CURB
发表于 2025-3-28 18:12:49
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8617/861608/861608_41.png
OGLE
发表于 2025-3-28 19:26:47
Rochus Leonhardt theory of justice outlined by Rawls (1971). This supply-side model of equitable provision has the major advantage of being quantifiable, and for this reason can provide a data-based approach to policy development in this field (the significance of which has been discussed by Orfield (Chapter 6), fo
易弯曲
发表于 2025-3-29 02:41:41
Hans-Peter Großhans theory of justice outlined by Rawls (1971). This supply-side model of equitable provision has the major advantage of being quantifiable, and for this reason can provide a data-based approach to policy development in this field (the significance of which has been discussed by Orfield (Chapter 6), fo
entice
发表于 2025-3-29 03:32:10
Samuel Strehle theory of justice outlined by Rawls (1971). This supply-side model of equitable provision has the major advantage of being quantifiable, and for this reason can provide a data-based approach to policy development in this field (the significance of which has been discussed by Orfield (Chapter 6), fo
我的巨大
发表于 2025-3-29 08:12:29
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8617/861608/861608_45.png
北极熊
发表于 2025-3-29 12:23:44
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8617/861608/861608_46.png
分离
发表于 2025-3-29 19:17:02
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8617/861608/861608_47.png
LATHE
发表于 2025-3-29 21:07:36
http://reply.papertrans.cn/87/8617/861608/861608_48.png
CON
发表于 2025-3-30 00:29:38
Sarah Demmrich,Uwe Wolfradt Chapel,” “Chowder,” “Sunset,” “Dusk,” “The Whale as a Dish,” “The Tail,” “The Carpenter,” The Hat,” “The Chase—Third Day.” There are, however, exceptions, and the most striking is the title of the first chapter, “Loomings.” It is a mysterious term to give to the first chapter of a book. If “Counter
Intend
发表于 2025-3-30 05:07:14
Stephan Moebius Dick (Ahab as Ahab). We will see that Ahab as Ahab does not dominate this adventure. For most of the voyage, he lets the mates do their tasks. . Ahab’s monomania does not unify .Dick, and the effort to interpret the book in this way gives us not a classic but a mess—which is the way it was regarded