Sentences with phrase «by answering some questions such»

Can you fill out an online form by answering some questions such as name, address, email, and others?

Users can spark fun conversations and learn more about each other by answering questions such as «What song has been stuck in your head lately?»

«Using Mii characters users will be able to interact with their friends in an entirely new way to spark fun and interesting conversations by answering questions such as «what song has been stuck in your head lately?»

Not exact matches

(One answer to that question could be a mix of twelve Iraqi army and peshmerga brigades reequipped and retrained as planned by the United States, along with Sunni Arab national guard elements and a more aggressive U.S. forward ground presence involving Joint Terminal Attack Controllers and unit advisors; limited American ground troops might be needed to augment such a local force, however.)

«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.»

It consisted of dozens of questions often used by psychology researchers to assess personality, such as whether the respondent prefers to be alone, tries to lead others and loves large parties (the answer choices range from «disagree strongly» to «agree strongly»).

The rise of the digital age is making answers to such questions harder to come by.

But it was a very unsatisfying attempt — to have weighty theological questions determined by delegates who came together for a few days with little prior study of the issues, who were sometimes inclined to suppose that such questions admitted of «yes» or «no» answers, and who passed judgment after rather limited opportunity for discussion and debate.

One can not answer the question of what constitutes the just society by pointing to socialism as such, while among capitalist societies there are varying approximations of justice.

He tells the story of a conference he was at where he asked a Catholic priest what Jesus meant by «unless you hate your mother and father you can not be my disciple» and the priest waffled and said he wasn't prepared to answer such a difficult question.

The human existential condition does not require that people be religious or feel the need to address and answer such questions — many people appear happy to focus on the present, live as well as they can, and not be bothered by the Big Qquestions — many people appear happy to focus on the present, live as well as they can, and not be bothered by the Big QuestionsQuestions.

Keen has answered just such a question by suggesting that his concern is a phenomenological one, centering on those places where the holy is most manifest.

I've found that the answers to questions such as these (those which ring true, at least) tend to be those which are arrived at in my own way and own time, rather than being delivered by others.

An affirmative answer to this question takes issue with moral thinkers such as Gewirth, who fully agree that universal moral principles can not be exhausted by the formative rights I have identified but also hold that the supreme substantive principle is nonteleological.

We have not provided satisfactory answers to question such as: 1) What caused tons of steel used in WTC buildings to literary turn into dust 2) Why WTC 7, after all it was not hit by any planes 3) what did hit pentagon 4) Why Cheney was commanding NORAD on 911 5) What did hit pentagon 6) Why did cheney ordered complete stand by as the object was approaching pentagon....

Jesus often answered such questions by taking the side of the underdog with grace and kindness.

The only answer to such a question is that of the Greek philosopher, who, when asked about God by an idler, kept a persistent silence.

Such questions can not be answered by bland assurances that there is an «intelligence» directing our biological, political, or historical fates.

Such questions are basic to understanding a Biblical position regarding women in the church and family and are answered variously by each side in the debate.

Whether or not one's identity is distorted by such bondage turns, I suggest, on how one answers the question, «What makes life worth living?»

Undismayed by such conundrums, Hartshorne suggests a possibly affirmative answer to both questions.

Since the vividness and power of the story itself is adequate testimony to its authenticity, we may assume that it was a parable told by Jesus in answer to such a question, although the circumstances of the questioner and the questioning are now lost to us.

Indeed, even if one begins with broadly epistemological considerations, as I have done here, one can only avoid asking and answering the question wherein the ontic correlate of such a noetic pole consists by a failure to be fully critical in taking account of what one always already presupposes.

That night José Delgado — a pioneer in the control of behavior through electrical and chemical means — spoke of the fact that his researches raised questions that required answers not provided by scientific knowledge as such.

Here is the answer to our horrified questions about Isaac's sacrifice — our God does not demand such an offering from us, because it is already given by Christ's death and new life.

Such a man thinks that the answers to all questions will inevitably be produced by scientific knowledge.

We're told to just trust, but when we feel like our trust has been violated by those who deliver the message, it's no longer that easy, and we have questions to ask that have no easy answers (or do have easy answers but the people we ask have rather violent reactions towards such questions).

