Sentences with phrase «at logic then»

Not exact matches

At the current time, if you use Buffett's logic that stock values should roughly equal the GNP over time, then at the moment we are fairly valueAt the current time, if you use Buffett's logic that stock values should roughly equal the GNP over time, then at the moment we are fairly valueat the moment we are fairly valued.

So by that logic if God is capable of everything good then Satan is an all right dude and probably chills with God and watches football games with Him, imagine being able to watch all the football games at once!

But then, obviously your reading comprehension and logic skills are minimal at best since you believe the buybull.

Only a person without logic could look at God's creation, could look at themselves, could look at the design of male and female and then stand back and say that it was just a big accident of time and chance.

A good deal of the time we may find it useful to begin there; and our preaching of the gospel, once it does begin there, can then move on with the profound logic of experience to the bold affirmation that in this Man, in all his human conditioning, God is discovering himself to us as at no other time and in no other place.

So by your logic, back when the majority of people in the world once thought the earth was flat, then God's truth at that time would have been «Flat Earth»?

My own demand, consistent with Hardin's logic but less radical in its conclusions, is that we compute available donor aid as a percentage of total food production, and then determine quantitatively the points at which it hurts to help, endangers to help, and finally becomes suicidal to help.

At the end of the year I concluded that a group of people can not regularly gather for what they feel to be religious purposes without developing a complex network of signals and symbols and conventions — in short, a subculture — that gains its own logic and then functions in a way peculiar to that group.

If you carefully and thoughtfully work through the logic James» argument up to this point, and then look at the objection, you must include all of James 2:18 - 19 in the objection.

Because what happens, again and again and again, is people listen to that logic, look at both sides of the issue, and say «Well then I guess I'm not a real Christian.»

You can't not at one time claim faith above everything then claim at the basis of Catholism is reason and logic.

If you can not use it «to come to any conclusion regarding God or scripture,» then you can't use logic at all, which means, I think, that your argument rests on faith and faith alone.

If 95 % of the suppporters want me sacked then I have to make out that somehow we are actually not doing that badly at all, an attempt to confuse people with little or no logic.

Neither can one question the logic of the hunting club members who bait deer with apples, corn and a salt lick, and then on the crisp dawn of the first day of the season fire away at the feeding animals.

The logic would want you to bring what you need first and then top it up with gems (Sanchez, Ozil)... No, he buys the gems and then sit on his ass and even tell us we are lucky «he was not at home» otherwise Welbeck would have not been an Arsenal player...!!

Then again, logic doesn't work at Arsenal, so yeah.

But by Santi's logic — if we need to spend # 35 - # 50M on a striker in order to beat the likes of Hull and Sunderland at home then I suggest we have much deeper problems.

So yes... when you look at the logic of it all then it appears that if we were to get Schneiderlin then it would be to convert him into a holding CM... Why do that when there are already top quality specialist DMs out there?

Logic says he has had every chance to impress over a long period and has been erratic and downright sloppy at times, but then you can't accuse AW of being logical!!!

So I run through all the games, choose the ones I'm most confident in, and then go back at the last second and change them after explaining my logic.

If we take Buckner (and I thought we would, because TT always leaves one obvious hole to use his 1 on and this year that was 5T — correct logic, incorrect follow - up assumption) they 100 % make that trade, as one of those guys would be left at 6, and they'd get an extra pick they could then use to go back into the first for a QB.

It is very simple; you do not simply sell your player because he under performed half of a season, If we go by this logic then we should have already sold 90 % of our team, moreover why would we want to sell our goalkeeper in his early 20s who can serve the club for at least another decade.

Now, I do understand the logic behind a RB at # 32 if you're going to rely on them as the guy, if you can have him become a 3 down back then it's worth it... Also a RB at 32 has a higher likelihood of being a difference maker because you'd be taking a top 2 guy at that position rather than grabbing the 3rd best OT or 4th best DLman etc..

Personally I would say the guy just ain't worth it.That money can be used more wisely to get what we need.Lemar shouldn't have been a priority.The centre of the park should have been the problem.We are missing the point clearly.Even Bernardo Silva is as good as him yet went for lower.I've watched him and I know eventually he'll be world class but that doesn't mean he should be worth that bid because we have players his age wiyh more potential and cheaper.I remember people stating how Lacazette was not even worth # 45 some seasons back then all of a sudden he's signed for higher and people are behaving like they already like him.I'm sure the logic was that he was in the French league and possibly can't cut it at the top.This isn't money well spent at all.

Wenger should be General manager or and then club president., Like rummenigge at Bayern and Henry after him... That's hot right there and just logic beside being the best option, saack Wenger and replace won't work, it will make a terrible ending mainly... Henry is the solution and only option that should be looked at!

If I use your logic and stop nursing my toddler because she can't nurse at age 15 then we should also not spoon - feed our children because kids, teenagers, and adults are expected to hold their own spoons.

Since Mr. Brundige cited statistics in his report to the town board it would be silly not to conclude this letter with statistics based purely on logic: Since the error of machine - collected data at the airport versus actual human data collection is 10 times what Mr. Brundige reported for a specific period of time, then the town board must correct all data in Mr. Brundige's report by multiplying the figures by 10.

