Sentences with phrase «little discussion in»

Despite significant judicial discussion on the point in many common law jurisdictions, there is little discussion in EU cases about who the client is or whether communications with external lawyers and a client's corporate employees are protected.

There has been little discussion in the jurisprudence about what the rule of law actually entails, but since the right of access to courts is founded upon it, the principle requires definition and understanding.

Yet there had been little discussion in the Congress about the wisdom of trying to defend the city.

Yet there has been very little discussion in a public setting about why this was the most appropriate course of action.

Not exact matches

That soldiers of all the armies kept fighting in the horrible trenches, often with a vigor that post-moderns find incomprehensible and more than a little distressing, says something about the human animal that needs discussion.

But there is little or no discussion in Unions Matter of current intergenerational tensions in the union movement: the movement toward two - tier workplaces, like Air Canada's Rouge Airlines, which aims to hire new, mostly younger workers at a lower pay scale and with fewer benefits than are enjoyed by older, established workers.

Although the costs of the various tax expenditures are presented annually by the Department of Finance in the Tax Expenditure Report, there is little public discussion on the cost - effectiveness of these expenditures.

«When excited discussion failed to break the deadlock, Einstein would quietly say in his quaint English, «I will a little tink.»»

In the near term, what this means is that there is very little spare money in the EFSF / ESM to initiate a bond buying programme in the secondary market, which was the favoured option in the G20 summit discussions this weeIn the near term, what this means is that there is very little spare money in the EFSF / ESM to initiate a bond buying programme in the secondary market, which was the favoured option in the G20 summit discussions this weein the EFSF / ESM to initiate a bond buying programme in the secondary market, which was the favoured option in the G20 summit discussions this weein the secondary market, which was the favoured option in the G20 summit discussions this weein the G20 summit discussions this week.

«In terms of testing... I don't know when exactly that happens,» Ryan continued, adding that he would «leave the EIP up for discussion a little bit longer before we start doing testing on that side.»

Indeed, until very recently, it had been notable how little long yields moved up in the United States even as discussions of balance sheet normalization have moved to the forefront.»

Likewise, there has been little movement in a number of Asian currencies against the US dollar (for a discussion of the Chinese renminbi see Box C).

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in any «intelligent discourse which is little more than a circle jerk of a discussion where privileged people sit around and abstractly theorize about what the «real problems» of and «solutions to» marginalized people's problems that doesn't center the words and experiences of actual marginalized people and their own understanding of their own problems.

There's no picture of biblical singlehood and little discussion of how married and single persons integrate into one larger whole in the Church.»

This simple picture, however, is more than a little complicated by the fact that Deleuze himself — in his one and only sustained discussion of Whitehead's philosophy (cf. TE 76 - 82)-- sketches out the possibility of a chaosmology within which Whitehead's God would have a positive, indeed an essential, role to play.

She convincingly argues, among other things, that «where repression is especially severe, where institutions (schools, trade unions, churches, professional associations) have been purged and subject to constant governmental vigilance,» little discussion of human rights occurs («Human Rights in Latin America: Learning from the Literature,» Christianity and Crisis [December 24, 1979], pp. 328 ff.).

Perhaps a little more clarity was needed in the book on this important part of the discussion.

So I'm actually glad we veered a little off topic in our discussion following the last entry because I've been wanting to write about parenting and children for a while, but figured there would be little interest in the subject.

Any one who has pondered the problems of freedom and determinism will probably sympathize with the sentiment which prompted Milton to assign discussion of this topic to some little devils in Satan's legions who liked to bandy it about during moments of relaxation — without getting anywhere.

Again, like last week in the discussion about the Breastplate of Righteousness, I have a little pneumonic device, an acrostic of sorts, to help you remember these points.

One would hardly expect a discussion either of the life or of the significance of Jesus of Nazareth in such philosophically oriented studies of nature and history, or even in what little about human nature they have written.

This discussion has little or nothing to do with a belief in a god, it has everything to do with making some intelligent attempt to understand and expand upon science.

In a book of 430 pages, the role of Judaism gets no discussion whatsoever, early Christianity receives little more than two pages, and Luther and the Protestant Reformation appear on a meager three pages.

There's little agreement in all these discussion, and even when there is it's just shifting positions.

The work of Catherine of Siena contains little of interest to add to our discussion with the singular and very important exception that she is in that select number of early voices to counsel the church to consider, in [118] its theology, what it means to take seriously the biblical notion that God is love.

