Filmcraft Makeup & wardrobe Audio Countries Transport Love & death Nature Villains Adaptations Connected Subjective Games Challenges
Include names?: No names Only names One of each Random
Difficulty of names: Special Easy Medium Hard Killer
Names per card: One Two Three Four Five
Actors Directors Crew
Anime/Animation (49)
Art House (82)
Female Director (26)
Film Atlas (126)
Film Title Poetry (3)
Guest Collaborations (1)
Hall of Strangeness (32)
Iceberg Arena (23)
Italian Horror (32)
Japanese Directorial History (5)
Knee-jerk Response (7)
Let's Just Be Friends (6)
Lists and Rankings (64)
Metacriticism (7)
Movie Game (3)
News and Trivia (38)
Personal Life (59)
Poor Little Animated Shorts (14)
SciFi (39)
Screenshots and Images (231)
Shameless Rants (30)
Splice (6)
St Louis Film Scene (52)
Top Rated (8.5+) (63)
Vampire Series (14)
Videogames and Technology (7)
Worst Favorite Movies (10)
Recommended Blogs & Sites
All Movie Guide
Amoeba's Blog
Darkmatters
David Bordwell's Blog
Duck Diamonds
Film Forno
Filmbrain
GreenCine
Grump Factory
Killing in Style
Kinoblog
Scarecrow Video's Blog
Seminal Cinema Outfit
Shoot the Projectionist
The Agitation of the Mind
The Bloody Italiana
The Czech
The Lens (Cinema St. Louis)
The Screen Life
Tim Lucas's Video Watchblog
Why Film, Exactly?


