Sentences with phrase «other commenters who»

I also agree with a couple of other commenters who mention soup, especially with the current wintry conditions.ReplyCancel

Other commenters who advocated for no special protections based their opposition on the difficulty in drawing a distinction between physical and mental health and that special protections should be left to the states.

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».

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.»

Thanks to the many other commenters who offered similar congratulations (which I've now deleted as OT.)

My feeling reading this piece was overwhelming sadness for the author and the other commenters who are stuck in this strange bubble of bloggers who are more style over substance.

I echo some of the other commenters who'd like to see further development in your suggestions, esp.

I have noted your reply and replies several other commenters who intelligently add to the discussion.These types of replies make the blogging process enjoyable in spite of the other kinds of replies, trolls, and etc..

There was only one other commenter who came close to your level of constructive and useful criticisms.

Not exact matches

So when I saw this post yesterday on Tony Jones» support page on Scribd, I immediately received it as a passive - aggressive attempt to silence people... Julie, me, and all other bloggers and commenters who have spoken or written in a way that raises questions about those in power.

I was talking about a couple of people who went after other commenters with venom.

Agree with the commenters who say: it is most helpful for others if you've actually made it...... well, I have made this twice now and holy yum.

this comment (and those others like it) says more about the commenter who made it than the subject.

I'm another one who was totally oblivious to a 30 for 30 «backlash,» and I'll echo the sentiments of some of the other commenters when I say, I don't really get it.

Like other commenters have said, you never know who they're gong to kill off.

Have to agree with the other commenters, people who complain about a heavy ereader obviously don't read books.

I'm like that previous commenter who got a bit nervous when they asked for s o much personal information but surprisingly I gave them my social and right NOW it's at the enter your bank info on my other phone, while I googled is this app safe, which lead me here and I think I'm going to stop and NOT give my bank info and get out while I can!

We also disagree with the commenters who believe the failing thresholds should be lower because the debt payment calculations do not take into account debt other than student loan debt.

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.

All of this news comes from Chris Howe, PlayStation Store and PlayStation Plus Content Manager at SCEE, who was asked if they could «shift some attention» to other genres, such as strategy, with XCOM: Enemy Unknown mentioned by the commenter.

I'm just hypothesizing over what I've gleaned from commenters on other sites, as well as those who left their opinion on my review of the game (see below).

I try to avoid insulting other commenters unlike your comment about A McDonald, so tell me who made the more bitter comment — you or me?

So, if I write an article about this in Examiner (which no one reads anyway — ha), what do I say to the commenter who says, «Gee, every time I bring up the name of a «scientist» who disputes warming, I get told he's not an expert and doesn't know what he's talking about, so why should I believe this other non-climate change expert who doesn't dispute warming?

There are several commenters here who appear perfectly capable of coming up with their own figures (but haven't) and several others who are so sure we are having a calamitous effect on our climate that I can only conclude they also have access to coherent estimates.

There are commenters here who would have absolutely nothing to say if they weren't white knighting for Judy, whining about other commenters, or ranting about Progressives.

Thanks to commenter Joel Shore at Watts Up With That, who provided a reference to the IPCC AR4 discussion of interannual changes in the CO2 flux and their relationship to the ENSO cycle and other short - term phenomena.

By being ignored, commenters who are not deemed interesting by others will give up and go elsewhere.

In recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been «thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal»; that «other professionals in the field who also have «looked in great detail at the problem at hand» and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre's findings being «valid and relevant», they instead have found them to be «without statistical and climatological merit»; that CA «fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing».

Given that I have a personal issue with Stephen Schneider - who, from what I know, was an excellent science communicator - being maligned on blogs, the relevant quote that is being mentioned by other commenters is

Don Montford, First of all I have no idea who Junior is — perhaps you're referring to some other commenter?

Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this.

RE: Banned vs threaded «Threaded» is simply a nice way of saying Curtin was «banned from commenting on anything other than the thread that Lambert started to amuse his regular commenters» — the ones who enjoy seeing Curtin writhe but can't stomach all the crap that Curtin puts in the way of useful discussion on pretty much any topic he comments on.

I often lurk at other websites (for example ClimateProgress), but it appears the moderator has trimmed all commenters from the rolls who may possibly present alternative thought... A mass «agree-fest» is completely uninteresting, especially when it's undeniably obvious that scientists are still engaging on any number of issues in the field.

However, in this thread and on others I've read here at WUWT, Joel has been remarkably restrained in the face of IMHO unjustified personal attacks and postings by commenters who have not read his previous explanations and simply - thoughtlessly - repeat their Disbeliever mantra.

But I'd love to hear from any commenters who know of other ways those of us who are overseas can access the show - or simply folks who can share more about what was covered.

Bloggers who commit to accurate reporting build up credibility or even popularity and recognition over time with a checks and balance system from commenters, other bloggers, reviews, etc..

(ps, the Slashdot link refers to a Guardian article by Hafeez Ayeed, who also featured the scary AMEG stuff a while back; I'd welcome pointrs to other commenters about this NASA study)

Your inability, so far, to provide the answers to these questions completely undermines all your complaints about the scientists who run this website and the ideas of other commenters here.

But other commenters (as well as this UVA law student) feel that laptop use harms other students who don't surf by breaking the flow of discourse in class and creating distraction.

Some commenters say that Brauer's decision to air dirty laundry is highly unprofessional — but Brauer says that the blog has now become an outlet for other foreigners who had similar problems.

The «Rakofsky 74 ″ included two newspapers, together with their parent companies and three reporters, the American Bar Association and its website, and (I believe) at least a couple of folks who were commenters on others» posts.

Several commenters proposed that the rule provide for patients to receive only an accounting of disclosures made by medical records departments or some other central location, which would relieve the burden of centralizing accounting for those entities who depend on paper records and tracking systems.

Comment: A number of commenters urged the Department to expand or clarify the definition of «covered entity» to include certain entities other than health care clearinghouses, health plans, and health care providers who conduct standard transactions.

Response: We agree with the commenters who suggest that denial on grounds of harm to self or others should be determined by a health professional, and retain this requirement in the final rule.

Comment: One commenter pointed out that the preamble referred to the obligations of providers and did not use the term, «covered entity,» and thus created ambiguity about the obligations of health care providers who may be employed by persons other than covered entities, e.g., pharmaceutical companies.

The majority of commenters on this topic, however, argued that a signed acknowledgment would be administratively burdensome, inconsistent with the intent of the Administrative Simplification requirements of HIPAA, impossible to achieve for incapacitated individuals, difficult to achieve for covered entities that do not have direct contact with patients, inconsistent with other notice requirements under other laws, misleading to individuals who might interpret their signature as an agreement, inimical to the concept of permitting uses and disclosures without authorization, and an insufficient substitute for authorization.

Response: We agree with the commenters who suggested that we recognize other appropriate entities to which workforce members and business associates might reasonably make a whistleblowing disclosure.

Comment: One commenter stated that under Minnesota law, providers who are mandated reporters of abuse are limited as to whom they may reveal the report of abuse (generally law enforcement authorities and other providers only).

Response: We agree with the commenters who argued that the final rule should permit the documentation of IRB or privacy board approval to be signed by someone other than the chair of the board.

Another commenter pointed out that the definitions of covered entities cover «Internet providers who «bill» or are «paid» for health care services or supplies, but not those who finance those services in other ways, such as through sale of identifiable health information or advertising.»