Sentences with phrase «statement of actual fact»

On the other hand, when I call you a «fucktard» it is a simple statement of actual fact.

Not exact matches

Moreover, Santayana would agree with Whitehead's statement that» [an] eternal object is always a potentiality actual entities; but in itself... it is neutral as to the facts of its... ingression in any particular actual entity of the temporal world» (PR 44).

So the fact that there might be one or more actual true statements in a book of mythology makes the book factual?

As will be explained in chapter four, Hartshorne disagrees with Whitehead's statement in this quotation that God is an actual entity; but, otherwise, Hartshorne's metaphysics totally agrees with Whitehead's declaration that the «final facts» are «actual entities» or «drops of experience.»

fact [fakt] something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

He added: «I made a statement at the Aburi Gardens sometime back but it was misconstrued that I had accused you of not being able to fulfill your promises, which in actual fact wasn't correct.

If a new report truly is a false statement of fact that causes harm to someone's reputation, and if the news reporter has no actual factual basis for the factual claim, the First Amendment does permit the courts to impose both civil and criminal liability for the false statements, with civil suits brought by someone who is harmed and criminal liability enforced by the government.

Obviously, there would be a lot of discussion over where the burden of proof lies (you have to have proof before making a claim vs you have to be able to disprove to sanction for a claim), and I think it would differ depending on the kind of statements being made, but the idea that facts are fungible and impossible to determine is a concept that, basically, people who find actual facts inconvenient for their agenda like to claim, but has no logical basis.

That's BS as are most of your statements and I bet you know NO farmers and base your statements on no actual facts.

In actual fact a shirtdress can be at its prime when slouchy and loose with a skyscrapingly stunning pair of statement heels and a simple topknot.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

Ill - informed and, with all due respect, blatantly false statements like the above beg for a response based on actual facts about the present reality and near - future potential of solar and wind energy — not only in industrialized countries like Germany, Japan, Australia, and the USA, but in particular to meet the needs of the developing world, where these technologies are already enabling a revolution in rural electrification.

The next stages are easy to predict as well — the issues of «process» will be lost in the noise, the fake overreaction will dominate the wider conversation and become an alternative fact to be regurgitated in twitter threads and blog comments for years, the originators of the issue may or may not walk back the many mis - statements they and others made but will lose credibility in any case, mainstream scientists will just see it as hyper - partisan noise and ignore it, no papers will be redacted, no science will change, and the actual point (one presumes) of the «process» complaint (to encourage better archiving practices) gets set back because it's associated with such obvious nonsense.

In fact, that is what we in the actual business of logic call an inconsistent statement, a basic contradiction.

Because stronger laws have been successfully blocked by opponents of strong climate change policies on the basis that stronger laws will harm the US economy, destroy specific industries, and destroy jobs, the actual US climate change policies are based upon US economic interests, a fact not clear from examining the statements of the US federal government alone.

In the United States, because stronger laws have been successfully blocked by opponents of strong climate change policies on the basis that stronger laws will harm the US economy, destroy specific industries, and destroy jobs, the actual US climate change policies are based upon US economic interests, a fact not clear from examining the statements of the US federal government alone.

It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that the experts judged the contrarian statements to be misleading and incompatible with the actual data, especially in comparison to the mainstream interpretations of the same data, which would of course state the obvious fact that most glaciers are shrinking (in this case, presented as «rural populations shrinking»).

These sorts of governmental fact sheets are not absolute statements of the law, they are guidelines about what is most commonly applicable, and to determine if there are any exceptions, one must consult the actual law.

In my view, this is a fact of modern life but I would simply prefer to see more honesty and transparency about it so that corporate pronouncements and high - minded statements of purpose and values and consistently matched by actual behaviours.

As Judge Teefey explained, «speech which does not contain a provably false factual connotation, or statements which can not reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about a person can not form the basis of common law defamation claim.»

To the extent that the statements merely reflect your personal views, rather than stating actual, provable facts, Judge Teefey's opinion makes clear that they can not be the subject of a defamation claim.

Therefore, the Judge, not being in possession of the actual facts / knowledge of the actual truth, or not, of the defendants» statements, had a 50 / 50 chance of being wrong with his «belief».

Discussion of Forward - Looking Statements about Newmark Statements in this document regarding Newmark that are not historical facts are «forward - looking statements» that involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward - looking sStatements about Newmark Statements in this document regarding Newmark that are not historical facts are «forward - looking statements» that involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward - looking sStatements in this document regarding Newmark that are not historical facts are «forward - looking statements» that involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward - looking sstatements» that involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward - looking statementsstatements.