I've built a Managed C++ wrapper for a few MAPI functions. It uses the .MAPIOBJECT properties of the Outlook COM object to access the several MAPI objects, mostly to obtain more properties for attachment in a way that is compatible with both Outlook 2003 and 2007. The wrappers are pretty simple. They work in a use-then-release fashion, and return managed object created from copying data. No reference to MAPI object is kept in the managed code.
Microsoft very clearly said that MAPI should be used out-of-process of managed code and that using it in-process would eventually make the program breaks. This puzzles me a bit since Add-In Express very obviously makes good money selling helpers to do just that. They reasons they provide are of course lacking in details and confusing.
What's the deal with that? Will doing that work or fail badly at the worse possible moment?
Second, I would like to know why some properties, exposed by MAPI and visible by OutlookSpy, aren't available when using ADXMAPIStoreAccessor? I'm thinking this is because the accessor creates another MAPI connection and that the information that is missing is only missing because it has not been commited to the store by Outlook. Is there a way to make it visible?
MAPI Accessor is a .NET wrapper over an unmanaged core which deals with Extended MAPI. That's why it works. Accessing Extended MAPI in .NET will probably fail at the worst possible moment. I believe there's a way to make .NET work with Extended MAPI but it must be a complex one; I suppose that's why they prefer not to deal with that part and declared accessing Extended MAPI in .NET unwanted and unsupported. But that's my thoughts; I don't know a correct answer, sorry.
Second, I would like to know why some properties, exposed by MAPI and visible by OutlookSpy, aren't available when using ADXMAPIStoreAccessor?
MAPI Accessor is a .NET wrapper over an unmanaged core which deals with Extended MAPI.
If someone can convince me that I must, I will do unmanaged DLL out of my current code without hesitation. My concern is that Microsoft actually actually suggests it must be [B]out-of-process[B] of the native code. An unmanaged DLL would still running inside a managed process. I don't think I'll be able to do an out-of-process COM object (or something else) with the code I currently have.
Another thing, if there is really a risk using MAPI in-process with managed code, then how Add-In Express manages that?
I've devised a nasty way to obtain the size of an attachment that is portable to Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 by using an Exchange Client Extension (ECE). This extensions saves some properties in the MAPI object as provided by Outlook through the ECE interface but those information are invisible to ADXMAPIStoreAccessor at the time the ProcessAttachmentAdd event is called. In the other hand, that information is visible through MAPI. In this case, the property in question is PR_ATTACH_PATHNAME, but I believe no properties of the attachments are visible to ADXMAPIStoreAccessor until the MailItem is saved.
We don't want to save the attachments at that time because in case of IMAP or Exchange saving a mail might be very costly.
My concern is that Microsoft actually actually suggests it must be out-of-process of the native code.
Extended MAPI is used in Outlook add-ins for years, maybe even decades.
Just today we published a post on our blog describing How to get the size of an attachment in Outlook 2000 – 2007.
That's enough for me. I've moved all the code that calls MAPI interface in unmanaged code, just to be sure.
I'll double check your code vs mine, but my preliminary tests, and Microsoft documentation, show that PR_ATTACH_SIZE is mostly meaningless if the PR_ATTACH_DATA_BIN property isn't stored. In that case, PR_ATTACH_SIZE is just the size of the data related to the attachment and doesn't include the attachment data itself.
To make matters worse for us, there is no property available on the IAttach object until the MailItem is saved, which is something we don't want to do. I'm allowed to check some property of the attachment because I cheat by using an Exchange Client Extension.
Yes, you are right, there is a little difference (100-200 bytes) between what is returned by the PR_ATTACH_SIZE property and what the PR_ATTACH_DATA_BIN property contains. But I have just re-tested the Attachment.Size property in Outlook 2007 and got the "wrong" value. Is it a bug in Outlook 2007 or is the attachment size perceived as that "wrong" value, i.e. the real file size plus some internal info?
In any case, thank you for your comment, we will try to play with the PR_ATTACH_DATA_BIN property and publish a new post on our blog if we get any results.
As far as I can tell, the code in the how-to CANNOT be used for emails not being sent yet.
The size of any attachment is always 0, unless item.Save() is called before the DoGetAttachmentSize(item) call, in which case a size that looks valid is retrieved.
Dmitry, can you confirm this behavior on your side as well?
Until the Outlook item is saved, no corresponding record exists in the message database. So, you can only use that code after the item is saved.
I echo Robert remark. Nor the Outlook Object model nor MAPI offers a way to obtain the size of the attachment before the full mail item is saved.
Yes. The MSDN documentation says exactly that. PR_ATTACH_SIZE is sizeof(PR_ATTACH_DATA_BIN) + sizeof(SOME_DATA). I would not care very much about SOME_DATA since it gets small enough given a big attachment.
It is recommended that attachment subobjects expose the PR_ATTACH_SIZE property. The sum contained in PR_ATTACH_SIZE includes the size of the PR_ATTACH_DATA_BIN property. Accordingly, PR_ATTACH_SIZE is usually larger than the contents of the attachment alone.
The rest of my reply assumes that a call to IMAPIProp::ForceSave method was done on the IAttach interface before attachment data is used. AFAIK, this is not the same as saving the mail item. It puts just a bit of useful informations about the attachment in the MAPI table. It's also definitely less costly than saving the full mail item.
The problem is that Outlook won't put any data in PR_ATTACH_DATA_BIN until the mail is saved. So, at the time the mail is composed, the value of PR_ATTACH_SIZE only includes sizeof(SOME_DATA) which is borderline useless.
Thank you for your comments. I think we will try to create a new sample and publish it on our blog.


Great legal website copy is only the first step to great marketing for your law firm. If you're wondering what else you can do to turn readers into customers, you should strongly consider adding video to your site.
It may surprise you to know that YouTube is the third-most visited website in the world (Google and Facebook have the top spots). This means that if someone is looking to solve a legal problem, he will probably search online (Google), ask a friend (Facebook), and look for a video (YouTube). If your firm is offering information through all of these outlets, your chances of getting new business have increased threefold.
Watching is easier than reading. Many lawyers' sites, including yours, will offer pages and pages of information. While you may offer a unique legal perspective, customers are more likely to opt for a quick video version rather than scanning pages of text.
Calling a lawyer means calling YOU. The viewers on your site are already familiar with you: your voice, your mannerisms, and your approach to a typical legal problem. Even if your competitors have similar credentials to yours, it's easier to call someone you've already met than calling a stranger.
Your search engine rankings will improve. Search engine robots scan YouTube the same way they scan all other sites. This means an improved website ranking on Google, plus a free way to link to your own website from an external page: your new YouTube account.
Ready to learn how to make an online legal video? Order your copy of our Great Legal Marketing book today, or get your marketing updates directly by calling 703-591-9829.