In a series of articles and editorials that appeared in both magazines during 1977, differences of opinion over the church's involvement in society were defined and debated with little resolution.11 Although both sides refrained from labeling it merely a contemporary version of the debate between sixteenth century Anabaptism and sixteenth - century Calvinism, both recognized the importance their historical antecedents played in the discussioIn a series of articles and editorials that appeared in both magazines during 1977, differences of opinion over the church's involvement in society were defined and debated with little resolution.11 Although both sides refrained from labeling it merely a contemporary version of the debate between sixteenth century Anabaptism and sixteenth - century Calvinism, both recognized the importance their historical antecedents played in the discussioin both magazines during 1977, differences of opinion over the church's involvement in society were defined and debated with little resolution.11 Although both sides refrained from labeling it merely a contemporary version of the debate between sixteenth century Anabaptism and sixteenth - century Calvinism, both recognized the importance their historical antecedents played in the discussioin society were defined and debated with little resolution.11 Although both sides refrained from labeling it merely a contemporary version of the debate between sixteenth century Anabaptism and sixteenth - century Calvinism, both recognized the importance their historical antecedents played in the discussioin the discussion.

The difference is little enough In any case, and is certainly not germane to our discussion.

I was happily lurking here but as the discussion begins to get more heated I thought I'd just chime in for a little thought: I think there are basically very sensible people on both sides of the discussion here and I think there's a lot of potential to learn from each other.

So since I feel a little out of my depth tackling this one by myself, I'm going to leave my response in a comment and then open Sharon's question up for discussion.

Some scholars argue that because the churches were caught up in eschatological expectation, very little of their discussion about social ethics is relevant to modern issues.

It is interesting to note in this connection — although this is not the place for an adequate discussion — that little use is made of the category of the Prophet in the interpretation of Jesus» Messianic role.

(In some cases, discussion of the «little dictator» or an opportunity to read Harry Tiebout's or David Stewart's discussions of surrender may help develop awareness of the nature of their trapped condition.)

Karl Barth spends little time in his vast dogmatic system on the discussion of the nature of sin.

But in all the discussion over Francis» comments, very little has been said about the key line in his now famous exchange on homosexuality.

Ethical issues were not discussed in my childhood home, life's answers were considered to be clear and self - evident, leaving little room for discussion, much less for debate.

He adds, «Where we might have hoped for a level of calm analysis and civic, even civil, discussion of the case in all of its humanity and complexity, we have been given little more than banner headlines, orchestrated press conferences, serial fascination with priestly deviancy, and plaintiff strategy.»

News flash: White Christian conservatives (be honest, those are generally the people everyone is referring to when they say «Christian» in these kinds of discussions) do not make distinctions about anyone who isn't in their wacky little country club... EVER.

In the brief section now under discussion, little comment is needed on chapter 14.

As for those who would be grammar gestapo... if they have nothing to comment on than some nitpicks on grammar, they probably have very little upstairs to use in a proper discussion.

The popular discussions are a little too concerned with practical results to engage in the kind of leisurely rumination that moral reflection at a certain level requires.

But, however important and interesting such discussions may prove to be — and after all, black Christian life can be interpreted in a variety of ways of which none excludes the others — they amount to little more than whistling in the dark apart from a vibrant community of participants.

Unfortunately, there was very little genuine discussion in Campolo's book.

And I freely admit I sometimes use too many extraneous, space - consuming, overly - descriptive, qualifying, words or sentences written quickly and in a stream - of - conscientiousness, run - on sort of fashion with occasional typos mostly due to fatigue of being up way too late (which also explains this post in general) after a long day of political discussion which refreshingly had little religious content though of course there is often much overlap between the two but posting is barely a hobby but more of an occasional passtime so now i wonder if what I write could be considered abuse as I've can't really recall seeing much if any sorrt of «text filibustering» not that this is exactly filibustering more a spontaneous text performance response joke and meant in jest to be absurdly long and useless so of course i hope you appreciate the spirit.

Thanks to Professor Braithwaite, I can tell you a little about them; a little, because the minutes are not records of the discussions, but only of titles of papers read, of stands taken in a vote at the end of each meeting, and of such very short comments as members chose to write into the book as they voted.

The author of the Wisdom of Solomon gave the concept a different turn, not less significant for our purposes, although at first glance one is prone to dismiss him in disappointment, for he adds little to the thought of Proverbs, merely incorporating certain Stoic phraseology into his discussion.

Second, perhaps if you would actually address the posts that have been cut and pasted in response to your arguments with something beyond double talk and hiding behind recitation of scripture that means little to those who do not believe, and actually state viable, well thought out arguments to said posts, then the board could move on to more meaningful discussion.

It would make honest liberals (and there are many) who do not know (or find it very easy to avoid) the worst in their own side and rarely hear solid conservative argument a little more open to discussion.

I understand that OSU is favored and they need to talk about OSU winning because it's a more interesting discussion about who makes the playoff, but you'd think the only undefeated power 5 team in the country would get a little more respect... especially against a team that got blown out by Iowa.

Last week's discussion of the composition of a College Football Playoff committee — a discussion highlighted by Jeremy Foley setting off alarm bells in numerous fan bases by joking that he nominated Mike Bianchi for the committee — reminded me of a funny little juxtaposition that took place two weeks ago.

We have been in discussions for a little time and I needed a couple of answers.