Sentences with phrase «loses points because»

It loses some points because tough adhesive and a glued - on rear panel make battery replacement unnecessarily difficult and extreme care is needed to remove the front glass without destroying the display.

The French sedan loses points because of its firm suspension, a less spacious interior compared to rivals and a rather noisy cabin at high speeds.

The state also loses points because its school report cards don't include information on school safety, parent involvement, or class size.

The state also loses points because its science assessments are not aligned to its standards.

The state also loses points because it does not require and pay for mentoring for all new teachers.

However, this model lost points because the reviewers found the connector doesn't last and it's slow to heat up.

Tomorrow either Man City, Chelsea or both will lose points because they are meeting.

Ahhh yes I forgot we lost a point because Chelsea lose to teams in the bottom half.

There are already some games that we lost points because we did not score when we should have.

Rockville lost a point because 40.6 percent of students — 54 out of 133 — showed low growth, just a hair above the state cutoff of 39.8 percent.

You don't want to lose points because of mistakes, or because of bad choices we made.»

If it had more than three years» worth of reserves on hand, it lost points because it is likely not in urgent need of new donations.

If you don't fall into this category, you will lose points because they will expire.

If you don't fall into this category, you will lose points because they will expire.

Not exact matches

At some point any installed software can be damaged because of a system failure, and you may lose all your work.

If your work experience section is simply a list of bullet points, they lose effectiveness because the reader's eyes glaze right over them.

That's because he's losing something that analysts point out as key to effective bargaining in trade talks: credibility.

What was at one point gained via an unbundle / re-bundle approach can quickly be lost because of what Bill Gurley points out here:

Our starting point has always been that the imposition of the GST should not have an effect on wages because wage - earners will gain more from the accompanying fall in income tax rates than they will lose from the introduction of the GST.

So, many traders lost money because they sold right near those bottom points, when the market looked weak, but was actually getting ready to retrace higher.

I agree with some of the points like don't have to miss out the plurals because if we forgot to count them, we can lose some amount of hits to our website.

It doesn't do Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum any good to attack Romney as not conservative enough at this point because the votes that Romney loses will tend to go to Perry.

I think this guy is suing because he lost his job... not because those around him do not believe the way he does... you are kind of making a good point just for the wrong side.

WhySoSerious - You weren't debating my point, because you'd lose.

Hebrews 6 is pointing out the impossibility of losing your salvation because if you did lose it that would mean Jesus would have to be crucified again if you wanted to get your salvation back.

But voluntary insanity is a high point of immaturity — because a person deliberately loses control of himself or herself.

From our point of view, this was fortunate, because, if it had not happened, the tradition would have been lost to us.

In the end, Paul's message in the first half of his letter to the Romans points to one single truth: Because God has done everything necessary as far as our eternal life is concerned, there is absolutely nothing we (or anyone or anything else) can do to lose our eternal life once we have it.

And, as Smith notes, a problem with mere prudentialism is that its adoption is imprudent «because if people realize that the point of «morality» is really to get what we want, then people will lose their incentive to respect the moral - prudential imperatives that prudence itself imposes whenever those imperatives seem to impede us from getting what we want.»

It's a classic moment in Lost history because it perfectly encapsulates John and Jack's characters, and because it points to a predicament to which we can all relate: Some of us really struggle to accept things on faith, while others seem to find it easy.

Can we lose that salvation i believe so if we totally turn away from him by rejecting the conviction of the holy spirit in our lives.I say that because as a new christian i accepted Christ into my life and the holy spirit was convicting me to surrender my heart to him as Lord and i was resisting him i would not surrender to him fully and so he gave me a choice to either accept him or reject him.I believe he gives everyone the chance to make that commitment as Lord of there life.When we make that deeper commitment and follow him he will continue to perfect us through his holy spirit so that we conform to his image.By the way i knew that if i rejected him at that point that was it he would never bother me again i would have been eternally lost the thought was terrifying at the time.There was definitely a spiritual battle being fought over me i was very aware i needed to decide which side i was on.Thankfully i chose the winning one.brentnz

That is why Christians are called to minister to those around them, because we know that at one time we to we're lost As to the middle part, it is a valid point, however the reason Christians are «supposed» to be saved is because they realize their sin and how much God loves them.

You mentioned at one point that you lost your «job» because of changes in your viewpoint — I would be interested in hearing more of that, as both myself and a number of my close acquaintances suffered something similar in our ministries over changes in our eschatological perspectives.