The rent at The Windsor at Fair Lakes Apartments ranges from $1,540 for a one bedroom to a $2,105 three bedroom. Apartments in this building are about 10% less expensive than the Fair Oaks average. This is a pet-friendly apartment.
This apartment is in Fair Oaks. Nearby parks include Rocky Run Park, West Ox Road Park and Greenbriar Park.
The Windsor at Fair Lakes Apartments has a Walk Score of 40 out of 100. This location is a Car-Dependent neighborhood so most errands require a car.
The Windsor at Fair Lakes is a premier apartment community that is located in the heart of Fairfax, Virginia. Our community offers residents a plethora of luxury amenities along with a great selection of one, two and three bedroom apartment homes. These spacious Fairfax, VA apartments come with upscale features and finishes that include energy-efficient premium GE appliance packages, custom cabinetry, washer and dryer units, fireplaces, private patios and spacious closets. Amongst our well-landscaped grounds, residents are treated to outdoor BBQ grills, walking trails, extra storage spaces and basketball and sand volleyball courts. We also have a sparkling swimming pool, community clubhouse and fully-equipped fitness center. The Windsor at Fair Lakes is centrally located near a number of great shopping and dining establishments within the city. In terms of shopping, we are located just a two-minute drive from Fair Lakes Center, which contains a Whole Foods and Fair Oaks Shopping Center. We are also located near excellent dining options that include Joe's Crab Shack, Blue Iguana and Panera Bread. Harris Teeter and Fairfax Regal Cinemas are also located less than a mile away. Our community is an easy commute to nearby Washington, DC. Residents can also take advantage of our free private shuttle service to the Vienna Fairfax-GMU Orange Line Metro Station. Call or stop into The Windsor at Fair Lakes today!
Explore how far you can travel by car, bus, bike and foot from The Windsor at Fair Lakes Apartments.
The Windsor at Fair Lakes Apartments has some transit which means a few nearby public transportation options. Car sharing is available from RelayRides.
The Windsor at Fair Lakes Apartments is in the city of Fair Oaks, VA. Fair Oaks has an average Walk Score of 45 and has 30,223 residents.


text:
Археологическая зона Ла-Кемада,  находится в 56 км к югу от города Сакатекас в муниципалитете Вильянуэва в Мексике.

Описание археологической зоны
Ла-Кемада состоит из многочисленных платформ каменной кладки различного размера, расположенных террасами и функционировавших в качестве фундаментов для возводившихся на них строений.

Для соединения плит использовался цементный раствор из глины и растительных волокон, который с течением времени подвергся эрозии, приведя в ряде случаев к осыпанию кладки стен. Поверх кладки была нанесена облицовка, от которой в настоящее время сохранились лишь фрагменты.

Как показывают современные исследования, монументальный комплекс сооружался в несколько этапов, соответствовавших различным эпохам. Нередко новые здания возводились с использованием элементов предыдущих зданий.

Культурная классификация
Культурная принадлежность Ла-Кемады не установлена. Выдвигались гипотезы, что Ла-Кемада может представлять собой:
 легендарный Чикомосток — прародину ацтеков,
 город кашканов,
 анклав Теотиуакана,
 политический центр государства тарасков, оборонительный пост против вторжения чичимеков,
 крупный административный центр тольтеков,
 результат независимого развития какой-либо группы аборигенного населения, проживавшего к северу от Рио-Гранде-де-Сантьяго.

История
В 1615 г. брат Хуан де Торквемада писал о Ла-Кемаде как об одном из мест, которые посетили ацтеки во время своей миграции в центральную Мексику и где они оставили своих стариков и детей. Клавихеро в 1780 году идентифицировал это место с Чикомостоком, где ацтеки находились в течение 9 лет во время своей миграции в Анауак. Их предположения положили начало народному преданию, отождествляющему Ла-Кемаду с мифическом местом «Семь пещер».

В ходе археологических раскопок, которые проводились здесь с 1980-х гг., было установлено, что Ла-Кемада существовала в классический и ранний постклассический периоды, около 300—1200 гг. н. э., одновременно с культурой Чальчиуитес, для которой с начала н. э. была характерна интенсивная горнодобывающая деятельность. Ла-Кемада, вместе с такими городами, как Лас-Вентанас, Эль-Иштепете, крупными поселениями на возвышенностях Халиско и Гуанахуато образовывали сеть культурно-торговых обменов, связанную с Теотиуаканом (350—700 d. C.), простиравшуюся с севера Сакатекас до Мексиканского залива.

