Then, you need to build your own
arguments around the information you've found.
Not exact matches
His reasonable
argument is that it's not worth playing
around with in our kids until we know more
information for sure.
But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence — selectively seeking out
information or
arguments that support their position while arguing
around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic.
So, is your
argument now, Risbey et al should have listed those at least 48 and maybe even
around 150 names of the models whose simulations ended up in the composites, even if this
information wasn't relevant for the conclusions, because otherwise it would be «an outrage»?
Julian Assange's activities with WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden's revelations concerning the National Security Agency, and the rumoured penetration of Nortel's IT network that may have played a role in its downfall (I don't buy that
argument, by the way, since I am of the view corporate espionage is rampant) have heightened our awareness
around the challenges we face in assisting our clients to safeguard confidential
information.
That is after all what you base your
argument around — that the
information is publicly available and therefore is not private.