And so the top two … We argued, we thought, we argued some more, but we couldn't separate them.
Cameron argued: "We should think very very carefully before crossing this line," warning that parliament for centuries had seen its role as a bulwark of democracy.
In order to live differently, he argues, we must think differently, and this relates to the way that we see ourselves in the world.
If so, he argues, we should think twice about encouraging plans to privatize Social Security, requiring average Americans to manage their own money.
It argues we can think of ourselves in different ways: sometimes in terms of our personal identities and sometimes in terms of social group memberships (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).
It's a truism that the internet has changed everything: how we work, how we communicate, how we consume, and even – it has been argued – how we think.
Ann Willer director of the office of laboratory policy and planning at the New York State Department of Health, has incorrectly argued that "We think if you're telling people you have increased risk of adverse health effects, that's medical advice".
Ann Willey director of the office of laboratory policy and planning at the New York State Department of Health, has incorrectly argued that "We think if you're telling people you have increased risk of adverse health effects, that's medical advice".
As argued above, we think that 'local adaptation' is the most important issue where genomics can contribute to conservation science.
When we argue, do we think about how we'll summarise the events in a pithy tweet?
