Sentences with phrase «accept any claims for»

The Commission on State Mandates announced earlier this month opening the window for accepting claims for an expanded list of claimable activities tied to suspension and expulsions.

The breeder will not pay expenses incurred in the return of a puppy nor accept any claim for distress caused by the return.

The Company does not accept claims for medical bills or expenses during the medical treatment of its customers.

With passage of Bill 99 (1998), the WSIB no longer accepts claims for mental stress conditions that emerge over time.

If your claim for alternate medication is accepted, insurers like HDFC Ergo, do not accept another claim for allopathic treatment for the same disease.

Not exact matches

Ljung and cofounder Eric Wahlforss accepted «no ownership of the responsibility and no admittance of fault,» the source claimed, adding that they also failed to state whether there would be any repercussions for the executives that have led SoundCloud into the sticky position it now finds itself in.

Metals X has issued a stern warning to Tanami Gold claiming it would be financially unwise to accept Northern Star Resources» bid for the Central Tanami gold project over its own proposal.

According to Creditcards.com, while only 25 percent of U.S. debit cards are currently chip - equipped, and an estimated 12 million point - of - sale terminals still need to be upgraded to support EMV, small businesses accepting antiquated swipe and sign payments are «held 100 % liable for claims of fraud or wrong - doing» according to Finance Magnets.

It's possible that Constand may have benefited from the #MeToo momentum on Thursday, but it took an extra dose of courage for her to make her claims years ago, in an environment that was so much less accepting.

In order for bitcoin to be a real currency, Adeney claims, it must be three things: easy and frictionless for trading between people, widely accepted as a legal tender for all debts (both public and private) and stable in terms of value.

Many fights happen between migrants, who are coming into Europe searching for better economic opportunities — and will likely see their asylum claim rejected — and refugees, who are fleeing war and persecution and are almost guaranteed to have their asylum demand accepted.

To qualify for this guarantee: (i) you must have filed your original 2017 federal income tax return through Credit Karma Tax on or before April 16, 2018; (ii) you must be entitled to a federal tax refund from the IRS; (iii) you must have filed an amended federal income tax return using the same Tax Return Information through another online tax preparation service; (iv) your amended return must have been accepted by the IRS; (v) you must submit your complete Max Refund Guarantee claim to Credit Karma Tax no later than December 31, 2018; and (vi) the larger refund can not be attributed to claims you make on your tax return that are contrary to law.

Daily Harvest makes no claim or representation regarding, and accepts no responsibility for, the quality, content, nature or reliability of third party websites accessible by hyperlink from the Sites or of websites linking to the Sites.

Due to the large number of these provisions, it's probably a good idea to hold off on filing your return if it includes any item that would have qualified for a deduction or credit that expired at the end of 2016, until you can determine whether that item was extended — and whether the IRS is ready to accept a return claiming that tax benefit.

The period for filing bankruptcy claims was set to end on May 29, 2015, but the bankruptcy trustee has been accepting filings of bankruptcy claims after the expiry of the said period.

In a parting shot, Cambridge Analytica claimed it had been «vilified» for practices that are both legal and accepted within marketing and political advertising.

The CEO of the world's largest asset manager sees «huge opportunities» for cryptocurrencies although he claims that work needs to be done before they become more widely accepted, BlackRock CEO in a recent interview,...

Agents who agree would then accept the tokens as payment in exchange for reducing their traditional commissions in U.S. dollars to as low as 1 percent, or an average of $ 225 per token used, the company claims.

Additionally, FinCEN claimed regulation over American entities that manage bitcoins in a payment processor setting or as an exchanger: «In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.»

The company also claims that these coins will rise in value, making them worthwhile assets for the agents and brokers who accept them.

Would you accept the same claim being made for another god, that someone had faith in their being real, and that god sent a sign proving his or her existence

And is this evidence the sort you would accept for any other big claim?

This means that scientists could claim that anything could be real and could explain all phenomena and the basis for accepting such ideas is because nobody has yet to prove that such a thing exists.

So, knowing how easy it is to fool people with a false claim of being nonfiction, you expect me to just accept the claim of the Bible when you'd think me a fool for accepting a similar claim by any other book?

I can not determine anything that is first person, and you very well may have good justified reasons for your belief, and all I can say is that I don't have evidence to justify accepting the claim.

The atonement of the world is anticipated, Pannenberg says, in that those who accept the claim of the Cross and live for the unity that it promises are free to live at one with God and neighbor.

While Evangelicals greatly respect the way in which the Catholic Church has defended many historic Christian teachings against relativizing and secularizing trends, and recognize the role of the present pontiff in that important task today, they believe that some aspects of Catholic doctrine are not biblically warranted, and they do not accept any claims of infallibility made for the magisterial teachings of popes or church councils.

Perhaps he should have said, «If you allow yourself to accept fantastic, unsupported claims as explanations for natural phenomena, your world becomes complicated in that natural phenomena that conflict with your nonsensical beliefs are constantly being presented to you.»

