Not exact matches
In fact, some
of them didn't even mention it, being far more upset by a comment attributed to Watson a
couple of sentences earlier: He was «inherently gloomy about the prospect
of Africa,» Watson had told The Sunday Times, because «all our social policies are based on the assumption that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing
says not really.»
But
in the next
sentence they
say, «This is not to suggest that there aren't
couples who happily make these milestones — we all hope that we're one
of them.»
In the same paragraph on page 89
of his hard - cover book, he writes «I am not
saying all carbohydrates and sugars are completely equal» then, a
couple of sentences later, he writes «when I
say Sugar Calories I mean all carbohydrates [calories]».
We're going to have a
couple of defence lawyers on our next panel, and I'm just going to take a wild stab that at least one
of them probably won't be
in favour
of this legislation,
saying that we don't need it, that it's not necessary, that we don't need mandatory minimums, that we don't need consecutive
sentences on this.
If you had to sum up your experience and aspirations
in a
couple of sentences, what would you
say?