В период 700—1100 гг. Ла-Кемада уже не участвовала в этой сети, поскольку стала конкурировать на региональном уровне с рядом других центров. Именно в это время в Ла-Кемаде появляются признаки оборонительного строительства: на северной оконечности возводится стена высотой около 4 метров и 4 метров шириной и, кроме того, сносятся две лестницы на монументальной пирамиде, чтобы ограничить доступ к городу.

Следы пожара, обнаруженные в различных местах при раскопках Ла-Кемады, говорят о том, что город исчез в результате насильственных действий.

Литература
 Jímenez Betts, Peter. Miniguía de La Quemada.INAH. México.

Ссылки
 La Quemada
 La Quemada o el mítico Chicomoztoc (Zacatecas)
 South from Zacatecas: La Quemada archaeological site and Jerez, an undiscovered colonial gem

Археологические объекты в Мексике
Сакатекас

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


A Lucet is a tool that has been used in braiding, plaiting, decorative rope work, and cord making for hundreds of years.
Braiding is a technique used to form a pattern by intertwining three or more strands of a flexible material. A braid is usually long and narrow, with each strand being equal in zigzagging through the overlapping mass of the other strands.


text:
Check out the latest edition of the Little Rock Connections newsletter: Remember Lot's wife - A reflection for Lent
Remember Lot's Wife: A Reflection for Lent
LRSS Editor Michael DiMassa reflects on how the words of Jesus—
"Remember the wife of Lot" (Luke 17:32)—
remind us to move forward rather than dwell on the past.
Many people see the beginning of the calendar year as the right time to take stock of their lives, but for me, Lent long ago replaced New Year's Day as the best possible time to review the previous twelve months and rededicate myself to being a more faithful Christian going forward. As I get older, however, I'm finding that the process of repentance, which lies at the very heart of the Lenten experience, grows more difficult with each passing year. Not that I have the slightest trouble recognizing and owning my sins; quite the contrary, the problem is that I recall them all too well! It's disconcerting (and humbling) each year to face all the ways I've failed to be a worthy follower of Jesus, and it's very easy to become disheartened by my apparent lack of spiritual progress. But if I find myself brooding over my past faults, I remind myself that scripture provides a striking example of the dangers of looking backwards that should not be ignored: in other words, I think of Lot's wife.
Lot's wife is an enigmatic character, to be sure. She isn't even given a proper name in the biblical narrative, although later rabbinic commentators provided her with one (Edith). What's more, Lot's wife actually figures very little in the story of her husband's fortunes: she's not mentioned in the description of his trip with his uncle Abraham from Ur into Canaan, nor in his parting with Abraham at Bethel, nor even in the reception he gives to the angelic visitors right before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is only in her final flight from the doomed city that Lot's wife takes center stage (Gen 19), and then it is merely so we can witness her brief—but spectacular—fall as she neglects the angels' command not to look back while her family flees for their lives. Her punishment for this offense is, famously, to be turned into a pillar of salt, but the motivation that makes Lot's wife turn back toward Sodom in the first place is, perhaps the most mysterious element of all in her story.
Why did Lot's wife look backwards? Various explanations for her behavior have been offered. Most of these conjectures are rather harsh on Lot's wife and conclude that her turning back to look at the devastation of Sodom may be one indication among many that her sympathies are not with God but with the wicked inhabitants of the cities he has marked for destruction. Still other commentators, taking a more compassionate view, see in that backward glance not a sign of regret for the passing of a vicious way of life but a gesture of remorse: an expression of sorrow arising from a remembrance of lost family and friends.
Either way, the lesson to be drawn from the episode remains the same: Lot's wife loses her chance of salvation because she is too preoccupied with what is behind her. The application of this lesson to our acts of repentance today is clear. Contrition for our sins requires us both to admit our faults and to repudiate them. To examine our consciences necessarily requires us to look backward to the past, and the genuine sense of guilt and regret we feel is a normal part of the process. But there is also a danger that the remorse we feel can exercise a subtle tyranny over our hearts and minds. We can be so overcome by the wrongs we have done in the past that we lose the ability to see beyond them. Obsessing over our shortcomings can blind us to the inexhaustible treasury of grace that has been opened to us by Jesus' death on the cross; it can make us forget that because Jesus "himself was tested through what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested" (Heb 2:18). If we allow ourselves to be consumed with regret for our sins, we also risk blunting our resolution to amend our lives. This essential part of repentance looks not to the past but the future.
St. John Henry Newman, in a sermon preached in the 1830s, once urged his congregation to "mount up from the grave of the old Adam" and rise with Christ. "See," Newman exhorted his listeners, Christ "offers you his hand; He is rising; rise with Him." Let us remember—not only in this season of Lent but always—that in order to grasp Jesus' hand we must look upward, not downward. If we are to rise with him, we must look forward, not backward.
Michael DiMassa, PhD, is the Director of Library Collection Services at Yale University and serves as an editor of LRSS materials. Mike is also a student in the Archdiocese of Hartford's Catholic Biblical School. Mike lives in Milford, Connecticut, with his wife Donna.
New Editions for your spring studies!
We're steadily adding titles to our New Editions series of Bible studies! Check out our appealing new format, with the convenience of all materials together in one book, free online lectures (link inside each book), and bulk rates for groups. Here are some of our most recent titles:
The Sermon on the Mount
Pilgrim People
The Eucharist in Scripture
Plan a Retreat with Alive in the Word!
Are you planning a Lent retreat in your home or parish using our Alive in the Word series and our new retreat-planning website? Or do you have questions about how to do so? We'd love to hear from you! Email Amy Ekeh to share your experiences or ask questions.
Liturgical Press 2950 St. John's Road Collegeville, Minnesota 56321
Buy Online: littlerockscripture.org
© Copyright Little Rock Scripture Study, Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Manage your communication preferences or Unsubscribe from this list.
Web Version View Connections Archive