Ms. Harvey does raise important questions about those in a PVS, but I suspect that such questions ultimately can be answered only by the patient's family in a context of care and support provided by the medical and religious communities in a counter-balancing role for one another, thus preventing hasty or self - serving decisions.

If these questions are indeed meaningful, how, if at all, can they be answered by a thinker such as Hartshorne who gives priority to such traditionally denigrated entities as contingent feelings?

As such, I feel it is a natural side effect of our ability for abstract thought answering questions we don't yet understand but not reality in the sense presented by religions.

Then he proceeded to answer his own question by proposing three basic postulates or principles that we do well to keep in mind when examining issues such as those that surface — or lie just beneath the surface — of Hiebert's «The Gospel in Human Contexts.»

This is especially true when such questions are being asked by those who are suffering, those whose lives are significantly impacted by the answers.

«We do not protect the Bible or render it more believable to modern people by trying to demonstrate that it is consistent with modern science... It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal.

(This will also involve an affirmative answer to a question posed by Donald W. Sherburne, namely, whether these Whiteheadian «conjectures» could «provide a systematic, rational framework capable of grounding the many insights into the relation of «mind» and «body» which have emerged from the reflections of such phenomenologists as Merleau - Ponty» [WPP 406].)

Indeed, even as early as this writing, he acknowledges his uncertainty about the answer to the question of whether the events grasped by the theoretical language of mathematics can be sufficient «to «explain our sensations» (IM 33), or whether the mathematically formulated theory is even in a position to make an adequate reconstruction of other, unrelinquishable references to the world (such as sense perception).

One of the difficulties in answering such questions is that God is timeless and unchangeable, whereas we are immersed in time and so picture His actions as a temporal sequence: «His creation is not one timeless act or one act at the beginning of time; it is a series of acts which continually bring into being new states of the universe by His positive or permissive willing».

Why do you feel offended by such questions that you answer in that manner?

Whilst it is never wise to jump to conclusions you have to ask yourself why would Arsene say such things or more importantly why would he place himself in a situation by even bothering to answer these kind of leading questions?

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

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

By the way in answer to the question in the article, Barremaeker states that he wants to play in the Premier League at the Emirates and wear the Arsenal shirt, because of players such as Koscielny, Silva, Viera, Henry and Bergkamp.

-LSB-...] in hearing what the company had to say at such a one - sided publicity event, but I have found Nestlé's answers to some questions posed by Annie at PhD in Parenting to be fascinating and informative (well, Annie's discussion is informative; Nestlé's -LSB-...]

I'm here to answer some of your most common questions about how you can achieve your personal breastfeeding goals without being undermined by cultural and institutional booby traps, such as the booby traps that might be placed on maternity leaves and while pumping at work.

13 January 2015 — DIEGO GARCIA Question: To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 17 June 2014 (HL126), with regard to the use of Diego Garcia for rendition flights, what is the latest situation in relation to such flights.

I don't have time to hunt for references, but none of the existing answers mentioned alternate methods (internally generated, such as organizers giving out pins / etc... and counting how many were given); and then there's a related question discussed on a resent 538 podcast over the accuracy of internal estimates by organizations.

Also, we often use an active sentence construction such as «Bob ate the apple» because we make far more mistakes answering questions about a sentence with a passive construction - for example «The apple was eaten by Bob».»

«However questions still need to be answered by both ministers and the civil service about how a project with such high risks was allowed to proceed without clarity of responsibility and accountability back in 2010.»

When asked by Gotham Gazette during a question - and - answer session after his presentation whether he agreed with Gov. Andrew Cuomo's assertion that the state could pull back on funding toward the city since the city is experiencing such good economic times, de Blasio said absolutely not.

In our exclusive reporting on Latimer's July car crash in which Latimer appears to have run a red light leading to a collision that injured two people, we asked two signifcant questions that Latimer refused to answer: why was he driving Westbound along Wilmot Road in New Rochelle in such a rush on a late Friday afternoon and why he was driving a Jeep owned by his Community Outreach Director rather than his own vehicle.

What if such data could be easily accessed and manipulated by scientists in order to find real - time answers to research questions?