Difference between revisions of "Talk:LL(k) ---- LL(1) Parsers"
From eplmediawiki
(Could I have an application form? <a href=" http://www.andantebythesea.com/generic-imuran/ ">buy imuran</a> But even if scientists have heavily criticized the paper, some may question if retraction i) |
(Pleased to meet you <a href=" http://www.andantebythesea.com/intagra-100/ ">intagra 100</a> The NHS was once the Prime Minister’s “number one priority” but became a destructive £3bn) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Could I have an application form? <a href=" http://www.andantebythesea.com/generic-imuran/ ">buy imuran</a> But even if scientists have heavily criticized the paper, some may question if retraction is the right step at this stage of publication. Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch, an online publication that monitors controversial papers and retractions, noted that | + | Could I have an application form? <a href=" http://www.andantebythesea.com/generic-imuran/ ">buy imuran</a> But even if scientists have heavily criticized the paper, some may question if retraction is the right step at this stage of publication. Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch, an online publication that monitors controversial papers and retractions, noted that Hayesâ letter does not offer any of the usual criteria for retraction, instead implying that the paper never should have been published. |
Revision as of 01:41, 12 November 2014
Could I have an application form? <a href=" http://www.andantebythesea.com/generic-imuran/ ">buy imuran</a> But even if scientists have heavily criticized the paper, some may question if retraction is the right step at this stage of publication. Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch, an online publication that monitors controversial papers and retractions, noted that Hayesâ letter does not offer any of the usual criteria for retraction, instead implying that the paper never should have been published.
