Despite repeated efforts, I still don't confidently understand the difference or usage between these two. This minimally affects impacts my writing, though, since I just choose different words instead.
I'm certain that I have never heard of Pullman before, yet I just learned about both his railcars and square bread in the span of three days. It's been an exciting week.
Basically the plot of fight club, but the book ends without exploring the aftermath.
The reasonable person standard is important here. For example, a reasonable person would not interpret a picture of some shells on the beach on Instagram to be an actual threat against a politician.
This is different from reasonable doubt which is a standard of proof required to reach a criminal conviction.
From the second link:
It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases.
Seeing how consistent the comment lengths are eliminated any remaining doubt that this is an LLM account.
Wow, 1200 posts since creating the account about a month ago.
Where the fuck do you get that idea? A business with shitty ownership can be well run from the customer perspective. If it weren't for the ownership, I would eat there.
Yes? It's fast food, not good food. I haven't eaten there in years because there's a local chicken place across the street that's ten times better.
I like their food and their service is top notch, so I'd be glad to see positive change from them.
I have no problem forgiving people if that's what you're getting at. There's a difference between forgiveness and excusing bad behavior, though.
In this case, Jesus chicken has always been anti lgbtq. Their long history would prevent me from forgiving them for that, but maybe if it was under new ownership or something.
I don't care if they still fund it or not. When somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time.