Sentences with phrase «factual reasons not»

Not exact matches

They want you to believe that this is literally a magic book; however, its contents are not based on reason, logic, or factual evidence.

There are three primary reasons why I do not see these stories as historically factual.

Anyone else think thefinisher is finished, as in, his head has exploded from reading too many factual reasons why his beliefs are crap, and realizing that things The Babble promises simply are not true?

But the creeds themselves are not part of the characteristic structure of the church; they are but ways in which the faith is stated, in language appropriate to the time when they were promulgated, and there is no reason why they may not be revised to state this faith in more understandable terms and with greater factual accuracy — but it is the faith, not the creeds, which is important.

For the sole reason that as yet — to each their own — the benefits of factual evidence surpasses in my frame of mind NOT to accept your justification for needing one.

I will agree that the reason the comments section has been getting more toxic is because of the editors — not because of their articles, but because they allow a tiny but vocal minority of people shouting absolute goddamn nonsense to continue despite adding nothing of any factual value to the conversation.

among all that well written and in many area's factual statement was the mention of FFP??? would this be the FFP that both Wenger and the board at large were touting as the great «leveler» that would eventually break the financial Leviathans and eqal us all up in the race for PL glory??? This would be the same FFP that was the supposed reason why foreign investment was shyed away from and why we were not spending big in any of the transfer windows?

Your laziness isn't a reason to tell her she must pump and dump without checking for factual information first.

Your desire to cover your ass, isn't a reason to tell her she must pump and dump without checking for factual information first.

Your desire to get a mother out of the office, isn't a reason to tell her she must pump and dump without checking for factual information first.

Gary, it is just not factual that the reason they were drilling in deep water is because they were regulated out of the «shallow» water.

The Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA) has put together a 9 - page document titled Arizona K - 12 School Finance Statistics: Providing Context to a Complex Measurement, that provides factual information relating to the reasons and fallacies surrounding the commonly argued narrative that Arizona doesn't fund K - 12 education adequately.

The Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA) has put together an 8 - page document titled Arizona K - 12 School Finance Statistics: Providing Context to a Complex Measurement, that provides factual information relating to the reasons and fallacies surrounding the commonly argued narrative that Arizona doesn't fund K - 12 education adequately.

The proponents of global warming CO2 climate change science has mutated to a sickness as this hidden report verifies where not allowing factual science air insults human advancement and exposes the intents of the political correct and their miscreants desire to produce outcomes which lie behind reason.

Describing him in her speech as «one of the leading sources of reasoned and factual information in Australia on global warming and climate change» she didn't mention that Professor Plimer has never published a single peer - reviewed paper on human - caused climate change.

Would it not be best then to encourage the fullest possible information of individual players in the economy by the best possible factual and scientific education, with a sound grounding in logic and reasoning, mathematics and technology?

One of the reasons that climate skepticism is a disorganized mess is the tendency to counter alarmist claims, not with a factual rebuttal, but with a speculative counter-claim.

Andy, IMHO, half the reason you get reamed is not your factual stance, but the way you give the impression that you're trying to put people to sleep on these important issues.

It demands close attention to factual details that matter; a winnowing out of details that don't matter; a reliance on concrete facts coupled with a disavowal of breezy generalizations and characterizations; a building up of facts into step - by - step arguments from which conclusions naturally follow; the marshaling of reasons that will earn the respect even of an opposing audience; a dialectical approach in which countervailing facts and counterarguments are carefully disarmed; a defense not of the first positions you might take, but of the best ones; and, at least in your early development as a legal writer, a stripped - down style that contains not a whiff of ornate embellishment.

Putting aside that no case has ever claimed that contribution applies only to but - for causes — good thing because there's many a defendant held liable who received contribution where the conduct wasn't a but - for cause and there's no reason to read any of the apportionment statutes that way — I suppose the conclusion that contribution is limited to but - for causation does follow if the Court believes that the only way there can ever be factual causation is under the but - for test.

But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, held that the hearing was prohibited by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provides that if a federal habeas petitioner has «failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in state court proceedings,» a federal habeas court «shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim» regardless of the reasons for this failure.

There's at least a half - dozen, maybe more, cases released since March 2007 in which the lawyers have argued about factual causation, and the judges have written reasons dealing with factual causation issues, not mentioning the SCC's decision in Resurfice v Hanke 2007 SCC 7 and clearly argued and decided based on the case law predating Resurfice.

Amongst other reasons for that result was the realization that, in some cases, juries (and arguably even judges in non jury trials) were using a «substantial factor» analysis to find that negligence which was a but - for cause (whatever but - for means) was not a factual cause.

Also, in B.C., since Resurfice some appellate judges seem to have expressed the view (not in dissenting reasons) that the Athey material contribution test was never a separate test for proof of factual causation in negligence but merely a causal «yardstick» explaining when the but - for test applies.

This means at a minimum that there must be a factual basis upon which a rational fact - finder could infer a causal connection; the nexus can not be established just by a formulaic assertion that the protected characteristic was the reason.»

Because legal problems arise in particular factual contexts, reasoning about the meaning of a legal rule often requires more than the mechanical application of the general words in the text.3 Likewise, when an attorney reasons by analogy, she considers the precise nature of the particular legal problem and context and does not simply compare the surface details of her client's case with a precedent.4

Personal injury cases often move slowly for a variety of reasons including legal or factual problems, high compensation amounts, or the fact that you have not fully healed from your injuries yet.

at 32 («variances need not be justified solely on factual grounds but may... be based on reasoned policy considerations»).

* Many Ontario civil litigators (and some others) will know that, some 5 years ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Aristorenas v. Comcare Health Services 2006 CanLII 33850 at para. 63 (ONCA) leave to appeal denied 2007 CanLII 10550 (SCC), adopted a statement from a now very - well known (for other reasons, too) House of Lords decision about the use of «common sense» in decisions about whether X was a factual cause of Y: «The mere application of «common sense» can not conjure up a proper basis for inferring that an injury must have been caused in one way rather than another...»

The appellate reasons do not contain a discussion of why the common sense approach to factual causation, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Snell v Farrell, did not apply in favour of the Ms. Clements.

This is the reason, most traffic ticket attorneys make legal arguments, and not factual ones.

Arbitrators need not specify their reasoning or the basis of the award, as long as the factual inference and legal conclusions supporting the award are covered.