The judge
cited points of order raised in the Commons chamber yesterday afternoon by shadow culture secretary Harriet Harman.
Not exact matches
Now it is central to the whole
point of David Novak's argument that this entire strategy is founded on a most fundamental error, whose formulation we must
cite in full, adding italics to highlight its centrality: «Theologically, the error here is that revelation is essentially reduced to the supreme awareness
of an
order already present in creation.»
He didn't
cite evidence but
pointed to a discrepancy in some forms in which the
order of one question — though not its wording — had been changed.
A neat, common way to measure the breadth and impact
of a scholar's work is to tally works in descending
order of how often each is
cited, and then identify the
point at which the number
of oft -
cited works exceeds the
cite count for the least - frequently
cited.
David — You quoted only part
of my comment, but I
cited both sides
of that argument in
order to suggest that it is the evidence on that
point that would dictate the choice
of the most prudent hypotheses to evaluate.