Sentences with phrase «answer questions at that point»

Our dedicated customer care team is there to answer your questions at any point during your search, and our online magazine is full of expert advice, dating tips, and research to help you succeed.

I stress that it's perfectly fine if they can't answer the questions at this point.

Remember that those same renters insurance experts are available after you've set up a policy, as well, and are equally happy to answer questions at that point.

Not exact matches

Dobbs initially tried to avoid answering the question, at which point Trump interrupted the host, saying, «I'd love to hear it.

But the company's willingness to spend (and lose) limitless sums money to drive competitors out of business raises a question regulators might soon have to answer: At what point does being too competitive make you anti-competitive?

My worries at this point involve the questions Nintendo has yet to answer.

The Tesla CEO answered questions boldly and even defiantly at times, at one point going on an anti-media rant and at another point challenging the head of a major competitor.

Case in point: Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, at a press conference in Washington Wednesday, answered nine questions about the U.S. economy before anyone asked her about Greece.

«As such, stressed out sales reps will all too often try to sell and negotiate at the same time by layering questions with value points, or worse, answering their own question on behalf of the prospect.»

At this point, most companies understand that they need to be interacting with their customers on the Web — answering their questions on Facebook, following them on Twitter, etc..

The celeb can then choose to answer these questions by responding directly to the fan, at which point the fan will likely freak out on their Twitter page that Kim Kardashian just answered their query as to how she lost her baby weight (it was the Atkins diet).

(At this point, Denton mentions how the Kinja platform allows for question - and - answer style interviews between journalists and readers, much like Reddit's «Ask Me Anything» feature).

If at this point, you really need questions answered or some input, a meeting might be logical.

The Chinese director at the New Jersey City University Confucius Institute told me that her stock answer to questions about Tiananmen Square was to «show a photograph and point out the beautiful architecture.»

Let me pause at this point to answer an obvious question.

Though the answers to these important questions are unknown at this point, investors don't have to sit idly on their hands awaiting the outcomes.

The question, which we can not answer at this point, is does this represent volatility reflecting fears over Europe (the export order index fell six points) and will orders bounce back (as the orders index did in November 2001) or is it a slide into something more worrying?

At this point, the most important question you must answer is, «What are we going to do to ensure that we start 2017 in a stronger position than we find ourselves in today?»

So that's a question that I don't think we know the answer to, but if millennials can't buy the boomers house at the current value than basic supply and demand economics suggests that prices will have to fall to the point at which they're affordable to millennials.

At this point we can see the answer to our initial question.

So at this point, you still have not answered my question or addressed my challenge.

However for me at this point answering the question gets problematic.

At this point as far as the earth is round question we consider that answer so refined and mounted in evidence that we can say it is indeed a fact at this point and will never change until an event takes place that actually changes it shapAt this point as far as the earth is round question we consider that answer so refined and mounted in evidence that we can say it is indeed a fact at this point and will never change until an event takes place that actually changes it shapat this point and will never change until an event takes place that actually changes it shape.

I was very reluctant to do that because I felt that I really wasn't sure if I would get an answer, or that I wouldn't be ready for an answer, or that I wouldn't know for certain if I felt that I did get an answer that is was actually from God or whether I was just deceiving myself, so for a few years there I just put that off, however those questions and concerns kept boiling up within me, so at that point I couldn't take it anymore putting it off.

I don't think there were or are ears willing to hear at that point or this, anyway, but I really do appreciate you sharing this and Alex if you would like to talk to me personally, I am very open to that and I will answer all of your questions.

4 The answer to this question will depend (as Deleuze clearly recognizes), not simply upon an analysis of the nature of monadic units, but on confronting the issue at its most sensitive point, namely, with respect to the difference between the Leibnizian God who «compares and chooses,» and the Whiteheadian God who «affirms incompossibles and passes them through.»

Or at some point they may be faced by a question of great personal consequence that requires a yes - or - no, true - or - false, answer.

The issue of organs is very important because you still have not answered the big question, at what point is it wrong to kill the continuation of human life, which we both agree continues with the sper.m and egg and why is it at that point and not before?

At one point, however, the program did show five different racial types in rapid succession asking questions — without showing the answers — in order, presumably, to display the ethnic variety of the American middle west.

This is why, at one point in the book, I grant the Gnostics of old the validity of their questions, though I go on to revile the answers at which they arrived.

