Sentences with phrase «more sense why»

It will make more sense why when we've released additional community features.

I also found the situation in Rome to be more clearly explained, so it makes more sense why the senators would be conspiring to depose Commodus.

Not exact matches

One of the reasons why this is a short - term deal is for the NFL to decide whether it makes more sense to keep the Thursday games on its own network or make a broadcast package going forward.

But I've yet to see a really robust version of that argument, let alone an explanation of why firing makes more sense, ethically, that this punishment alone is the right one, ethically, than all those other outcomes, or — for those who believe this is true — why he deserves everything on the menu.

Talking to Annie more and more, it made perfect sense why someone who was so interested in health would go into cosmetics immediately following an amazing exit.

More from Straight Talk: Here's why a Roth IRA makes sense for millennials Roth conversion in high - taxed states is a very bad idea So the Fed raised rates.

More from Personal Finance: Here's why a Roth IRA makes sense for millennials How long $ 1 million lasts in US cities Stock market volatility could kill this risky Social Security strategy

But it's important to see why Nasdaq 5,000 much makes more sense today than it did 15 years ago.

«Communicating a sense of your team and why you're capable of being successful is much more important than communicating the details of your product,» says Robert Leshner, co-founder and CEO of SafeShepherd.

ROSENFELD: I think the big lesson I learned over the years is there's always a sense, when you figure out what you want to do, there are ten reasons why you should go more slowly, and I would say the big lesson I've learned is moving faster is better than not.

Why this should be so — why the success of the Jewish minority should be so particularly resented by other peoples — is a complicated question which is rendered more complicated by the fact that anthropologists are now generally agreed that the Jews are not a race in any scientific sense of the term — no more of a race, for example, than the GermaWhy this should be so — why the success of the Jewish minority should be so particularly resented by other peoples — is a complicated question which is rendered more complicated by the fact that anthropologists are now generally agreed that the Jews are not a race in any scientific sense of the term — no more of a race, for example, than the Germawhy the success of the Jewish minority should be so particularly resented by other peoples — is a complicated question which is rendered more complicated by the fact that anthropologists are now generally agreed that the Jews are not a race in any scientific sense of the term — no more of a race, for example, than the Germans.

Once you realize the why, though, it strangely makes more sense than you might have thought.

Now it makes sense why some people struggle with content creation: Having a content plan that takes into account key challenges, business goals, and metrics will make you more successful in the long term.

What is most important is that candidates come away with a sense of why a company exists, what its reputation is and how it is positioned to capture more customers.

Which is why I contend it makes more sense to think of an immediate annuity as part of a comprehensive retirement income plan that works as follows: Put a portion of your savings into the annuity and opt for the highest monthly payment.

The more you can understand why these asset allocations makes sense, the more you can invest with confidence.

That's why it makes sense (in fact, that's more than worth it) to know what exactly Ripple is and be aware of the most recent news about it.

So, why do investors feel so bad when they buy a net - net and it is «dead money» in the sense it only returns 8 % to 10 % a year over the 5 or more years while they hold the stock?

Finally, GM's quick repayment of the loans has whetted the appetite of some commentators (including DeCloet) for the ultimate repayment of the full government contribution. That would occur through the issuance of public equity by GM and Chrysler, creating a market for those stocks into which the government would presumably sell its shares. There is even some nefarious language in the rescue packages requiring the government to sell off its shares within specified, relatively aggressive timelines. The more I think about it, the less this makes sense — neither for the auto industry, nor for taxpayers. Why not hang onto the equity stake? If the companies recover and the equity gains market value, then the government will be able to claim that on its balance sheet (hence officially recouping the cost of its written - off contributions and creating a budgetary gain).

Why would your instinctual sense carry more authority than anyone else's?

Dave Roberts visits Abundant Life, Bradford, to discover the DNA of one of Britain's fastest growing churches and why they want common sense as much as... More

Why do you people think that if an explanation can not given, claiming «god did it» makes any more sense than claiming «Bigfoot did it»?

Sister Sledge wonders why he's the greatest dancer, and given what the great Albert Murray says in Stompin'the Blues about the likes of Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis, they are right to so wonder — dancing ability often is a sign of musical intelligence, and is often linked with good fashion sense, even if the latter is a more surface sort of excellence, in that it obviously requires the money and leisure to purchase the clothes, or as Aristotle might say, the «equipment.»

But Locke might make more sense than Silver in suggesting that no impersonal theory of evolution can really explain why one species alone turned on nature and has increasingly brought the planet under its conscious and personal control.

