My problem is how such strong claims were made from
such weak understanding.
Not exact matches
Too many «modern» atheists fail to
understand this concept or try to sidestep this issue by creating terms
such as «strong» and «
weak» atheism.
The present writer is nothing of a philosopher, he has not
understood the System, does not know whether it actually exists, whether it is completed; already he has enough for his
weak head in the thought of what a prodigious head everybody in our day must have, since everybody has
such a prodigious thought.
Council members
such as Miguel Martinez were just clumsy and, when caught stealing, too
weak to effectively cover themselves with support from prominent media outlets and an
understanding judiciary.
But researchers are just starting to create computer simulations of the strength of magnetic fields to
understand how
such weaker fields might arise.
Fortunately, you don't need
such an experience to start valuing leg strength and to
understand that you can't be truly fit if you have
weak legs.
It's difficult to
understand how
such an accomplished cast gathered for
such a
weak script, but then Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, and Gary Oldman weren't the immediate household names they are today, while Hopkins had just earned that status the year before.
I am desperate to
understand why so many people are enamored by
such a
weak story.
Such organization of arguments from the strongest to the
weakest will help your readers better
understand your point as well as it will convince them in to take your side on the issue / topic.
A phrase like» A
weaker jet stream is unable to maintain the cold where it usually is and accordingly the hot air will move abnormally» is difficult for
such people to
understand — I am not sure I fully
understand your argument.