The first is people with
bad intentions using every available means to achieve their malignant goals.
Not exact matches
It is how people choose to
use their intelligence that determines whether they have good or
bad intentions, but the main point is it is a positive trait.
Because PETA believes that there is a chance that someone with
bad intentions might adopt a pit from a shelter and
use him / her for fighting or tie him / her out in the yard to serve as a macho guard dog.
Second, I would
use these two parallel lines of development to ask the question: is it possible that, regardless of the best
intentions on all parts, the intersection of science, funding, politicians, media and public policy is doomed to create
bad science (in terms of oversimplification and suppression of uncertainty), questionable public policy and, in the internet age, bitter acrimony amongst those who should be colleagues?
I also think that if he
uses the «no
bad intention» defense, the stuff involving distorting the meaning of text copied should be brought out.
That was a crucial distinction because it was settled law that, in the words of Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (6th Edition, LexisNexis, 2013) p 1035, «unless the contrary
intention appears, a variation in the term
used is taken to denote a different meaning, because to intend the same meaning is
bad practice».
Some would say in a strong position to attract more work as commercial clients know that the courts will not step in to save them from
bad bargains or unreasonable results and that it is vital to draft contracts with care, ensuring that the words
used reflect the
intention of the parties making the deal.
Some couples are so entrenched in negative
intentions and attitudes that they are either unwilling to
use what they know or somehow they
use communication techniques in ways that make matters
worse.