And make them look
a little less biased than they are.
Read your articles with
a little less bias next time.
Not exact matches
The thing is if you have a team that has a strong mentality and usually dominant on the pitch then the ref has
little say on the true outcome and
less of an influence on being
biased.
I like this
little dig at the denier - sceptic - contrarians who appear to be tree ring obsessed: «It is intriguing to note that the removal of tree - ring data from the proxy dataset yields less, rather than greater, peak cooling during the 16th — 19th centuries for both CPS and EIV methods... contradicting the claim... that tree - ring data are prone to yielding a warm - biased «Little Ice Age» relative to reconstructions using other high - resolution climate proxy indicators.&
little dig at the denier - sceptic - contrarians who appear to be tree ring obsessed: «It is intriguing to note that the removal of tree - ring data from the proxy dataset yields
less, rather than greater, peak cooling during the 16th — 19th centuries for both CPS and EIV methods... contradicting the claim... that tree - ring data are prone to yielding a warm -
biased «
Little Ice Age» relative to reconstructions using other high - resolution climate proxy indicators.&
Little Ice Age» relative to reconstructions using other high - resolution climate proxy indicators.»
Coverage
bias was
less of an issue before 1980 because there was
little difference in trends between latitude zones.
I have found from much
lesser edified posts here that there is
little (but not no) need for apology, since much of the critical comment stems from
bias or ignorance.
The best experts can not judge, how much
bias they themselves have, even
less can they convince others that their
bias is of
little significance.
Peers» opinions tend to carry
less weight, as these references tend to be friends who are
biased and may offer very
little about your professional attributes (like following directions, problem - solving, creative thinking).