«Days were spent on discerning the ideas, the logic of the case, then outlines, then language, and then reordering and rewriting,» and hours were spent around the dining table at the governor's mansion listening to Mario Cuomo read version after version.

In 2006, Joanne Macdonald, then at Columbia University, US, and her colleagues created a molecular computer that uses 32 DNA molecules and 128 DNAzyme - logic gates to calculate the next move in a game of tic - tac - toe against a human opponent.

Dr. Linding then established his own laboratory of Cellular & Molecular Logic at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) in London, UK, before returning to Denmark to take a position as professor of cellular signal integration at the Technical University of Denmark.

At the time it came out, Brian De Palma's TheFurystruck me as a serious misstep, with the director so caught up engineering his (often splendid) tours - de-force that he never got the logic of his own syntax straight, let alone that of the scenario; it seemed then as if everyone else was ready to climb on the De Palma bandwagon I was temporarily deserting, but TheFurywas curiously absent from most year - end accountings.

These authors» logic is that if industry expects students to be prepared with high tech skills, then school spending must at least equal industry spending in order to keep pace with current market needs.

Then we would have to take the moulds, the logic boards, LCD battery, clearink display and find someone who can assemble it all at scale.

Then some crazy - ass idiot over at Publishing Perspectives argues that the judge was a busybody for adjudicating based on law and legal precedent instead of storytelling logic:

If you're only looking at best selling authors who are paid over the top advances then your logic (or idea logic...) is screwy from the start.

The logic is that if the shares started trading at $ 30 with 6 months before the transaction closes (example, and assuming that $ 30 is the deal price), then you could sell and put the money in a high interest savings account (or T - bills) and collect risk - free interest until then, thereby coming out ahead.

So if you look at it that way, then you can see how there's a logic to that.

But this wasn't some prescient bet on an oil price collapse — despite being one of the few resource stocks deserving of a P / S & P / E multiple at the time, I couldn't ignore the mathematical logic of the long - term discounted value of its proved - up assets in - the - ground vs. its net debt burden (which was actually much lighter then).

At the current time, if you use Buffett's logic that stock values should roughly equal the GNP over time, then at the moment we are fairly valueAt the current time, if you use Buffett's logic that stock values should roughly equal the GNP over time, then at the moment we are fairly valueat the moment we are fairly valued.

So no matter how you look at it, if you use cold hard logic combined with facts, contracts, and math, then there's little to no reason to buy fixed annuities (then variable annuities are much worse).

At some point, and I couldn't give you the logic, the level then made its way to a subway, where a truck was fortunately placed, because the terrorists on the run happened into a train.

For unlike Andre's floor sculptures, which are fashioned from the strictly impersonal logic of the grid, Steegmann Mangrané's are drawn, cut and organised according to a logic that not only defies the grid, but even immediate human understanding (although this particular perversion of the grid evolved from a drawing featured in the Morfogenesis — Cripsis presentation mentioned above), transforming it into something if not more natural, then less inclined to impose order at the expense of the natural, while casting doubt upon what we traditionally assume to be natural.

Then people can see what that chain of logic is and they can decide to go along with you or decide this is the point at which we part.

To then try and argue that these other flows are just «potential» is bizarre logic — when that Loco arrived at the first end of the line the 100 wagons really were there.

I simply stated that if one assumes that this theory is correct then one arrives at the conclusion that most of the effect was due to H2O, with a much smaller portion due to CO2 and other GHGs, and that those like Lacis or Alley (with their «CO2 control knob» posit) are using flawed logic to attribute essentially the whole natural GH effect to CO2.

Congratulations matty, you've passed logic 101; this is indeed the crux of Ferdinand's claim: «but one thing is certain, when atmospheric concs are rising, and rising at a rate that is less than ACO2 emissions, then without the ACO2 they would not be rising.»

... when it comes to the real - world consequences of those scientific findings, specifically the kind of deep changes required not just to our energy consumption but to the underlying logic of our economic system, the crowd gathered at the Marriott Hotel may be in considerably less denial than a lot of professional environmentalists, the ones who paint a picture of global warming Armageddon, then assure us that we can avert catastrophe by buying «green» products and creating clever markets in pollution.

This, then, is the brutal logic of climate change: With immediate, concerted action at global scale, we have a slim chance to halt climate change at the extremely dangerous level of 2 °C.

Moreover, the paper gets its history wrong when it notes that «Total cancer mortality rates did not decline until 1990, 25 years after the identification of the effect of smoking on lung and other cancers...» Well, actually, it was more like 50 years, because the earliest studies to connect smoking and lung cancer were conducted not by NIH - funded scientists but by Nazi scientists in the run - up to World War II.4 By the logic of the PNAS paper, then, ought we to be crediting the Nazi health science agenda with whatever progress has been made on reducing lung cancer, rather than the incredibly protracted and difficult public health campaign (that, for the most part, NIH had nothing to do with) aimed at getting people to cut down on smoking?

How about this logic... if the ocean is an enormous heat sink and ate their warming, and this was not anticipated or built into the models AT ALL, then the models are all cr @p, the huge sensitivity to C02 (amplification) is in the same crock of poo (i.e. the ocean provides damping and there is no amplification), and there really is no such thing as CAGW... there's only 134 pathetic excuses for climate models that are all wrong because the scientists didn't consider that 75 - ish percent of the globe was covered with water.