Most Christians don't understand how others might see it as hate when they make the claim that their heaven & heII exists and that those not invited to heaven are going to go to heII to be tormented and tortured for eternity and the only way to salvation is to accept their God as your Lord and Savior... They think to themselves that they are just trying to help by condemning those they dislike and who don't worship the same way they do, but that doesn't change it from what it is, «hate filled».

If its claims are true then that is good evidence for accepting it as the Word of God.

If you accept that this a general day of judgement for a specific person, e.g., a Congressmen who gets caught emailing pics of his parts, and claims that it is due to an addiction, it is nonsense.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.

@ total non sense Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I was trying to be kind by implying that rather than treating religiosity as a mental disability, for which the supposedly clinically sick can receive insurance benefits and evade personal actionable responsibility by claiming illness, it would be better to treat religiosity as a societal functional disorder which can be addressed through better education and a perceptional shift towards accepting scientific explanations for how the world works rather than relying on literal interpretations of ancient bronze age mythologies and their many derivations since.

They've done this before, he claims: Think of «their predecessors who opposed legalizing divorce but lost,» and who then «accepted divorce» in practice if not in theory — for example, by hiring divorcées.

It is most faithful and most honest and most likely to result in proper understanding to accept the Bible for what it is, rather than to claim it to be what we want.

They are still stuck in the Old Testament and though they claim to know Yeshua, they haven't met Him yet, not everyone, but the ones who judge and can not accept another human being for what he or she really are.

«Evidence» that no rational person would accept for any other claim — even more modest ones.

Reinforcing in advance the claim I have put forth at the end of Part Two, Hartshorne went on to point out: «Just as the Stoics said the ideal was to have good will toward all but not in such fashion as to depend in any [221] degree for happiness upon their fortunes or misfortunes, so Christian theologians, who scarcely accepted this idea in their ethics, nevertheless adhered to it in characterizing God.»

I started accepting the label «atheist» when I realized it doesn't necessarily mean that at all, and also when I realized not only that the God claim could not be demonstrated, but also that there are sound reasons for doubting it.

I asked for authenticated (universally accepted) non-Christian contemporary pieces that support claims of supernatural abilities.

For a Whiteheadian and indeed for any process - thinker, any claim for the uniqueness of Jesus and any notion of his «finality» would require careful re-statement if they are to be accepted; they would need to be brought into congruity with the general line of thought appropriate to such a view of the world as the evolutionary and societal interpretation would proviFor a Whiteheadian and indeed for any process - thinker, any claim for the uniqueness of Jesus and any notion of his «finality» would require careful re-statement if they are to be accepted; they would need to be brought into congruity with the general line of thought appropriate to such a view of the world as the evolutionary and societal interpretation would provifor any process - thinker, any claim for the uniqueness of Jesus and any notion of his «finality» would require careful re-statement if they are to be accepted; they would need to be brought into congruity with the general line of thought appropriate to such a view of the world as the evolutionary and societal interpretation would provifor the uniqueness of Jesus and any notion of his «finality» would require careful re-statement if they are to be accepted; they would need to be brought into congruity with the general line of thought appropriate to such a view of the world as the evolutionary and societal interpretation would provide.

In Reynolds v. United States (1878), a case rejecting a claim that it was unconstitutional to prosecute Mormons for polygamy, the Supreme Court accepted Jefferson's «wall of separation» letter as the «authoritative» interpretation of the First Amendment.

But (2) the only reason given for accepting the objective claim of CE as true is that in CE they seem to be true; the only reason for accepting that the subject knows that causes are operating in the way they appear to be is that it believes with strong conviction that they are.

Also, you should know that you should back up your claims with a bit more of argumentation (e.g., why would the multiverse hypothesis fail Occam's razor; you can't honestly believe that I would just accept such a conclusion without asking for the justification).

I find it baffling that anyone would claim it's good news for the faithful that science has more evidence for what science already accepted as fact for so long.

After reading these blogs for several years now I can honestly say the posters who get the most heated and angry and violent in their comments at least claim to be Christians, though I will accept that some may be poe's or trolls.

It IS funny, because many people who claim that they are «scientific» just blindly accept «Corporate Science» aimed at keeping them logically ignorant, meaning, they can use logic and reason (and even rhetoric if you know your Trivium) to argue well for false ideas.

I have a thought for your kind consideration: If you really believe that each person should be accountable for his deeds ONLY, then by the same logic, you must accept the fact that it is gross injustice to claim that Jesus took everyones sins on his shoulders.

Now this man in Norway claims to be some kind of Christian and you have chosen to now call for all Christians to accept this man as a brother of the faith and then repudiate Christian extremism.

He claimed things that were considered to be Blasphemy according to Jewish law when he said the Father and I are One and before Abraham was «I Am» He was claiming that He was the «Great I AM» of the Old testament, now come in the flesh and came to pay the price of sin for man, the only acceptable perfect sacrifice, the lamb wihtout blemish, that God would accept because he was indeed God in flesh.