Wording used in a sentence

Wording in a sentence as a noun

Edit: totally got the wording wrong from the article. The guy kissed their boy, not his own.

"The following is not true: wording in the judgment>" Context counts for a lot.

To do approval voting, you'd change the wording in your posting to: "What languages do you like? Vote for as many as you want."

* edits: wording. I have hard time being dispassionate about this.

>The techniques and the wording seem snake oilish. You know, every time this guy's story has popped up on here I've defended him.

Maybe the choice of your wording and the structure of your post is a bit unfortunate. If so, consider editing it.

We felt the current wording was clear. However, apparently it is not.

The wording in the TOS is designed specifically to not mean "we can breach whenever we want", but instead to mean "if you sell counterfeit goods through our service we will destroy them and not refund your money". The words "we ...

Another thing is the wording - Andreessen says Snowden's a traitor by the basic definition, in which he stole national secrets and gave them to our enemies. That is a consequence of his disclosures.

Twitter's is similar, and any company with decent lawyers is going to protect themselves with similar wording. The new TOU, however, heads in a different direction.

Weasel wording filter: Graf 1, sentence 1: "a few board threads" -> Internet's current most important programming forum. Graf 1, sentence 1: "contributed to by our competitors" -> Smoke screen, unsupported, irrelevant.

I basically began the process of suing them for massive damages and that ultimately was the only thing that was able to get them to change the wording. So overall, my learning is that it genuinely scares me what government agencies can do without any evidence or judicial process.

Don't we need a common-sense refresh to the wording of our laws and potentially our constitution as it pertains to how we now rely upon 3rd parties? It makes zero sense in a "services age" where granting third parties limited rights to our private information is so basic and fundamental to how we think, work, conduct and enjoy life.

Given the technical wording of the Act, it could just as easily have gone the other way and upheld the Aereo service as nothing more than something that facilitates individual, "private" performances via a streaming technology. But that would certainly have glorified form over substance and, I think, the Court got it right in the end.

It appears to me that the author is attempting to use some clever wording to create an impression that the "harassment" was much more intense than it actually was by subtly crossing over into her personal experience with online trolls.

Other times, it happens because of what I call "slicko" tactics by the other party, where something that appears to say "x" in fact has a legal meaning of "not x" owing to the use of weasel wording and the like. Still other times, it happens because entrepreneurs are trying to cobble together their own contract by picking and choosing what sounds good from others they have seen and, in the process, failing to ensure that things don't conflict with each other or perhaps just omitting to address key legal issues by having put an exclusive focus on the business issues.