Sentences with phrase «response to the post done»

of times, they get a message «comment under moderation» (or something like that) and all responses to that post do not show either.

This is in response to the post done in May 2 2009.

Not exact matches

Teigen's final tweet to Trump — aka the «no one likes you» memo — was in response to a July 23 post where he wrote, «It's very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President.»

She didn't hesitate to write a response post to address the malicious comments head - on.

And the public was ready to pounce: Just 24 hours after Fowler published her post, the Twitter hashtag #DeleteUber had generated almost 5 million more impressions than it did during the weekend of January 27, when masses of people started using it to protest the company's response to a New York taxi strike and CEO Travis Kalanick's (soon to be short - lived) participation in President Donald Trump's tech advisory committee.

The process for doing this is not as easy as it could be, but each response gets attached to the original, while still being a standalone post in its own right.

approximately 70 follow up postings emails and replies (since communication had to be done one at a time with each candidate, «mass» responses were ignored)

Users can see and comment on one another's responses to the challenges, but unlike Facebook, where users collect «likes,» or Instagram, where favored posts rack up hearts, Maverick doesn't use social affirmation as a currency.

In response to my post on our unmet infrastructure needs: Q: Given these needs, why didn't Obama target the stimulus to infrastructure?

This post is in response to the following excellent comment from Stephen Moore, the man who will trounce Ralph Goodale in the next federal election (or at least do better than I did): April 2007 testimony before the parliamentary committee on International Trade saw Industry Canada, DFAIT reps and others stress the importance of the -LSB-...]

In one response you have referred to me as silly, accused me of being unable to reconcile my beliefs to scripture, accused me of stalling, rambling on and on, (love the irony in this one... grin), likened me to a tween, insinuated I do not know or rightly divide scripture, referred to me as sensitive, and implied my post was immature.

I do appreciate your thoughts and your responses to my posts and the posts of others.

Veritas tried to claim I was using the bible to prove the truth, however it is trivially easy to see that I never once on this thread quoted the bible on anything he probably did nt even read my post, it is just a stock response.

That post was supposed to be meant as a response to herbert juarez on the previous page, but apparently CNN decided it didn't want to work that way.

you say you don't want to waste time with non believers... but here's your post... worded to get a response from precisely that group:)

AND I do own every word I have posted on any of these blogs, they have not been hateful, I have asked clarfying questions, to get a better grasp on your point of view, and mopst of time you are using innane insulting expletives as your response.

I'll choose my favorite questions, do my best to pose them at the conference, and next week write a post about the responses.

If you are don't indirectly or directly elude to me, I won't bother you; however, when you do as you did in your post about me, expect a response.

I fail to see how that response has anything to do with the point that I was trying to make, and, seeing as how you seem to have missed my postings intention entirely, I will not bother reading too deeply into your thoughtful analysis of my commentary in return, which would no doubt be an engaging and intellectual adventure.

Judging by the responses to this post, the fellow doesn't know what he's writing about.

And I will assume that my response to your question of «why do I (and atheists in general) post here?»

I admit I did post it earlier but only because I wanted to see some responses to the comment but I have know idea where it was in this sea of posts.

This article is so full of garbage... I don't want to pick my brains to dignify it with a response beyond this post...

I took these words from a response to a fine post by Carl Scott, and decided to make them into a not so fine post of mine here — A long time ago Peter Lawler mentioned doing the most unconservative thing, i.e., writing some kind of postmodern conservative manifesto.

Pointing out what is a trend (not an absolute truth) in the comments does not make a post immature, but the language and the response to criticism will.

My post did just what i wanted to prove, more stereotyping and empty responses and I got you angry because you know deep down i am right.

I keep hopping on here to post a nasty, hateful, typically christian comment and then I run really fast to another board so that I don't have to see what people say to me in response.

My post did just what i wanted to prove, more stereotyping and empty responses and I got you angry»

Yes — to both of your posts, except that the author clearly didn't do a horrible job — just look at the responses!

I am reminded of that post you did so long ago where you wanted pastors to share their deep dark secrets... I don't think you had a very successful response — I guess pastors don't have «stuff».

Sorry — that post was meant to be (another) response to someone else claiming that the author didn't know what he's talking about and that Rand would be against everything the country has become.

Best critique: Carson Clark with «A Cordial Response to Rachel Held Evans» Post «The Future of Evangelicalism» While I don't agree with every part of Carson's analysis, I really learned a lot from this insightful critique and would love your thoughts on it.

@Poltergeist — Not precisely sure of the intent of the original evolved ligase post or your response, but is it safe to say that this study, as with other in vitro evolution research, is proof of concept, i.e. random variation and selection can and does yield novel functionality?

I didn't post that response because I knew I wouldn't probably get back to the computer for a couple days.

I contend, as I did in response to another post below, that all the morals that you are calling objective are simply more morals born out of consensus.

I am posting the responses from the hundreds of thousands of experts that have spent decades doing research on this subject and the statements they have released to the public in 2012!

I do believe you are young, full of yourself and find that you never to read back through the posts on this site for people's responses that were sent to you days after you posted.

Shadowflash, I don't recall your response to any of my posts... I usually do recall them... But I do agree with one thing you said... «human mind hates being wrong» But I see it differently then you do... I see human mind and human understanding being the stumbling block and point of pride, which prevents man from seeing the reality of his real condition, and the need to humble himself in order to be able to see himself as he is, and seek the help of His Creator without whom he is a living, moving shell, yet, without the vital part of him being alive, which would make him complete.

my comments were in response to your post on the «call» # 8... it does has something that has to do with your post.

Most Popular Comment: Pam Elmore, in response to the post above, said: «Let me be the first Christian woman to tell you: you don't HAVE to have children.You're right, the church is not a safe place to admit any fears (or challenges or regrets) about motherhood, at any phase of it, before or during.

Hawkins's official response to the college, which she posted on her website, quoted part of Wheaton's questions, including a request to «clarify how it is that we worship the same God if Muslims can not affirm that God is the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; or that God the Father is indeed the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; or that the Father did not spare his only begotten Son; or that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit coexist as a Trinity in eternal and self - giving love?»

Once you've done everything you can to make your post fair, factual, and civil, don't get all apologetic and sheepish about it when it garners a big response.

So, I'm curious... @Lisa Needle's Eye's posting was about pointing out how there are things better in other countries, and not as good here, and «your» response to her was basically... «leave if you don't like it»...?

Don't forget to enter the drawing for a free copy of NT Wright's, The Challenge of Jesus (with DVD) Just post a response comment over on the review post, and you'll be entered.

@PRISM1234, It is not surprising that you would praise the post of Ando, but do you have any form of response to the post of Hear This, because his would make the first fairly erroneous.

I have read a lot of comments posted in response to this aticle and while my life is not perfect, I do live in peace.

Laughing — yet again you fail, you sit here and you tell me in one breath that i'm wrong in dealing with absolutes, Yet My whole point in the previous post was to point out that I can't blame science for killing Billions of people because they created the bombs and guns to do so... Just like you can't blame Christianity for people using violence against others, it's the people not the ideology that caused the violence, and i believe that... for whatever reason you apparently missed that and tried to make me sound like i honestly blame science for killing billions... so... maybe you need some reading and comprehension classes... i du n no, just would appreciate if you're going to argue with me, that you actually read my responses.

After reading your responses to my post, «When a Theology Just Doesn't Feel Right,» I felt it appropriate to address the topic of biblical authority, as our discussion often drifted in that direction.

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.

My response to this post is based upon a video which shows nothing and «does not exist».