Sentences with phrase «letting you ask questions of»

Let me ask a question of clarification....

So let us imagine that a lot of Gooners get their wish and Walcott moves on and let us ask the question of what that would mean to Arsenal?

Not exact matches

The best strategy is to let the board member ask his or her question, write it down, tell them it's a good question and one you're happy to spend time with them explaining after the meeting but that your goal for today is to address the bigger issue of X.

All kidding aside, let's take this thought process one step further and let me ask you this question: How much is each one of your employees worth to your company?

At the end of an interview, always save time to let the candidate ask questions.

Let the other person to do most of the talking - chime in mostly to ask clarifying questions and provide relevant information when asked.

Well, rather than continuing on ad nauseam after asking an important qualifying question in hopes of nudging your prospect's answer in a particular direction, you're letting reality sink in.

In a blog post, Amit Singhal, senior vice president of Google Search, explained how comparison and filter tools built into Google's «Knowledge Graph» will let users ask questions that don't necessarily have simple answers in a way that feels less like a search and more like a conversation.

And you asked a whole bunch of questions, so let me cover that.

Ask the question you need to know about to find the right resource, and let us be a part of your journey to success.

One of the most popular social functions on Mobile Taobao is a Q&A feature called Wendajia (ask others) that lets shoppers with questions about a particular product get answers from members of the Taobao community.

Let me just ask one question: Can we PLEASE start the debate in the country about how «God», «Hell», «Heaven», «Satan», «Muhammad», «Jesus», «Angels» «Ghosts» «Demons» and «Spirits of the Dead and or / Nature / Mother Earth» do not exist in any rational form as the way they are presented throughout world history?

So, let me ask you a couple of questions.

Specifically let us ask with regard to this logic two questions, viz.: (I) What is its purpose, and what problems did Hegel hope to solve by means of it?

This question must surely be asked when we look at counseling from any ethical point of view, let alone that of the Christian faith,

Let me ask you one question... If you find out what you believe in is wrong at the end of your life, what will become of you then?

That distinction being presupposed, let us first ask what is to be said on the question of mutability or immutability of canon law and the Catholic style of life bound up with it, if we may so describe all the practices, rules, modes of behaviour in a Catholic's church life and his secular life lived on Christian lines, which hold good or previously held good through education, church precept etc..

Heck, for me to dare question the bible or parts of it or to question certain areas in many denominations or mainstream teachings is bad enough let alone my honesty and forthright opinions when asked or cornered, or told to believe something that I flat - out refuse to.

While I am not religious (I will call myself agnostic), and having an IQ well over genius levels, with scientific and mathematical tendencies, let me ask you a few questions, because what I see here are a bunch of people talking about «no evidence» or «proof» of God's existence, therefore He can't possibly exist, existential arguments, which are not arguments, but fearful, clouded alterations of a truth that can not be seen.

(Proverbs 18:2) Let's do less airing of our opinions this year and spend that time reading, asking questions and having conversations.

First off, let me say that asking the Big Question, worrying with some consistency about the meaning of life and final ends is only for certain kinds of people.

Maybe I could have done that but let's be really brutality honest — with the exception of programmes like this you don't get more than 20 seconds to get your message across and the idea that anybody asking me those questions was interested in the theology is naïve in the extreme.

Yet in His tender mercy, God lets us ask the same nagging question that Abraham posed: «Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?»

They insist that he take a look at, let us say, Old Testament theology, or pastoral counseling, in their own categories — instead of asking first the functional questions of both Old Testament theology and pastoral counseling.

More than a few questions linger in the wake of these six attempts to reimage redemption: How, one may ask, can we experience the process of letting - go without falling victim to the surrender imagery that has done such harm to women and children, particularly in abusive situations?

I learned that letting my kids explore, ask questions, then more questions, to push the boundaries of their understanding helped me to learn as well, while helping them to see that often there is more than just one way of seeing things.

... I also went to catholic school & college... Let me ask u a question, would you leave any of your young sons alone with a priest?

Let me ask you all of you a question, if someone you loved was accused of being a pedofile, how would you feel?

It is a common caricature of pacifism to ask the question, «Would you stand aside and let gangsters murder your wife?»

Now that I have summarized what I was taught in Bible College and Seminary about the inerrancy of Scripture (Inerrancy 1, Inerrancy 2, Inerrancy 3, Inerrancy 4), let me turn to asking the questions about inerrancy that I had neither the time nor the courage to ask while I was in seminary.

opinions - Speaking of Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God, perhaps a better question for you to ask is why we humans have an inferior eye compared to that of a giant squid?