We had this question about why Jesus speaks in parables that often don't make much sense, and so we set out traveling down this tunnel to find the answer, and when we discover the answer, it only sparks off more questions.

Why might a sense of moral obligation percolating down through society — the obligation not to continue with a pregnancy where Down's syndrome is diagnosed — prove more effective in the long term than a law?

Why don't you do something that makes sense and hits evil where it lives instead of building more places for evil to hide?

Why do people balk at this common - sense notion when it comes to the Bible or, more precisely, certain passages in the Bible?

It also explains why in America appeals like Hovey's or York's to the exemplary nature of the martyrs don't make immediate sense; in most people's minds, the only people who die for their faith are delusional and suicidal figures like Jim Jones, founder of the People's Temple, and more than 900 of his followers.

The book works hard to portray Fosdick as the remarkably inventive and productive preacher he was, to explain how he could sustain such a level of excellence week after week, and to give a sense of why more than one preacher visiting Riverside staggered out of the worship service sighing, «I can never preach again!»

This theory - of which I am not 100 % convinced but makes more sense than anything else I have heard - explains why God would later command that even infants be killed in the land of Caanan.

This is why the Christian faith, when it is made vital in terms of the equal worth of all persons to God, is a more effective solvent of ill feeling than argument, even as a sense of sin about race prejudice is a necessary prelude to repentance and change.

'' This is also why as an evangelical we need to be more careful with flexing our «political» muscle to much or we will in a sense become state churches.»

And I have no way of knowing why something makes more sense to you than something else, but you seem to be rambling.

These are all in the more expensive range of products though, which makes sense for me as I use them for work everyday but they may not be the right fit for you which is why I'm going to be posting on all the different options that are out there!

Or this quinoa flakes is really like a flake and than it makes more sense to me why you don't mention cooking it.

Not gonna happen is it Andrew but not sure why the thumbs down avalanche — maybe a fit Arteta and the game being at the Bridge would see it make more sense.

Which is actually why he makes more sense than someone like Schneiderlin or Howedes coming in Jan..

That's a big reason why we saw Jabari playing more as a defensive 3, which also made sense because he's lacking in the areas where Giannis excels and OK at the things Giannis is less good at (ie moving feet one - on - one on perimeter against wings).

Why does he do this crap, it's not fair, he should have more sense than that given how he has 20 seasons worth of experience.

If khedira has any sense he will run in the opposite direction why would he want to sign for a bunch of losers him alone would not solve our problems he is not a holding midfielder which we are crying out for and we need at least 2 more defenders to even get anywhere near having enough quality to challenge for anything!

It wouldn't make sense to get Higuain AND get rid of Giroud without getting another forward Because losing Welbeck forced us into the market That's why it makes more sense to get BOTH Higuain and Mahrez if we lose Giroud and use Theo / Alexis if Higuain gets injured

Sensing that his brain was going soft, the author read the encyclopedia from A to Z... which is why he now knows more about sports than anyone should

All of Wenger's disastrous plans when it comes to transfers, both incoming and outgoing, are coming home to roost... why would anyone pay a significant fee for a player that was hardly used, is overpaid and has a spotty injury record; not to mention the fact that Wenger nickels & dimes everyone when it comes to transfers so it only makes sense that other teams would do likewise when dealing with us... the fact is I wouldn't be surprised if Wenger does this so that players won't be moved thereby giving him a ready - made excuse not to spend more money on transfers; there's a reason why the latest headlines regarding Arsenal transfers seem to suggest that we aren't bringing anyone in until some players are sold or moved elsewhere on loan... we know this club knows how to utilize press coverage to further their questionable agendas, it's the very reason why the Sanchez situation has become such a nightmare

A loaned in CB would make more sense but please not Rami, he isn't good enough for AC Milan why would he be for AFC?

Not all eleven players can be super stars selling the ox is a bad mistake for 35 million quid more like50 million, he brings a different dimension to the team and he is in good form at the moment that's why Chelsea want him if the report is accurate so why sell him it makes no sense

It never made sense to me why boxers get paid millions while kickboxers earn scraps when kickboxing is so much more fun to watch.

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

why we never have a contingency plans incase of these inevitable injuries is anyone's guess...... hopefully Wenger will see sense end of season and not offer Rosicky a new contract... I love the guy but I love AFC more...

Why it makes sense: The defense has led the way in recent years for the Broncos, and while the team allowed way more points than usual in 2017, that was largely due to 34 turnovers by the Denver offense.