Sentences with phrase «argued in previous posts»

I've argued in previous posts that I don't think we need to panic buy in January, and would rather see us wait until the summer to get specific targets that can really improve our team, but we also have to hope that Liverpool and Arsenal don't go on a run and make us struggle or even fail to keep that top - four status.

The whole issue of cherry picking start and end dates is a red herring, as I've argued in my previous post Trends, change points and hypotheses.

As I argued in a previous post on this blog, he remained there until the time of his de-listing by the UN sanctions committee on 5 October 2012.

Not exact matches

First, in previous posts, I have argued that God did not actively «send» the flood, but that it came upon the earth as a natural consequence to mankind's rebellion.

I take it from your previous posts that you are a believer, but what if these experiments in noise reveal that the «spirits» argue against the existence of God?

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

In a previous post I wrote about the popular misunderstanding of the word «gospel,» that it refers only to receiving eternal life and going to heaven when you die.I then argued that the gospel is everything related to Jesus Christ.

On previous posts i have argued that the money made avalable for transfers is set by the board in general and Kroenke in particular.

In comments on previous posts Rapp argues that legitimate peer reviewed references have also been included.

In my previous posts, I argued that these two policies have similar ends but very different means and therefore should be called by different names.

In my previous post I argued that any such policy should be based on a broad concept of disadvantage, taking account of economic, social and cultural capitals.

In a previous post, «Rising Above the Noise in ESG: Green Bonds,» we argued that green bonds provide a simple way to add an element of environmental investing into core fixed income holdingIn a previous post, «Rising Above the Noise in ESG: Green Bonds,» we argued that green bonds provide a simple way to add an element of environmental investing into core fixed income holdingin ESG: Green Bonds,» we argued that green bonds provide a simple way to add an element of environmental investing into core fixed income holdings.

This question is apparently rather more complicated than I thought — I'm awaiting a post here from someone more expert to explain it to me... — William] Further Response: Greater climate sensitivity in the N. Hemisphere, and greater sensitivity overall, is definitely one possible explanation for the data (if, as is argued, the data reflect reality more than previous work does).

The AWG - LTC will be the pathway to reframe the worlds countries in terms of major emitters vs. rest of the world, or take a more differentiated approach to CBDR as I've argued for before (see previous post «Thinking Out of the Climate Box: Re-Examining Monolithic Approaches to the «Common But Differentiated Responsibilities» Impasse «-RRB-, against China's wishes.

In a previous post, I argued that disruptive technologies, by themselves, offer little by way of sustainability if not integrated into the improvement of a greater whole at the systems - level.

In my previous post, I argued that international law does not foster cooperation at the expense of conflict.

As I have argued in previous ABlawg posts (linked above), the Hague Convention mechanism was established to facilitate the prompt return of a child, subject to the very limited exceptions set out in Art 13.

The Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the motion judge had not properly considered whether Ontario was the «forum of necessity» — i.e. the doctrine allowing the Court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute, even though there is no «real and substantial connection» with Ontario, because there is no other forum in which the plaintiff can reasonably seek relief (see our previous posts regarding the doctrine of «forum of necessity» here and here).