Sentences with phrase «means clearing out»

That means clearing out the clutter and dedicating space for your company so they feel welcome in your home.

Clearing out your colon means clearing out years of compacted toxins from your body.

Your style is something that's always changing and evolving, and that means clearing out your wardrobe and replacing some of your fabrics is going to be easier than anything else on this list.

I think it's going to mean clearing out some closets to make room — but it'll be worth it to rid ourselves of the junk to make room for the family history.

Not exact matches

It is meant to help Whole Foods cut costs, better manage inventory, reduce waste, and clear out storage.

COO Sheryl Sandberg said on her last earnings call that Facebook might take a hit: «We're going to continue to give people a personalized experience to be clear about how are using the data and give choices, and we realize that this means that some users might opt out of our ads targeting tool.

«Now, I want to make clear that doesn't mean that a family that is out hunting couldn't lend a rifle to someone who's younger than that age.»

Add to that the consideration that users will also soon be able to cross-post their Instagram Stories to Facebook direct (Facebook have now confirmed this is being rolled out), and it's fairly clear to see — if you want to reach more people (which means more dollars), you use Instagram.

Despite the tidal wave of money going out of stock picking and into indexes, and the thousands of articles that accompany them, it's still not entirely clear what it means to be...

Despite the tidal wave of money going out of stock picking and into indexes, and the thousands of articles that accompany them, it's still not entirely clear what it means to be an active or passive investor.

The journey which the Hebrews traveled by means of this word, as they pushed out its significance like an advancing roadway, could not have been foreseen but in retrospect it is clear.

Meant to delete that last line, wasn't mocking your post, just forgot to clear out the rest of it (wanted to make sure I didn't miss any wording)

Would it not be satisfying if the debate between atheism and theism turned out to have been so stubborn because the truth was in neither, as traditionally conceived, but in a middle ground not by any means a weak compromise between them but a clear - cut alternative as definite and legitimate, formally regarded, as any other?

Finally, to complete the task immediately at hand, let me point out that Whitehead has also made abundantly clear the synonymity of the terms «being», «entity» and «thing»»... «potentiality for process» is the meaning of the more general term «entity» or «thing»» (PR 68).

A long time ago I came to the conclusion that if the meaning of a verse was not clear, when translated into toki pona, then any doctrine based on that verse should be thrown out, on the grounds that if it is a core doctrine, it will survive translation into every known language, regardless of how ambigious the language is.

Clive, you point out how others often don't understand what Jesus was saying; but while Jesus often labors to try and make things clear to the unbeliever («Oh, you of little faith) or at the very least the author tries to make it clear for us in retrospect (At the time they didn't understand that he spoke of this...), in this case Jesus switches from something that might be figurative to essentially say «no, I seriously mean this» and it concludes not with Jesus saying «don't go away, this is what I actually mean» but confirming that people would refuse to accept that God intended for them to actually fill themselves with the life that He offered so they stopped following him.

Man, didn't mean to go silent... email program cleared out the folder l'd put the emails in and didn't have your email.

In John 18:5 - 6 Jesus sais «I AM he» and The power of his declaration of BEING GOD brought them to their knees... This clearly coincides with Exodus 3 when God appeared to Moses and Declared that his NAME was «I AM who I AM» Do you REALLY think that that is not by design??? Is this not also a very clear foreshadowing of the future (Romans 14:11, and Philliapians 2:10 - 11) Please oh please see how the Bible is so intricately intertwined and full of the The masters handiwork... Everything, all of life's questions are all within this book, not other sources, if one but will accept them, pray over them, and get the Lord's guidance... This is why I brought up 1 Cor 2:14, Which you took EXTREMELY out of context in the way I meant it to be discerned, which the verse itself explains I might begrudgingly add... John 8:24 after he tells them I am not of this world.

Whatever may have been the actual course of events, historically speaking, which the New Testament means to signify when it speaks of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is at least clear that it was the conviction of the New Testament writers, building on the testimony of the disciples after the crucifixion of Jesus — as it has been the continuing conviction of millions of Christian people since that time — that far from Jesus» being «put out of the way» by his death at the hands of the Roman authorities in Palestine, he was «let loose into the world.»

In Chapter 1 it was pointed out that the meaning of the idiom of resurrection is much less clear and unambiguous than is often imagined.

And just because there are gruesome stories in the OT, (which are not prescriptive), does not mean that we can willy - nilly throw out things in NT and OT to our own liking, even if they are very clear and full of direction.

