pronouncements

One who gives greater weight to scientific papers than to religious pronouncements is entirely rational in doing so.

Something that really frustrates me is people who are more expert than me but can't justify their pronouncements.

These pronouncements have been interpreted to apply to modern times as well, since Muslims are to emulate Mohammad.

They deal mainly with the fact that, strictly, such pronouncements are not within the authority of the Supreme Court.

That would be fun to load into a roller coaster simulator.[1] Maybe with audio of pronouncements by Alan Greenspan.

What is really annoying are breathless pronouncements about a technology without critically thinking about its actual state and implementation.

Their public pronouncements [1][2], though, create the illusion of a higher degree of stability than is actually the case.

Encouraging everyone to make constant, short, pithy, public pronouncements is not a recipe for thoughtful conversation.

But then they make these grand pronouncements as if their problem domain represented all of programming.

May I humbly suggest you read up on the subject a little more before making such pronouncements.

We expect authorities' pronouncements to have less effect on our prospects and reputations.

I see some similarities to, e.g., medical pronouncements that some particular food increases risk of cancer.

I love how these types of articles always bring out the architecture astronauts with all their pronouncements of "it depends" and whatnot.

We need to know that the investment will be worthwhile, and the AGW-proponents approach of hiding/losing data, making grand "trust us" pronouncements, and ridiculing and suppressing skeptical debate is counter-productive.

I had a boss who was fond of saying: "If you have (only) one idea, you deserve to have it taken from you", (he also had other similar cheery pronouncements).