Top 837 Papers Quotes & Sayings

To say that you have taught when students haven't learned is to say you have sold when no one has bought. But how can you know that students have learned without spending hours correcting tests and papers? . . . check students understanding while you are teaching (not at 10 o'clock at night when you're correcting papers) so you don't move on with unlearned material that can accumulate like a snowball and eventually engulf the student in confusion and despair.

To me, I read good reviews in lots of papers and bad reviews in lots of papers.

When I was 10, I had a paper route. One year, I delivered my papers through a hurricane. My mother was against the idea, but my dad, who was a sergeant in the Marine Corps, overruled her. I was determined to deliver my papers.

Elsevier operates by racket: if you do not send money, you will not read any papers. On my website, any person can read as many papers as they want for free, and sending donations is their free will. Why Elsevier cannot work like this, I wonder?

I would say that the Pentagon Papers case of 1971 - in which the government tried to block the 'The New York Times' and 'The Washington Post' and other newspapers from publishing papers that they obtained from a secret study of how we got involved in the war in Vietnam - that is probably the most important case.

When I was a student in Kazakhstan University, I did not have access to any research papers. These papers I needed for my research project. Payment of 32 dollars is just insane when you need to skim or read tens or hundreds of these papers to do research. I obtained these papers by pirating them.

Now, I made the most money I ever made in my life with 'Papers' - I think my first check was like $101,000, my folks couldn't even believe. At this time, this is like 2010, I'm still in the barbershop cutting hair, still being the regular Zaytoven because I felt like after 'Papers,' it wasn't going to get any bigger than that.

It's all papers and forms, the entire Civil Service is like a fortress made of papers, forms and red tape.

I'm pretty slow at writing papers.

I still like the physicality of papers.

You make yourself available to the movement. At that point, for example, battered wives were not on the top of anybody's list. It was, "What did you do to provoke him? Why would he do that to you?" Stuff like that. I called the hotline, and I said I was available to help get orders of protection. I would help do whatever needed to be done, serve their papers. Many times, they'd go to court, get their papers, and then be afraid to serve them on the guy. So that was one source of income. But I took anything that came across my doorstep.

I decided on 'Kaagaz' as the title because everything, from birth to death, divorce, to agreement, is done on papers. Without valid papers, a person cannot even prove his identity.

You don't need papers to vote.

I'm not a Wall Street expert, but I can read the papers.

Sunday afternoon is for papers and writing.

I'm the son of a newsman, I grew up around news, so I can understand the issue, which is that papers are losing subscribers and they're getting less and less outlets... it's a tricky thing. You're going to have to sell papers. The problem is, there's so little reporting anymore.

Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.

I don't read the papers or watch TV.

Even with a computer, I can't get rid of all the papers in my life.

Most people think spies are afraid of guns, or KGB guards, or barbed wire, but in point of fact the most dangerous thing they face is paper. Papers carry secrets. Papers carry death warrants. Papers like this one, this folio with its blurry eighteen year old faked missile photographs and estimates of time/survivor curves and pervasive psychosis ratios, can give you nightmares, dragging you awake screaming in the middle of the night.

Unfortunately, there is something of a flaw in this idealized picture of the way the scientific community discovers truth. And the flaw is that most scientific work never gets noticed. Study after study has shown that most scientific papers are read by almost no one, while a small number of papers are read by many people.

I used to just sign papers and not pay no attention to what I'm signing.

Newspaper people have a habit of putting you in the front pages to sell their papers, and then after they've sold their papers and got big circulations, they say, 'Look at what we've done for you

In America, there's a very long tradition of a comic strip that comes in newspapers, which is not true all over the world. To sell papers, they put color comics in. It's worked, up until now. Now these papers can't afford it. They always had minuscule ad budgets, and now the things which people probably read these papers for are gone.

Whole libraries can be filled with the papers written about cancer and its causes, but the contents of these papers fit on one little library visiting card.

I'm not ashamed of any of my papers at all and I'm rather sick of snobs that tell us that they're bad papers, snobs who only read papers that no one else wants. I doubt if they read many papers at all.

I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results

I have had nightmares of not being able to finish my exam papers on time. Everyone is concentrating on their papers whereas I am not being able to write!