I know at this point its sort of kicking a dead horse, because I know we've both agreed that clearly we'll see what we want to see but your answer just begged the question, so this friend of yours is he a) a christian himself b) had he been praying for a job before c) why did your prayer take an entire week to be fulfilled d) is it a good job?

Now, as Nagel argues, this is not the sort of question that you can answer by looking at a few examples (bats for Nagel, Christians for us) and pointing and saying, «Well, being a bat (or a Christian) is like this.»

It was at that point the church asked my parents to not bring me to sunday school, as they could not answer my questions.

In chapter V, we will note that an evangelical answer to the question of homosexuality centers at the point of the church's interaction with contemporary society.

Here are all your points as to why Christians are stupid fools, some of the questions I combined to answer, but I think that I answered all of them at somepoint in my answer to your «impossible» questions.

Anyway, @godless — I have the same questions — at this point they have become rhetorical because no one has been able to answer them in a way that makes sense to me.

But at this point it is sufficient only to point out that in the chapter of I Corinthians 15 itself, Paul actually discusses the nature of the general resurrection and attempts to answer the question, «With what kind of body do they come?»

This speaking of God may ultimately only point to the question which is man himself and thus hint at God's mystery in silence, the result may be less adequate than any statement on another subject, the answer, aimed at God's bright «heaven», may ever again fall back into the dark sphere of man or may consist in inexorably upholding the question that transcends any definition, formula or phenomenon.

I need only to ask: if you wash your feet before prayer, and when the last stoning was that you attended: to get my point across... but you did say I had to answer in a coherent manner...:) Yes, the jesus story... one of those that many love to argue about, even me at times in my life have i taken the position of «he never existed»... but most of us know he did, the only real question is his divinity.

Even now, we are at the point in history where there are not nearly enough scientists to answer the more and more questions that come up... As Solomon said:

Phrygian to me i sense that you are struggling with issues in your mind that you cant reconcile and these issues are affecting what you believe in your heart and therefore your faith in God.I had something similar happen to me recently regarding the story of the demon possessed man at one point the demons begged Jesus to cast them into the pigs does that mean that Jesus was implicated with the work of satan.It cast my mind into doubt and then i began to question who God is.I prayed and sort the holy spirit for an answer the answer i got was that Gods character never changes he is always holy righteous and sovereign why else would satan ask for his permission.So the answer was that he allowed satans purpose to prevail so that we can see that satans intention is always to destroy it may well have been that the pigs were his anyway.As they were for the gentile nations who offered the pigs to their demon Gods.Just as satan can not change who he is the destroyer the thief the liar God can not change who he is when we realise that despite what we see going on in the world God is still the same yesterday today and forever.The time is coming when those that have hurt others will be judged for there wickedness as we serve a holy and just God.Just as it was in the times of Noah so it is with this this generation that as the wickedness reachs its zenith then the Lord will return to judge the nations.He is coming again and we need to be ready it is not a time to be caught sleeping.brentnz

It is at this point that the question of the answering of prayer most frequently arises.

And Jesus gave expression to this devaluation in his own life: he broke the Sabbath when he felt that God bade him act; he excused his disciples (at least) from the custom of fasting; and the burning national question whether one had really to pay the poli tax to the foreign power of occupation (in Judea and Samaria) he answered in the affirmative, but he viewed it as a secular concern and pointed his questioners to the essential duty, «Give to God what belongs to him.»

question: if none of the answers we actually arrived at ever pointed to «gods»... what makes ANYONE believe «gods» will ever be the answer to any of the questions like «how did the universe begin?»

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Oh, and I guess to answer the original question: No, it doesn't help to criticize refs after the fact because at some point of time it'll come back and bite you in the arse.

In his interview with Oasis» Noel Gallagher, Balotelli answered an awe - struck question about his ability to convert penalties in high - pressure situations («I couldn't do it») by pointing that «I am much better at football than you» and, then, «It's my job.»

It's pretty clear at this point that it's going to be tough to get anyone from the Patriots to answer any more questions about the scandal or its investigation, at least in the media.

The club's stance to not pay over-the-odds for a 29 - year - old (Dempsey) is ultimately to be applauded, but at this point there seems to be more questions than answers regarding Liverpool's transfer window.

Clearly, more studies are needed at this point to answer all questions, but the latest study is setting a new standard that may very well stem the explosion in the rates of the deadly allergy.