Sentences with phrase «here follow his thoughts»

Here follow his thoughts...

Not exact matches

Here are my top digital marketing experts to follow on Twitter — people whose expertise and advice I enjoy, and think you will, too.

«So I think with gold sitting here at about $ 1,320 or so, you have a great risk reward where you could probably target somewhere in the mid - 1,400 s if a bull flag scenario does in fact follow.»

I have sat in restaurants and had people who I am sitting with, when people come over to talk to me, they say, «Come on, we're eating dinner here»... and I let it go for a while and then I turn to that person or those people and I say the following sentence: «How do you think we got this table?

You can follow the conversations at Brainstorm Design here or by subscribing to the just - launched occasional newsletter Business by Design that will keep you up to speed on design, innovation, smarter corporate thinking, and the goings - on in Singapore this week.

Here's how The British Psychological Society Research Digest blog sums up the results: «The data showed that the more a participant had turned their thoughts towards what they had in common with the other director, the more their ingratiation behaviors paid off — they were more likely to get an invitation to join the board in the months that followed.»

One thing I think that is happening here is a perception that deep troubles will follow an increase in the prime rate based on the raw amount of debt held by the US Government.

I think people who have been following social media marketing blogs for awhile now are probably getting immune to all the same content and there's sooooooooooooo much out here now, it's hard to absorb everything.

I think the upshot here is that, if you are trying to stay within 506 (b), then you will need to be careful that you are actually following the previously guidance on 506 (b), meaning that you should confirm that your demo day / pitch event is ACTUALLY private and that your angel group ACTUALLY has substantial and substantive pre-existing relationships, etc..

In any event, I thought the next day was a good time to update the leadership Twitter feeds I have been following - see here and here.

There's no book to follow, and I think connections to other people who've experienced this from other tragedies, or from Sandy Hook, can be useful as guideposts for people here in terms of, «Well, this is what happened that we weren't expecting, and this is how we handled it.

Mark Whitmore: This is Mark Whitmore, I keep forgetting we have two Mark's on the line here, and Chris you absolutely interpreted what I was trying to say correctly, and kind of to follow up a little bit, I think one of the things that the other Mark pointed out is the issue of timing, and whereas the two prevailing investing paradigms out there seem to be this notion of efficient market theory which attempts to just buy and hold the market no matter what, completely price indifferent.

So relieved to read the comments (a lot of sensible people here in America are voicing out their thoughts re: this article) following this plastic fantastic comparison of chairs used in the east and the west - a chair is just a chair - like Dionne Warwick sang... people in America know their minds now and hand manipulation of religion in every way possible is out the door.

Sounds like Pink Floyd time — I think here some «Us and Them» in that sentence — think of it how you want I guess — we both follow the same Christ.

Here's a biblical quote where jesus says we should follow the OT: Jesus orders Christians to follow the Law of Moses in the Old Testament: «Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

In my post on Emergent Immersion, Don Reiher made the following comment which I thought was so good, I would post it here:

If you think that it's important to have a blog that fairly covers law and religion issues and offers commentary that departs from conventional academic secularism, please check out CLR Forum and, if you like what you see, vote for us by clicking here and following the links.

I am quite sure that they are wrong, but my point here is that Whitehead's lack of appreciation of the religious importance of the no - self doctrine leads some of his readers to think they can follow him in general without appropriating this doctrine.

In the same paper, commenting on the final pages of Process and Reality, Cobb wrote «some of us think, following Whitehead here, that John's assertion that «God is love» is a profound metaphysical truth.»

Although the mode of thinking here is radically different from that of modern metaphysics, by following the lead of the new physics, it converges toward the latter in countering the positivism and the practically oriented modernism following from Darwinian evolution, with its stress upon «environmentalism» and «functionalism» as modes of adaptation within a secularized immediacy, an immediacy shorn of depth and ultimacy.

Here he follows a criticism that Bowne often made of «picture - thinking.»

The line of thought at issue here runs as follows:

I think you nailed it with this comment: «If you are like most people in the community here, you love God, love Scripture, love theology, and love to follow Jesus in loving others, but are tired of the rules and lies and manipulation of religion.»

I found the following post over at Backyard Missionary, and thought it was so good, I needed to repost part of it here.

Here's a thought: rather than following a group of men who play with little boys or believing in a religion which has you eating flesh and drinking blood every sabath or believing in a divine being that calls for you to stone disobedient children, why don't you simply think for yourself.