What this means is that as long as the word «saved» is incorrectly equated with eternal life, the concept of «once saved, always saved» can easily be refuted by pointing out the many places in the Bible where people can lose their «salvation» because they don't obey God or fulfill the conditions of «salvation.»

I have christian friends from other churchs and there women do these things and they do it because that is how they interpret the word.Its optional and not inforced by the church or by there husbands.They do it as an act of worship to the Lord.The point is how you interpret the word that was what i was getting at as we know the word is the inspired word of God to understand it we need the inspiration of the holy spirit otherwise the word is dead and brings no life.In the case of mother etta she was called to preach and God used her as an evengelist in her day her ministry grew she witnessed to thousands she healed the sick and saved the lost you can argue over a point but the proof is there that God uses women just as he uses men in ministry today.

I think a counselor is good if you need someone to talk to about the deeper stuff — of course good friends should be confided in — to a point — but not so that the friendship becomes just about that — because then it feels like a counseling relationship — and the friendship may be lost as you will associate that friend with your sin which you want to get rid of, and when you are free from the sin, you may want to be free from those associated with the sin too.

Ross's latest NYT column makes a point I think I alluded to earlier: just because losing Arlen Specter is bad doesn't mean having him to begin with was good.

at one point I realized that my calling is to have faith like John the Baptist or the virgin Mary, to believe in God in a way that would cause every religious person to reject me as a lost cause for the rest of my life, for them to speculate and gossip about my breakdown or my backsliding, and to never defend myself because i am right where I should be and when you are right where you should be, you do nt defend yourself.....

I've read that you don't want to heat raw honey, not just because enzymes are lost, but also because honey can become toxic if heated to a certain point (which i don't know).

Even so, it was the only place on the trip where we got lost because the hotels had minuscule signage and no billboards pointing us in the right direction.

Chelsea can afford to lose points and will still be smiling because other teams esp Arsenal won't capitalise.

«Obviously we are not pleased with the performance but we have to take the point because we were losing and we equalised with three minutes to go.»

And because they lost to all five by a combined 20 points, the Eagles probably will not.

When you lose your first home game, you can not afford to drop points in the second home game because it creates a little bit of anxiety at home and that's not what we really want.

Can't afford to lose points against «weaker» opponents because we have the big boys coming up in November.

@Analyzer you didn't really mean that when you asked can anybody pin point any games we lost because we did not have a DM?

Arsenal fans will obviously hoping that this is where the coincidence ends as well, because the Gunners got off to the worst possible start last year by losing at home to Liverpool (and when you consider they pipped us to the final Champions League spot by a single point that loss looks even worse).

but a t some point he lost it, and is not because of his stinginess to buy players, our core is good and has been for sometime now, his biggest problem was adaptation, change to the new EPL, his philosophy dating back 20 years does not work anymore and he knows it, because of this his biggest flaw all others came out to light, lack of rotation of his players favoring some over others, stubbornness that applies to his transfer policy buying for the future just as he had 20 more years ahead, players playing out of their natural positions, ARSENAL FLOPS who knows under other Managers they could have been great, for some reason they were signed in the first place, they must had some talent, best example is Campbell....

If we start this season with those two in our starting 11 it will be a clear sign from this organization that nothing has changed and that we will never get it right until both Kroenke and Wenger are gone... neither one of these players should still be with our club at this point because they represent the settling half - measures that have plagued this team for a number of years... this is what I call the «no man's land» of the soccer world, where teams don't have enough talented young players, unlike a Monaco or Dortmund, because they have lost the plot from an organizational standpoint... they are so reliant on one individual to run the whole operation that their once relevant scouting department has become so antiquated that it can no longer find those hidden gems it once had... furthermore, when you leave all decision - making to a manager who despises any dissenting opinions, your management team becomes little more than a stagnant group of «yes men» and no new ideas emerge... so instead of developing a team with the qualities necessary to excel in a particular system, you continually make half - brain purchases year after year to stifle dissent from the ticket - buying public, then try desperately to finagle together a lineup regardless of what would make positional sense... have you ever heard of a team who plays players out of position so often... of course not because that manager would likely be fired and never work for a team of any consequence ever again

True nothing against the players, we should focus on the real culprit, once more we are sitting waiting for this man to make move, meantime we lost 3 valuable points, and today well I take the win but frankly an own goal and once more no clean sheet, we are far from being contenders why...... because of the arrogance of this man who does not want to see that he needs to reinforce the team if he wants more than just 3 place and the Cup we took from Hull