text:
Nas feat j cole stay rihanna
Jun 24, · J. Cole's "Let Nas Down" has come full circle. The track off Cole's sophomore album, Born Sinner, was inspired by his reaction to learning his single "Work Out" disappointed Nas, who in turn. A canamcoal.com exclusive from Rihanna and J. Cole. This is the remix of "S&M" from Rihanna's album Loud, which is in stores now. Lyrics to "Stay ()" song by J. Cole: You can drop a "Wet Floor" sign down for the tears God and my court date, the two things I fear Man.
Lyrics to "Stay ()" song by J. Cole: You can drop a "Wet Floor" sign down for the tears God and my court date, the two things I fear Man. "Stay" by Nas sampled L.A. Carnival's "Seven Steps to Nowhere". Listen to both songs on WhoSampled, the ultimate database of sampled music, cover songs and remixes. Jun 24, · J. Cole's "Let Nas Down" has come full circle. The track off Cole's sophomore album, Born Sinner, was inspired by his reaction to learning his single "Work Out" disappointed Nas, who in turn. A canamcoal.com exclusive from Rihanna and J. Cole. This is the remix of "S&M" from Rihanna's album Loud, which is in stores now.Congratulations Rihanna, JAY Z, J. Cole, Calvin Harris, and Capital Cities on Good Kid, M.A.A.D City Best Pop Duo/Group Performance: Stay - Rihanna ft. . New Music: J. Cole – Let Nas Down Remix feat. Nas. Born Sinner Available Now . Jan 17, Rihanna ft. canamcoal.com – S&M (Remix) says: [ ] canamcoal.com jumps on one of the most provocative tracks on Rihanna's latest album, LOUD. Can't be mad. "Stay" by Nas sampled L.A. Carnival's "Seven Steps to Nowhere". Listen to KREAM - Edit You feat. Stela Cole. KREAM J. Cole's Stay Cyhi Da Prynce feat. Feb 11, Rihanna's not exactly known for emotional songs. of which she took home Sunday for Best Short Form Music Video with "We Found Love" (feat. .. at the Grand Ole Oprye, Lil Nas X is a happy cowboy since his chart fiasco with Billboard. J. Cole Honors Nipsey Hussle At Inaugural Dreamville Festival. Sep 8, This is for the J. Cole fans. Hit Like and Subscribe for more Lyrics!!!.
Nas - Stay, time: 3:52
Tags:Vcomp dll visual studio 2005,Picross games for computer,Downhere how many kings,Optics by brijlal and subrahmanyam
1 thoughts on "Nas feat j cole stay rihanna"
Voodooll says:
I can not participate now in discussion - there is no free time. But I will be released - I will necessarily write that I think on this question.
Peene ka shok nahi madness
Fifty shades of grey book for ipad
Leonard s lair weblogic
Beyblade metal masters nightmare rex ita
Mazurisar on Nas feat j cole stay rihanna