But that does not mean that God's clear word on the matter from Scripture, and over two thousand years of Judeo - Christian practices concerning the matter should be thrown out the window.

The first couple of books start out as typical «solve - this - murder» sort of books (without being gory or cruel or gratuitous, it's more about the story and the characters)-- very satisfying Saturday night read — but as the books go forward, the layers and complex storytelling becomes even more clear and right around book three or four you begin to realise that everything is connected and everything means something and something major is unfolding and OMG MUST KEEP READING.

However, they have not worked out a clear alternative meaning that supports the conclusions to which Ricardo came.

He wanted to throw the book out because he thought dead meant eternal death and save meant eternal life, and therefore that the passage itself contradicted the clear and thematic message.

MDAT — Let me clear it out for you, militant atheists... SPIRITUAL BATTLE, but I guess you don't know what that means.

We would be foolish to fail to understand that not everything in the Bible is a commandment, and that Christians can not take any small section of the Bible out of its own context, and still hope to gain a clear understanding of its meaning.

Sometimes I wonder if it would be easier (or maybe I mean, simpler, or CLEARER) to just navigate a total walking away from faith, instead of a very specific changing of faith and remaining in faith, but having a very, very significant shift in what you believe and how you live it out, because family and friends will carry on like nothing's changed, but EVERYTHING has changed, even within faith.

often times (as an ancient teaching method), positives & negatives are laid side by side purposefully so that the meaning is clear... in other words, so people won't take it OUT OF CONTEXT.

We can (and should) point out that they have not been clear, but be fair about what they mean.

It may mean printing the text and pointing out specific verses or quoting them with sufficient frequency that it becomes clear that these verses are present, that the ways in which the passage was remembered — the past interpretations brought to the present hearing — have overlooked these verses, that these are not the creation of the preacher but are the biblical text.

«I still haven't found what I'm looking for» doesn't mean (as I thought I made clear by saying that what I'm looking for is not elsewhere, but right here right now) that I'm burnt out or contemplating vocational suicide.

(And just so we're clear, if you're the sort to clean up the minute the last guest leaves, by all means - no judgement: knock yourself out).

And just so we're clear, if you're the sort to clean up the minute the last guest leaves, by all means - no judgement: knock yourself out.

That means we are clearing out the food that needs to be eaten.

And throw out some extremes, just so I am clear what it is you mean.

and time is running out, we are going to mis the boar again and we'll have Giroud the lampost leading the line He said it way back in May and its clear now that he meant it its Gioud or Nothing for Wenger and that means nothing

If we would buy an exppansive CDM it would mean that that player would demand being clear first choice which would leave Arteta out of the team for most of the season.

A defensive clear out on this scale will mean that the Spanish tactician will be a busy man this summer in bringing in replacements, but ultimately there is a genuine argument to question whether any of the names mentioned above will flourish under his regime.

I mean what real ARSENAL fan can not agree with this assessment, for crying out loud we all need to be clear that WENGER once again has it all wrong, no signing, so stick it to the man or better said to the fan....

Wenger motivates the team, Alexis doesn't seem short of motivation so maybe we have to also consider the attitude of the individual players as well, maybe a bit of a clear out is needed to get players who are mentally motivated as well to match the team and managers ambition... This will require transfers and Silent Stan has final say on profit... I mean players.

Meaning he set out with a photographer's instincts rather than a golf photographer's instincts, and therefore Iooss had a clear vision of the drama behind the game's curtain.

Accepting the offer would mean a loss of # 8 million on the player but if we accept it would send out a clear signal for clubs interested in other fringe Arsenal stars and that might even lead to a few bidding battles.

Coming from Wenger this likely means he won't be having that clear out like what was reported.

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

This would also mean our next manager is not a «lifetime» manager, but a manager who should be kicked out of the door if our results don't live up to clear targets.

With the defeat it means Arsenal missed out on the chance to close the gap on Chelsea in the title race and our local rivals now host Sunderland today as clear leaders.

Hope it's not just repeat of recent years, 1 or 2 big incoming moves and that's it, Arsene telling us how «tough» it is to find quality players, but that the recent clear - out means something big and positive is about to happen.

And while Wilshere is back training with the first team, Wenger suggested that this does not mean he will soon be ready to play as it is clear that we are taking things carefully after his two months out with another ankle problem.

Henry quickly moved to clear this up and declared that his words were taken a little bit out of context and what he really meant was that Arsenal needed more than just Giroud.