a person/team is reporting on the "early research" months after the fact, and then a separate person/team gives new info in a different article
i'm not even defending cnn; people are just so deranged that that's how they're interpreting it
your minds have all been poisoned and in some cases destroyed by post-NCLB public schools. i don't even know what else to say. be better, and try thinking—it's good for you
a person/team is reporting on the "early research" months after the fact, and then a separate person/team gives new info in a different article
i'm not even defending cnn; people are just so deranged that that's how they're interpreting it
your minds have all been poisoned and in some cases destroyed by post-NCLB public schools. i don't even know what else to say. be better, and try thinking—it's good for you
early research -> later studies
where's the mystery?
dude, its barely one day apart... look at the dates
a person/team is reporting on the "early research" months after the fact, and then a separate person/team gives new info in a different article
i'm not even defending cnn; people are just so deranged that that's how they're interpreting it
your minds have all been poisoned and in some cases destroyed by post-NCLB public schools. i don't even know what else to say. be better, and try thinking—it's good for you
a person/team is reporting on the "early research" months after the fact, and then a separate person/team gives new info in a different article
i'm not even defending cnn; people are just so deranged that that's how they're interpreting it
your minds have all been poisoned and in some cases destroyed by post-NCLB public schools. i don't even know what else to say. be better, and try thinking—it's good for you