Sentences with phrase «actual point of the comment»

Those that do are just guilty of an ad hominem fallacy; attacking a person's grammar / spelling instead of the actual point of the comment.

Not exact matches

It does work much better when you point to actual sources when you post data — at least for those of us who prefer to comment on facts more than opinion.

Comment: This is another one of those situations where Dr. Bawumia makes use of actual facts but strips them out of context to the point where some of the saliency in his argument is lost.

The tools include a detailed rubric for matching a candidate's skills and experiences to different school leadership openings and a «learning walk» protocol that gives district supervisors a way to observe and assess a candidate's point of view and interpersonal skills as the candidate observes and comments on actual school practices, teacher actions and student behaviors.

Back on topic, a long but interesting read featuring actual debate on the Amazon vs Hachette debacle: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/michael-cader-of-publishers-lunch.html The first comment also links to Data Guy's breakdown of daily gross takes across a large range of price points, though only for a single day.

I refuted each of his points in the comments and his response was to question my expertise rather than actually address the actual arguments.

Before I dive into a few of the details from the study, I want to note that my comments about the study are based solely on the news article, as I've been unable to find an actual copy of the study online anywhere — so my opinions of it may change if I can ever get a full copy (which should be available at some point since it has been accepted for publication in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science).

«because last Gen a this Xbox executives were talking loud now they got no platform to talk on so they are praising others...» Hmmmm, again your comment has no point or is of no relevance to this actual discussion.

A different point of view comes from actual domestic violence survivors, such as Boogie2988 on YouTube or people in the comment section of the trailer itself.

The next stages are easy to predict as well — the issues of «process» will be lost in the noise, the fake overreaction will dominate the wider conversation and become an alternative fact to be regurgitated in twitter threads and blog comments for years, the originators of the issue may or may not walk back the many mis - statements they and others made but will lose credibility in any case, mainstream scientists will just see it as hyper - partisan noise and ignore it, no papers will be redacted, no science will change, and the actual point (one presumes) of the «process» complaint (to encourage better archiving practices) gets set back because it's associated with such obvious nonsense.

My point is simply that observations of the actual rainfall trend in recent times are not consistent with CSIRO model projections (I will of course withdraw this comment if my figuring is shown to be wrong).

... re my last comment — interesting point, the actual change in kinetic energy dissipation in the area of the wind farm was a small fraction of the energy output of the wind farm, because much of that energy would otherwise have been dissipated by land cover.

That the authors were unwilling to submit «just» a comment for whatever reason is part of the story (but it is not clear that any actual comment would have stuck to the points I thought worth making, or that the comment / response would have passed peer review either).

We have no information to suggest that any of these people are actual attorneys, of course, other than their comment history, but the point is that it's sound advice that people in general agree on.

My comment acknowledged that the point of the article was reasonable, but that the actual form of the article was not, and that ultimately, it was somewhat out of place here (or, if not out of place - kind of rationalised into fitting).