Is it fair to be suspicious of an entire profession because of a few bad apples? There are at least two important differences, it seems to me. First, no one doubts that science actually works, whatever mistaken and fraudulent claim may from time to time be offered. But whether there are any miraculous cures from faith-healing, beyond the body's own ability to cure itself, is very much at issue. Secondly, the expose' of fraud and error in science is made almost exclusively by science. But the exposure of fraud and error in faith-healing is almost never done by other faith-healers.
Of course if you happen to time the market really well, you can make more money with some of these smaller companies, but for someone with no exposure I wouldn't want to take the risk that they timed it wrong.
Of course, I also attribute some of my hearing loss to being in the infantry in World War II. It's probably a combination of heredity and noise exposure.
Constant exposure to dangers will breed contempt for them.
I recognized that I had a window of opportunity that had opened because of my exposure as an actor.
As a kid, I was always into clothes, but I didn't have the money to buy them. When I'd get my brothers' hand-me-downs, there was an energy in me that made me say, "I want to get my own things, to make my own statement. " Somewhere along the line, that energy - coupled with my exposure, through movies, to a world I hadn't known - turned into something.
The more exposure people have to the realities of factory farming, the more we will see people rejecting it. It's already happening.
It is not your qualifications but your exposure in life that makes you who you are.
. . . there is no evidence that casual exposure to secondhand smoke has any impact on your life expectancy.
I think it's like, you know, you can't get ahead of yourself, because no amount of success or exposure or opportunity is going to really matter or be ultimately fulfilling unless you can be totally present in what you're doing right now.
Images anesthetize. An event known through photographs certainly becomes more real than it would have been if one had never seen the photographs. . . But after repeated exposure to images it also becomes less real. . . . 'concerned' photography has done at least as much to deaden conscience as to arouse it.
In the '80s, I was the only game in town, I was the only one getting that kind of exposure in any rotation on MTV. Now with internet culture it seems like everyone is doing music parodies. And they're not all good!
I do think that if the Church can see its way to greater tolerance, Church members will have greater exposure to gay people, and the lives of those gay people will be better.
Everyone's perspective of themselves and others is based on the limitations of their exposure.
Exposure as a propagandist is fatal to the would-be persuader.
Just a little bit of exposure to this pulsed digital signal, which is now a cellphone signal, could weaken membranes of the brain.
They often ask me to shoot for them. But I say no. I think an old guy like me ought not take pages away from young photographers who need the exposure.
If I could have picked two guys on the planet, to have some exposure to at that age, those were the two right guys [Phil Woods and Charles McPherson].
Maybe today I would call Fred Leuchter and there would be two or three other documentary filmmakers interested in his story simply because of the exposure.
There's an abundance of exposure when you start working in American films. Inevitably you become a brand and that has to be controlled.
