But
other commenters seem to be making this claim.
Not exact matches
As
other commenters have noted, there
seems to be a lot of «noise» out there regarding why people should / should not be buying a home now, in the future, etc..
It
seems that most of the
other commenters are saying that theirs were on the soft side.
Like
commenters and
other answers have pointed out - you can always find examples where it doesn't
seem to apply perfectly.
I would echo
other commenters about the Margaret Beckett so - called report: it
seems to be really shallow, obvious, and curiously a-political.
You, and not a few
other commenters,
seem to think I'm telling people to dump their Kindles and e-books in favor of PDF / HTML5 on an iPad or whatever * now *.
As one
commenter on the article highlights: since Amazon already clearly has a process in place for fast - tracking some orders while ensuring
others don't arrive too soon, it would
seem to be trivially easy to slow the delivery of specific products down.
I find this all generally odd - of course, there are far bigger Sony vs. media stories just breaking, but it
seems like Phil is being worn down by the media and is finding snakes in the grass where, if anything, it's just particular quotes being cited and passed around by
other outlets, blogs, and
commenters - who are presenting legitimate soundbites in slightly hyped - up contexts.
And to answer the
other commenters about my opinion of climate scientists, whether they're scientists... they
seem to be really bad ones.
In fact, the latest CiF reply (from EwanB)
seems to make exactly the same leap of faith as Carrington and most of the
other commenters there.
I guess my limited intelligence is the reason that I can't understand why you
seem obsessed with me, yet fail to point out to the numerous
other commenters who discuss bias related to partisan influences that they, too, are «IDJTs» and «feeble - brained.»
But I am smart enough to add them as I read where
other «intelligent»
commenters seem not able to do so.
I am moved to comment on your paper as a lay person who is not a scientist because Vaughan Pratt
seems to have read somewhere that I am not convinced that their criticismsof your paper have any basis in science and I have been lumped together with some
other commenters who are «non scientists».
It
seems like most of them don't sting as bad the next day, and if you quickly delete them (without re-reading them) when you log back on, you (and
other commenters) don't have to experience them ever again!