Yes, eight years is a very long time for a rulemaking, especially one pursuing issues that have been in play for many years (that link
discusses testimony I gave in 2000).
Not exact matches
The groups hold weekly meetings at which the men
give testimonies,
discuss personal problems, and help each other.
All I did was quote the article's title and lead paragraph,
give a link to the article, and say I didn't know if the glacier was
discussed in the
testimony.
I see... so
discussing data is now inappropriate and insupportable while it is perfectly fine to inject emotional terms into expert witness
testimony given to the public.
What could explain why you
gave testimony on a topic without
discussing something that you describe as «central» to that topic?