Sentences with phrase «thread where»

Last year on a message board I had a thread where I led the «Great Destash of» 08».

I can't find the thread where you were showing me a few links... anyway, what do you think of the indian school road and 203 area?

She is talking about about John's house that was in the thread where she commented.

You'll also find some good advice in the same thread where Arisdroid posted the original question about high - end - phone specs.

It first responded to the controversy by taking to Twitter and starting a thread where it said that it was investigating the issue and has «identified a solution.»

After the installation is complete, your device will run stock Android 4.3, but you can use the instructions listed at the end of the post to learn how to gain root, as there you will find a direct link to the XDA thread where you can download the SuperSU file needed to apply root for your HTC One.

To get the actual APK, you'll need to head over to this XDA thread where you'll find the APK available for download on your Android device.

Be sure to link us to the relevant thread where a publicly available download link is present and the Android 8.0 ROM boots as a bare minimum.

Check out GravityBox by following the link to the thread where you'll find more information and the APK download.

This currently links a Microsoft Answers forum thread where you can download a tool that walks you through the Windows 10 reinstallation process.

Those comments are now the top items in a comments thread where you can discuss feedback with each other and us.

The Google engineer had responded on the thread where a user had requested dark mode, saying that «our engineering team has added this feature,» and that «it will be available in a future Android release.»

Every post made on Facebook becomes an open thread where anyone on the site can comment, and comments inevitably lead to conversations about evidence and speculation about guilt or innocence.

In fact, I just showed you a thread where this is happening right now.

Here is a copy of my post on a previous thread where you made the same lying, distortion of scientific facts as you are doing here.

I've run across three posters now who claim Steve is violating confidentiality, two of them on this thread where contrary evidence is clearly written in plain English.

Hunt Janin: If you can't find somewhere relevant, then find the latest open thread where you can ask whatever you please.

Didactylos gave good advice: If you can't find somewhere relevant, then find the latest open thread where you can ask whatever you please.

Please re-post in the Septics thread where scientific peer - reviewed references are not required.]

Kindly do not bring justification of that here in a thread where Dr.Curry is talking about IPCC's confidence or overconfidence levels and attributions.

Identify one post on an RC thread where a plan has been offered by any member (s) of our illustrious tag team that meets the above criteria.

As promised I revisited Nic Lewis's previous thread where I thought Betts comment appeared, then looked at half a dozen other threads, in the process reading some 3000 comments, but could not find it.

Is this the thread where I finally have the opportunity to call Mr. Conelly (ALWAYS misspell the name, always!)

I've been busy on other things but this article reminded me of the other thread where scientists were accused of downplaying the dangers of climate change.

The issue was re-raised most recently at Keith Kloor's Collide - a-scape in a lengthy thread where Gavin Schmidt argued that critics of Mann et al 2008 were refusing to listen, while Gavin's critics countered that Gavin's arguments didn't make any sense, a position summarized by Lucia on June 18, 2010 with her characteristic lucidity as follows:

All that he could do was link to Gareth Renowden's «Hot Topic» thread where accusations were made again with no evidence.

Tony, compare the responses here and in that WUWT «humor» thread where they're saying your cites are convincing and your claims are unrefuted.

In fact, in a response to one of my comments in that thread where I pointed out that MW had not read and understood Mann08 * and the SI * he called me out by name.

Next time, you might be pleasantly surprised at what happens if you just address the scientific question, and leave the polemical rant for some other thread where it would be on - topic.

If you are interested in the thread where this was posted here is the link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/a-treeline-story/comment-page-3/#comment-143383

It seems that this has changed recently, though: Anthony now has an update in his second discussion second thread where he notes that «With the advent of the successor display to the MMTS unit, the LCD display based Nimbus, which has memory for up to 35 days (see spec sheet here http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/dad/coop/nimbus-spec.pdf) they stopped worrying about daily readings and simply filled them in at the end of the month by stepping through the display.»

-LSB-...] problems of strip bark standardization were being discussed in the thread where Climategate was first mentioned — a thread which contains relevant illustrations of the -LSB-...]

Again, not the first one to note this on this thread, but as an example, visit ATTP's parallel parasitic thread where many of the marooned and barnacled subjects are bouncing the attribution question around in a sack of rocks manner: there is no unanimity or clarity.

You've penned articulate, well - organized essays from a scientifically - literate perspective, so it may seem unfair to be subjected to the following criticism, on a thread where most conversations aren't going well, for much more basic reasons.

I just suggested that, for the one thread where Dr. Meier was giving us the benefit of his expert opinion, we should leave off posts such as «Dr. Meier is an idiot», or «What about cosmic rays?».

, the open thread where you get to share your brilliant thoughts, advice, recipes, and opinions on all things food - related.

Refering back to the USCGRP draft thread where you wondered, «Where was the science?»

Discussion of creationism is restricted because creationists take any opportunity to promote their belief to the destruction of any thread where they are given an opportunity to evangelise.

My comment on that point was based on one (or two) of your comments in this thread where you described some details of your approach.

I would not have used the term «kernel» myself had you not introduced it in your first post in this thread where you wrote «However, as will all such convolution filters each filter reduces the length of the dataset by half the kernel width at each end.»

Right here on this site, Joy, there is a thread where Duae Quartuniciae took the paper apart.

The odds that I am referring to were the fact that you «outed» me on a thread where you also shut down a technical argument that you did not wish to see take place on your site.

You might remember in the earlier thread where I was pondering religion as an analogy for environmentalism, I suggested that rational improbability was fundamental to «faith.»

Here's TCO's graceful post at the current end of the RC thread where I defended the Skeptic article:

I would like to thank RC for finally initiating a thread where it is entirely appropriate to discuss the issue which has been on my mind lately, and stated so clearly in this work: We will pass dangerous tipping points if we continue to rely on emissions reduction as the grand strategy.

You could put your ideas in a thread where people are inviting it, where the discussion's about the topic, not about you.

If that development can be more efficient than not, then this is a plus, but it has nothing to do with the point that started this little thread where Mike suggested that reduced emissions was somehow automatically to be equated to reduced energy use.

Is it really necessary for you to grossly and blatantly misrepresent what Gavin wrote, right here on a comment thread where every reader can easily see what he actually wrote and just as easily see that you are lying about it?

As an example, RC could set up a generic / dev / nul thread where posts not deemed to have any utility could be dumped for public perusal.

The 3 - screen installation functions like a cinematic «exquisite corpse» in which one screen continues the narrative thread where the previous screen leaves off.