Sentences with phrase «time arguing»

For example, it's far from trivial to spend a long time arguing over a sofa or a plate.

You have bad - mouthed Registrants who have counseled for higher deposits, while at the same time arguing the value to indecisive buyer's for offering the minimum.

Within the Commissioner's (at the time it was Melanie Aiken) Applications the overall theme is one of an attempt to argue what is best for real estate consumer's in a general sense, while at the same time arguing that the concept of VOW's can only be seen as having a significant benefit for real estate consumer's — who are only ever regarded as Customer's!

Spend more time arguing than getting along?

That way you don't spend your time arguing about something that you two actually fundamentally agree on.

You seem like a real angry fanboy so I won't use my time arguing with some 13 years old kid.

So to that end, I'll probably keep my personal Facebook page, even though I sometimes catch myself spending too much time arguing stupid pointless crap (like politics) with people I'd otherwise never associate with.

Perhaps you can make the argument that good pizza is a matter of taste — and plenty of people I talked to while researching this article made sure to do just that — but even fans of Domino's have a hard time arguing that its pizza is the best pizza around.

One particularly interesting aspect of the decision is that, when the law first came out, my understanding is that lawyers for accused spent time arguing that this was a strict liability offense, so as to extend the defense of due diligence to their clients.

When it comes down to it, product liability lawyers spend a lot of time arguing in front of the court what it means for a product to be «defective,» and then a lot of time working with experts in a variety of scientific and medical fields to prove that a particular consumer product was «defective.»

The fact that you are spending money on getting better helps your claim because ICBC will have a harder time arguing that you have failed to mitigate your damages by trying to get better through exercise or treatment.

But again, unless you observed him actually discharging his weapon towards a person, you would have a hard time arguing that the peril was imminent and unavoidable.

It seems undeniable that in a trial, if one of the lawyers spends 80 or 100 percent of his or her cross - and direct - examination time arguing his or her case through the window of the witnesses on the stand and the opposing attorney using traditional methods gives up the opportunity to argue the case during direct examination (and as a result is able to argue his or her case through the window of the witnesses on the stand only 50 percent or less of the time), the first lawyer will have the advantage.

A plaintiff that only licenses its intellectual property would likely have a difficult time arguing that the damages it has suffered can not be compensated with money.

You could spend time arguing with them, or you could spend that time focused on recovering from your car accident.

Spend some time arguing on the Internet, or start a blog about something you love.

During the trial, the lawyers actually had to spend valuable court time arguing about emoji.

Opposition leader Tony Abbott will have a tougher time arguing against this type of policy.

Am sorry CBH but I can take the donkey to the water, and I can show the donkey how to drink the water, but under no circumstance I'm going to spend any time arguing with the donkey what to do, with the water.

which is why we both apparently find it so ridiculous to see people here wasting tons of time arguing about well - settled science that they have no hope of possibly overturning.

If somebody with the resources were to reproduce the Karl maps using real data, then this could be used to check a lot of what we're spending a lot of time arguing about here.

With this latest report, environmental activists and their state AG allies will have a tougher time arguing that their campaign is not about suppressing free speech.

If we spend all of our time arguing about whether or not humans are causing global warming, we're wasting time and energy.

'' As he sees it, there are three groups with a common cause in the debate over fossil fuels and they are wasting time arguing unnecessarily with one another.

You just spent time arguing against other views as to where it might have come from.

It's pretty much the exactly same number, but no one would have wasted time arguing with me about my TSI estimate.

You're quoting stuff I can't find, you've ditched his scenario and put your own in its place, and changing energetic equilibrium for thermal equilbrium you then spend your whole time arguing that he can't get an adiabatic lapse rate from a thermal equilibrium which he never said he could, and, you bring in conduction, the wire, when he is explicitly talking about gases.

If you want it to be something different, then by all means change it, but you are creating something other than the standard fisics used to argue AGW / CAGW KT97 and kin Greenhouse cartoon, and I have spent a considerable amount of time arguing these so I do know what they are..

Your» adversus solem ne loquitor» (don't waste your time arguing the obvious) is pertinent to discussions with «Willard the waffler».

This is so wrong I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.

But you display your own bias by not spending just as much time arguing with and pointing out the bias in the warmist's comments, and admitting to your warmist bias.

But mainstream scientists don't waste their time arguing about whether or not humans are causing climate change.

Why would the populist sites like RC spend so much time arguing about the non-existing thing and trying to put «quick definitions» for it?

Real scientists spend their time arguing about 2, and sometimes 3.

It is a waste of time arguing about the creation of life since we will never know about it, besides playing with educated guesses.

It would be a far better use of most scientists and PhDs time who comment on this forum and on others like Open Mind to just STOP wasting YOUR time arguing with idiotic «drunken» deniers, and spend their time much more effectively by scouring the internet for such «events» as «Gas Fracking reviews by Government» etc etc in all nations across the world and use your education and skills and knowledge and actually make a positive difference to AGW / CC action by sending them a FORMAL SUBMISSION or offering up YOUR OPINION and EXPERTISE to be considered in their deliberations.

Which is why YOU, yes, YOU, should be spending all your time arguing with Flat Earth Society people that their position is untenable.

With such a nice selection of different experiences to dive into, stop wasting time arguing over which one is the «best».

Animosity began to grow between the two halves of Sega, as they wasted valuable time arguing about whose hardware was more powerful.

Rather than spend time arguing or spouting text, the gamepad could have a series of touchscreen buttons indicating the roles available, and graying them out once a player has selected them.

Wasted my time arguing logic with the CSO.

I was prepared to spend some time arguing, before being rejected.

While many of these organizations spend a lot of their time arguing about other policies, on this, they are in complete agreement.

We have spent a lot of time arguing against misdirected emotion and false «facts,» appealing to people who have already made up their minds.

I would have a hard time arguing that it was absolutely necessary, though.

However, unless you were super-wealthy and sitting on a pile of cash, you would have a hard time arguing that a stable value of currency was better.

Yes, I agree it's not genuine growth, it is an asset bubble etc etc, doesn't help much though when you look at poor returns at the end of a year and realise that the doom - and - gloom picture was being wilfully ignored by those who rode the indices (perhaps in blissful ignorance) to huge profits while other saps spend time arguing about getting the economics dead right, and end up on the moral high ground but no returns to show for it.

Now the bad news: They'll spend some of that extra time arguing over money.

It can certainly be a dangerous topic to blog about But I have a feeling that many of the people who spend their time arguing about the precise safe withdrawal rate haven't actually lived off of an investment portfolio.

Gifts under $ 14,000 are excluded from taxation in the US, but they're going going to have a hard time arguing that it is a gift (since they expect it back).