Plenty, as I will point out below, and in some follow up
discussions in later articles.
Not exact matches
Actually, the topic of this
article derived from a conversation my girlfriend and I were having, when the topic of
discussion all of a sudden coincidentally ended up
in her Instagram newsfeed minutes
later.
The
latest episode
in this long and continuing story was frst fully broken shortly after the Synod's decision
in July by The Catholic Herald, who had a long news piece, an
article by «fying bishop» Andrew Burnham (who had just returned from
discussions in Rome), and an opinion piece by Damian Thompson containing «well - informed» speculation as to the shape of any agreement over some form of corporate solution to the Anglo - Catholics» problem.
For further definition of «the problem of radical particularity,» the position from which Hartshorne is criticized
later in this
article, and for more detailed
discussion of Hartshorne's theory of divine relativity, please see my «Omniscience and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Know How to Ride a Bike,» International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (1997), 1 - 22, and «Divine Passibility and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Feel Your Pain?
For an excellent
discussion of this factor, see the
article on the white working - class
in the
latest issue of the New Yorker.
You can write to us at
[email protected] and check out www.SciAm.com for the
latest science news, videos and the opportunity to engage
in ongoing
discussions about all our
articles.
Just a week
later, anonymous bloggers at the PubPeer website, a forum for postpublication
discussion of scientific results, started pointing out anomalies
in image 1i
in the research
article.
We will save the
discussion on fixed - layout eBooks until
later in this
article.
A better estimate of earnings yield would incorporate average earnings over time, as does the CAPE (Shiller P / E) ratio; a
discussion of CAPE appears
later in this
article.
It is best practice to just get into a
discussion with a breeder about other important items first (like the next few items mentioned
in this
article), and then go back to the price question
later.
Masahiro Sakurai recently published the
latest in his beloved series of
articles for Famitsu, where he revealed that he thinks Satoru Iwata supported him the most, he'd rather not make sequels to other people's IP,
in - depth thoughts on Nintendo's StreetPass feature and where it could go
in the future, and the most tumultuous
discussion: his thoughts on the balance of competitive gameplay
in his beloved Super Smash Bros. series (and Melee
in particular).
As a follow up to my last
article on Prince Gallery I wanted to share with you a recent
discussion between Eric Prince, artist and gallerist and Kristoffer Ørum about his
latest exhibition Invisible Objects that will be on view from June 3rd to July 2nd at Prince Gallery
in Copenhagen.
There has been much
discussion about «provisional painting» of
late, stimulated by Raphael Rubinstein's May 2009 Art
in America
article identifying practitioners of this mode of painting — artists such as Raoul De Keyser, Albert Oehlen, and Mary Heilmann.
The whole
article with the Q&A by both parties would be published
in the journal / magazine and could then
later also be published on blogs for general
discussion.
Henry P: «The whole
article with the Q&A by both parties would be published
in the journal / magazine and could then
later also be published on blogs for general
discussion.»
Jones immediately forwarded the
article to Wang, Karl, Mann and Trenberth, resulting
in a flurry of correspondence, including considerable
discussion about whether Keenan had violated a supposed «confidentiality agreement» with SUNY — an issue that
later became important
in SUNY withholding report information from Keenan:
Also, the Times is following up on its Feb. 12
article with the
latest in its «Room for Debate»
discussions, this one on whether a Supreme Court justice can effectively perform his duties without participating
in oral argument.
First, its use of the term «radical» (for which the Critique offers no citation): The relevant
discussion in the
article refers to two explicitly «experimental» proposals included at the end of the
article,
in a section titled «Thinking Outside of the Box...» The introduction to that part of the
discussion states «I call this a «thought experiment» because I am well aware that the practical realities of child protection practice may mean that it would not work...»
Later the text notes that one proposal is «less radical» than the other.