So the vacationing Carl Scott made the following observation that I think deserves more attention than it will get in the comments section: The key here is Peter's 35 state claim [Peter Lawler passing on a story from the Politico that Santorum would lose 35 states.]

Here as elsewhere those who think exclusively in terms of either - or find it very difficult to follow Buber's thought.

Note: After doing a lot of reading, research, and thinking on the topics in this post, I wrote a follow - up post about the pagan roots of Christianity here and some of my concluding thoughts about Zeitgeist the movie.

Yesterday, at Mosaic Arlington, Stephen Hammond provided the following list, which I thought was excellent, so I am sharing it with you here: «Ways to get On Mission this Summer with your Life» * Host a party for your neighbors as -LSB-...]

Hang on a minute; I think everyone here needs to differentiate between believing in God and even following Jesus Christ with what is printed in the Bible.

Yesterday, at Mosaic Arlington, Stephen Hammond provided the following list, which I thought was excellent, so I am sharing it with you here:

Here's my thought, following the lead of probably the second smartest citizen of Georgia of all time: Secession was stupid.

So here's a question: Do you think that following Jesus should influence one's viewpoint on the health care debate?

Everything I did, and wherever I went, I was still in a storm, and yet I continued to be the chief contriver and ring - leader of the frolics for many months after; though it was a toil and torment to attend them; but the devil and my own wicked heart drove me about like a slave, telling me that I must do this and do that, and bear this and bear that, and turn here and turn there, to keep my credit up, and retain the esteem of my associates: and all this while I continued as strict as possible in my duties, and left no stone unturned to pacify my conscience, watching even against my thoughts, and praying continually wherever I went: for I did not think there was any sin in my conduct, when I was among carnal company, because I did not take any satisfaction there, but only followed it, I thought, for sufficient reasons.

Our first thought may be that here is simply a conventional way to say that at just this point we are beginning the gospel story that follows, that Mark's little book is itself «the good news.»

We recognize here a set pattern of composition followed by early Christian writers, corresponding to the structure of their thought.

Here we shall profit from following the thought of R. P. Hanson, who in several recent essays and one or two books has urged that talk about «inspiration» has come to be very problematical for us.

I don't like to digress since I don't think we have exhausted the discussion on the subject matter; however, due to the heavy digression on this blog, I would like to address the following statement that has been presented here:

I think Mincaye would follow him anywhere, but here, in Hyderabad, India, Mincaye follows especially closely.

Here follows Whitehead's first, not very satisfactory, but highly original, attempt to define nature: he is working up to establishing the possibility of two different ways of thinking about nature:

In my comment a couple of days ago I went through a thought experiment concerning the third possibility above and arrived at the following — if existence just is, then it was not created (either from God or out of nothingness) and therefore it has always been here (remember I'm talking about all of existence, not a conceivably lesser object like the universe).

I always felt so tied to following recipes exactly as planned that it was hard for me to think of something as mine vs. a well executed product of < insert GF cookbook author here >.

Do you think a gelatin - egg replacement would work here (I have to follow a strict AIP diet)?

So thanks for following along and engaging with me here, I think it's pretty special.

I'm following you for a while, and I can see you're quite health consciouss, so here's a thought: have you ever checked Paleolit diet?

If you do follow a restricted diet, I think you'll be very excited by the recipes in here - there are a number of different baked goods, breads, and pasta dishes, in particular, that look positively fantastic!

Well, after following your link, I think this is a tradition we need here!

First I thought I would follow the recipe to the T, but the control freak that I'm, I ended up modifying a bit here and a bit there to give it a personal touch.

I first watched Arsenal in 1976 and have been following home and away ever since NOT 2006, I also don't use twitter and don't play fifa, for the record I really am bored with the insinuation that if you criticise an Arsenal player, the owner or wenger then you don't support Arsenal, are happy with everything that's been going on since say the move to the grove?do you not ever think things should be done differently?did you never criticise a player?if you say no then I don't believe you.I make no hesitation in saying I'm very much on the side of the wenger out brigade, but never would I come on here and write what you've just done, for a start in might upset my seventy year old dad who is very much a AKB.I think you're just a keyboard warrior some how.Regardless though credit where credits due good performance today, and yes I did go

I mean, I'm seeing this as purely, wildly hypothetical... just trying to follow your train of thought here.