Teitelbaum J. used
rather strong language in describing this event,
I apologise for using
rather strong language at first, but I was absolutely gobsmacked at your paper and stunned that it could have got through any kind of peer - review.
Not exact matches
No,
rather they are known for
strong opinions and down to earth
language.
The work uses
strong nation - building references, such as referential movement depicting a group of people going towards their death, then becoming trees, ocean, and forming a
strong collective out of a group of individuals; its
language movement is very dramatic and places a
strong emphasis on unison movement
rather than individual dancers.
«
Rather than finding every bug or rewriting all billions of lines of code in safer
languages, Shuffler instantly lets us build a
stronger defense.»
That last may seem to be
rather obvious yet Australia's self - christened «leading expert in marketing and publishing» is a
strong advocate for using editors in the Philippines despite English being a secondary
language there.
For example, Kenneth Chestek found that judges, law clerks, and practicing lawyers rated sample briefs with
strong narrative components as more persuasive than sample briefs without
strong narrative components.13 Sean Flammer found that judges rated sample briefs as more persuasive when they were written in plain
language rather than in legalese.14 Similarly, Robert Benson and Joan Kessler found that appellate judges and their law clerks preferred briefs written in plain
language rather than in legalese.15 Finally, Joseph Kimble and Steve Harrington found that judges and attorneys preferred plain
language over legalese.16 These studies, however, measure only the judges» and lawyers» stated preferences for particular styles of writing.
(I am
rather surprised by your
strong language of disapproval).