We must be patient with newcomers letting them be among us until they are ready to ask questions, such as, «What is giving me the sense of wholeness, peace, and community?»

When Cardinal Pell interjected that the problem for Dawkins is that he only accepts sense experience as proof, the presenter let Dawkins off the hook and turned the question on the Cardinal, asking: «Why would God randomly decide to provide proof of his existence to a small group of Jews 2,000 years ago and not subsequently provide any proof after that?»

First off, lets quote what laurie said in the original post,» First, I think changing sand in hawaii to the world isn't an egrecious error, isn't the heart of the question asking to measure something that's seemingly impossible to measure?

But yes, some teachers answered in a very non answer kinda way — i didn't let them get away with it... i forced the answer by either being completely rude towards what i thought to be there religion or just asked a long series of questions which gave the answer with cunning and gile.

Let me reverse that question and dance with it a bit on the high heels of generality, asking, What is there by way of a common structure that is good in process thought?

The first question everyone asks is what I did to get control of the illness, so let's talk about that first.

On opening day of the 7th International Rice Genetics Symposium held at Makati City on 5 - 8 November 2013, IRRI hosted a successful event dubbed Let's talk GM rice, an opportunity for the media to meet with leading experts and ask questions about genetic modification in rice.

It did nt turn out, i reached out to Cultrues of life to ask questions, they told me you let your yogurt get way too cold (95 degrees) and this is why my yogurt did nt turn out.

I asked this same question to my thousands of Facebook fans, and many had never heard that, let alone done it!!

In honor of Huy Fong Foods launching the brand new redesign of their website (just within a day of this writing), David Tran was kind enough to let me ask him some questions.

People keep using stats to defend him because that's the only way to defend him.When you watch him most at times you he hardly wows you or is any special.Can i ask a question couldn't Chamakh or Bendtner or Aliadiere score about 15 - 18 goals with this super super creative arsenal midfield.I mean lets be honest if Chamakh in his first season should have scored 20 goals in EPL many people would still want him out you know why because watching every aspect of his game and also analyzing every aspect of his game he was below average in his time at arsenal to be honest.So its not only about stats because stats do nt tell me the whole story about a player though they are facts and don't lie the eyes do nt lie.And with this same eyes we look at players and say Aguero is better thab Bony, Costa is better than Remy, and so on.

So let me ask you guys a question, what if one of our cb get injured?

lets say 8 yrs of success and 11 yrs of??? 11 yrs of medeocrity has surpassed 8 yrs of success yet he is still a demigod.luk shitty has ernomously expanded their stadium while enjoying success yet we alway give such as an excuse?i know we started new after the relocation but was it not possible to enjoy both?chelshit and spuds are planning the same and for the former they wld continue to thrive!the big question we shd be asking ourselves is WHAT MAKES ARSENAL A BIG CLUB??

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

OT: let me ask a question, those two periods we won the FA cups, did you think we would have won it if we had met Chelsea in any of the occasions.

Are you really naive enough to believe that Wenger would bring anyone into this current locker room that is going to be given a strong voice... have you not been watching, listening or reading about our club for years... Lehman is a blind Wenger follower, which is the only reason he was even considered... just for a second think of all the strong personalities that have played for this club that have never been seriously considered even though they have expressed legitimate interest in participating in the coaching process... even worse, think of all the former greats who aren't even allowed on the same pitch as Wenger because they have offered their advice and / or criticism to the infallible one... I dare you to find a manager that has distanced himself from his former players as much as this man... it's the very reason why only one player I can think of has ever returned to play for Wenger and that was Flamini, which was hilarious considering we were desperately looking for a top quality defensive midfielder but Wenger could somehow find no one better than Flamini in the whole wide world... let's face it this club was simply trying to appease it's disgruntled fans by declaring that Wenger would no longer be given Ca rte Blanche when it came to the backroom staff so they probably asked him to give them a list of those who he would allow in the locker room... on that list he wrote Lehman, Pires and Bergkamp, likely because the first two are the only former players who haven't publicly questioned his horrible decision - making and the last one because he won't get in an airplane

I don't see a team where the manager can say «oh no, RVP isn't performing, let's bring Falcao on instead» being in too much trouble for the rest of the season, though defensively there are still questions that can be asked of them..

Let me ask this question before I take my leave how long will it take Arsenal before they win d league, m not asking of Champions League because that will be like trying to catch ones shadow or even a mirage,

Let me tell you about this guy named Ramsey... and Ox... and Walcott... and Sanchez... those are who you should be asking questions of, not Coquelin, who's been one of our better players this season.