They are part of the who what where when why pentad that reporters were taught. And the first thing the newsdesk ask is “Who is the source for this?” “Are we meant to attribute these quotes to God? Have you got contemporary notes? Did you make a recording? Have you got a comment from the Devil?” “Apostle Paul steps out in armour of righteousness WITHOUT Deaconess Phoebe”īut suppose you’re working somewhere that isn’t the Mail Online: Imagine that the Genesis story comes in as a piece of raw copy. “No regrets, tweets Satan as social media feud erupts with God”
#Figleaf waste timer free#
“ Adam wears THAT figleaf and Eve goes makeup free as they leave the Garden of Eden after rumoured threesome with a SERPENT” You’ll just have to imagine what would go above these captions on the sidebar of shame: One answer would be to give the whole thing the Mail Online treatment, though I can’t provide the pictures. So what exactly are we to do with these fragments? Accept that some of us at least try very hard to establish what the truth is, and to communicate it as vividly and clearly as possible, and make the implications plain. People say that the media is biased against religion and in important ways that’s absolutely true but what today’s readings make clear is that this bias is structural rather than ideological. In fact, reflecting on them, I came to understand that the concept of truth that the media has to work with is fundamentally incompatible with religious truths, and that what makes facts sacred is the opposite of what makes things sacred, or ideas for that matter. I had a look at the readings for the day and realised that they were perfect for talking about the intersection of faith and media because neither of them put forward stories that I could professionally accept as true. The readings were first, the story of Eve and the apple, and second, St Paul arguing that that snack had been the beginning of death
#Figleaf waste timer series#
> timer3.addEventListener(TimerEvent.This was written as a sermon for St Catharine’s College which had a Lenten series in 2018 on Religion and the Media. > gettimertxt.text=String((getTimer()- startTime)) > timer2.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,Func_time2) > timer1.addEventListener(TimerEvent.TIMER,Func_time1) > I have foure text box inside stage (i cant attach file because of > we need to work with loop or other thing the timer stop working even > the timers work slowly, I don’t know why is that and how can I
> timer worl alone another work and have condition, when we get the > depending on other process in my project > have timer that work correctly with out can't you do that in Timer1? Also timer2 seems pretty redundant -Ĭould you run a single timer that tests various conditions instead? My question is why do you need timer3 to test the "step" variable To true again before the loop has finished. What is probably happening is that your flag_loop variable is set This will slow down your system whilst the loop runs. If you then start a loop to trace 1000 times during a timer event, Your Timer delay is possibly too small to be reliable - in theĭocumentation it says that a timer delay lower than 20ms is not Is why other process have an affect on timer? If we have loop in our Suppose that i set flagloop=true out side of Func_time2, mi problem Showing timer counts we may be able to give you some better direction.
If we knew what you were trying to achieve other than It also seems your example is "theoretical" rather than a solution Timer3 currently means the testTimer theoretically gets called 2 timesįor more useful information about how timers work in flash, check out: You set flag_loop=true somewhere else, you maybe okay, but your logic in With your 1000 loop traces and your timer resolution will suffer. Because your timer resolution is 1ms - so you will hold up the AVM
0 kommentar(er)