I never expected to be in the papers. I personally never expected to be in the papers. The height of my ambition for these books was, well frankly, to get reviewed. A lot of children's books don't even get reviewed.. forget good review, bad review. Personally, no, I never expected to be in the papers so it's an odd experience when it happens to you .

I was reading so much about myself in the papers that was not me.

That's the misconceptions that people have, that Chuck Berry went to jail. They're just totally wrong. It might have said something in the large papers in the bigger city headlines and things. But, you take a look at any of the local papers, and you will see that I was acquitted. I never went to jail.

The papers that flourish will be papers that serve a national audience. Papers that have figured out how to make the transition to the electronic platform that aren't simply providing a duplicate experience of the words on paper experience, but are doing something that arises organically from the new electronic medium. It's really just a matter of finding the right platforms for the way people want to read newspapers. I mean, maybe it will be the iPhone. But one way or another, newspapers on paper are just not really going to exist to any significant degree within a decade.

I only know what I read in the papers.

I don't go, 'I'm in the papers all the time,' because there are loads of people in the papers all the time. Sometimes I'm still like, 'Ooh, look- there's me!' I'm never like, 'Wow, look at me on the bus.' You have to be a bit grounded about things like that.

Long ago, I had to sort of learn to have a thick skin to read some of the things you read in the papers and to also keep my ego in check when you read some really flattering things in the papers.

All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance.

I think blogging and the ability to instantaneously respond to news items has changed the way we approach all media. We're seeing people talking back to columnists, and going much further in the sexual realm than most papers, even alternative weeklies, will publish. I'm surprised more papers aren't having people do what you're doing with an online only column, and to be honest, I read almost all the media I do read online, and plenty of other people do, too, so I don't know what's stopping them.

Don't you understand anything? Isn't it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That's how we get things done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it's properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us-to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we're non-political. The real power always is.

I always read the papers, the political bits.

I'm drowning in papers.

If you tell anything to a woman ... it's like putting it in the papers.

I love reading other people's papers on the Tube.

I don't read the papers, I don't gamble, I don't even know what day it is.

Now, academics are not always the easiest people to talk to, and the scholarly papers aren't always the easiest papers to read, but frankly, psychology papers, especially papers and books on terrorism, are very easy to read, and journalists should be reading them.

I don't read the papers; I stopped reading the papers. I read the papers only during periods of crisis, and I think papers are too long on a regular day and too short days when we have a crisis.

When I got my head shaved, it was all over the papers. It's weird that when you get a haircut you are in the papers, it's pretty stupid

The papers conducted by Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook are not newspapers in the ordinary acceptance of the term. They are engines of propaganda for the constantly-changing policies, desires, personal wishes, and personal likes and dislikes of two men? What the proprietorship of those papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.

I don't read the papers; I don't listen to radio.

I don't read the Sunday papers; or the dailies, either

The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims. And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature - it's not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it's gotten a lot of attention.

I read about myself in the papers all the time.

I don't really read the papers.

"There is no analysis here," the most brutal of them wrote. Now I wonder if my papers lacked critical thought, or if it was really more about my inability/refusal to write in the convoluted style that they wanted me to. I remember the initial shock upon reading my peers' papers. I seriously could not understand them, and I couldn't understand why the writing had to be so unclear in order to be considered smart.

If you gave me the choice of being CEO of General Electric or IBM or General Motors, you name it, or delivering papers, I would deliver papers. I would. I enjoyed doing that. I can think about what I want to think. I don't have to do anything I don't want to do.

I don't read the Sunday papers; or the dailies, either.

Back in the East you can't do much without the right papers, but with the right papers you can do anything The believe in papers. Papers are power.

He [Tony Blair] was always ambivalent about the [Rupert] Murdoch papers. But he gave other papers the chance to believe it was just about 'The Independent.' And that was wrong.

No, I don't read the papers. I just look at the pictures.

Humor strips dominated what were called the funny papers early in the century, but by the 1920s and '30s, adventure strips had taken over. With 'Beetle Bailey,' I revived the funny part of the funny papers, and I'd be proud to be remembered for that.

There's so many differences of opinion in the papers.