Sentences with phrase «not agree on every point»

Of course, pay also depends on how significant CEOs really are to their companies, and respondents couldn't agree on that point, either.

We may or may not agree on some point, but stay true to yourself and what you believe.

Others might not agree on every point but it is an intelligent contribution (without being unable to also be a passionate or angry one) particularly because it distinguishes between different issues but also argues they amount to a trend which should be challenged and reversed.

You and I may not agree on some points, but I'm happy you post here.

At least acknowledge that we DO NOT AGREE on this point of 10 year prediction.

You may not agree on every point of child rearing, but strive for overall uniformity in most areas.

Not exact matches

While Campbell's CEO Denise Morrison did not identify Walmart by name, Wall Street analysts pointed to the companies» inability to agree on how to promote Campbell's soups in its stores.

One of the most memorable points, which people may not like or agree with, yet well spoken from a student at Stanford University on Entrepreneurial Success:

CASPERSEN and Park Hill Group were working on behalf of Firm - 1 to solicit investors for the loan, but, at some point after Firm - 1 agreed to take the loan, it transpired that Firm - 1 did not need the loan in order to purchase the secondary private equity interests.

Here's the thing: I actually agree with many of the points Sinek shared in his talk, and I actively write about them often: don't over-indulge on social media, don't binge on Netflix, don't mistake fleeting social interactions for deeply gratifying friendships and relationships, etc..

Although the Council's stance on this element of the incoming data protection regulation won't become official until member states agree on the whole thing — an event that will trigger negotiations with the European Parliament — it does represent a major step forward, as the nature of the one - stop - shop mechanism has been the major sticking point in reaching overall agreement.

I totally agree with numbe 1 — we had «reward» cards that cost us thousands in interest and fees each year, only for a few airlines points that we couldn't use on the flights we wanted anyway!

At some point, we'd actually have to agree to disagree that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore not prejudice decisions about ministry and even marriage on being gay.

On this point, of course, Jean and Obama agree, which is on this front someone might call TR a bit of a Fascist but Obama not at alOn this point, of course, Jean and Obama agree, which is on this front someone might call TR a bit of a Fascist but Obama not at alon this front someone might call TR a bit of a Fascist but Obama not at all.

I agree on the point that someone that hates a group will not join it.

I agree with you on one point, I don't know how someone so intelligent, companionate and reasonable can stomach to be associated with such fossils as you or the decrepit old windbags that make up the RCC leaders

But then, if we do not agree on God, the creation, and the Bible, there are few points about which we can agree.

Patriarchae, my point is that Pastor Jeffers» comments about Mormonism perfectly exemplifies the main problem with the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of Protestant denominations (most of whom can not agree on the time of day much less matters theological).

On this point Whitehead explicitly agreed with him in several places, although he did not believe that the spatializing tendency is inevitable (SMW 74, 212; PR 126, 174, 319).

Martin might respond that my criticism is unfair because he is not asking for skepticism about those points on which historians agree; he is only asking that Christians suspend judgment about the resurrection taken as a physical, historical fact.

Thomas F. Madden replies: Mike Schorsch is certainly correct to point out that not all Christians who lived before A.D. 1000 agreed on an issue as complex as violence.

While they agreed with many of Paine's ideas, they were not prepared to go so far as he on many points; and they were forthrightly opposed to spreading such ideas among the great masses of people.

Whether one agrees with the Russian Orthodox Church on this point or not, a survey of recent Russian history indicates that Russians feel a need for «spirituality» and «authentic ideals» that go beyond simple material abundance.

While I tend to agree with the views posted by Cpt Obvious, Tim, dandintac, et al, I do admire that you are presenting your point of view in a personal manner and seem to have put some actual thought into it and you recognize that not everyone will have the same experience as you, and you don't condemn others for not feeling the same way (although it does make me wonder what your thoughts are on eternal torment for non-believers).

We don't agree on details but we can agree ona few key points regarding the importance of the texts.

Everyone will agree that we can't keep spewing toxins into the planet as we have been — indeed, there is nearly international consensus on that point — but has anybody actually been willing to bite the bullet and dismantle the exisiting structures?

I know, its the cowards way out but I just do not know because civil unions many folks agree with but folks having issues with using the term «marriage», I can see both sides to a point that I am stumped on an opinion.

The doctrine produces outward Christian activity - an informal code on what is «Christian» life - style (the agreed points of which are nevertheless being whittled down with each passing year), Christian activity in and out of church, and a Christian empire with organs of entertainment, education, and political influence - but it does not necessarily produce Christians who are, at the roots of their being, Christian.

As Rod merely agrees with Jesus on this point, it should not be too controversial.

Jason, I agree with your assessment of some of the so called Christian religions out there that are not promoting the true gospel of Jesus Christ but I do disagree on one point.

A few of you gave me things to move forward on, a few criticized me, someone you don't know, for not agreeing with your point of view.

I agree with Jeremy that the point is not on the origin.

It was clear that the women gathered often entered the struggle from different vantage points, they did not always agree with all that was spoken, but what could not be ignored was that there were some common issues that did draw them together — it was not accidental or designed that over one - third of the 4,000 workshops by different women's groups, from all regions of the world, focuses on the issue of violence against women — some of the best being organized by Indian women, What was at the heart of Huairou was the commitment of the women present to draw energy and support from each other — it was a consciousness that they were doing it all «for the common good.»

The point will be one that both you and I agree on: while gatherings with other believers are definitely part of «church» they are not the entirety.

James... I can certainly agree on yr point about self - deception, but remember how long it took the «entire package «to evolve as we know it today... the first list of «our 27 NT books» doesn't appear until the latter half of the 4th century and we know that many other books (that didn't make it in) were known, read and circulated for many generations after.

(don't you agree, David == ooops, you probably aren't allowed to be honest on that point).

He differs from Whitehead on a major point: «I do not agree with Samuel Butler, Whitehead, or Teilhard de Chardin that it follows from the mental character of the macroscopic world that the single atomies must have mental character or potentiality.

I agree with the point of your article, BUT your reference to a «conditional covenant» is the same reasoning that leads to protesters at soldiers» funerals and claims that Hurricane Katrina is an act of God's wrath (although I don't think there was agreement on what God was mad about).

Arguements based on any religious text will not be persuasive to someone who is not of that faith and, as he pointed out, those who are of that faith will likely already agree with the arguement.

To Ken Margo: I am totally agree with you about this evil thing going around the earth... this evil minded people is there everywhere regardless of faith... that was not what i was trying to say... my point was to be able to recognize the One True God who is Unseen and who has no partners as He is not in need of any partners but we the creation is in need of Him... thats all... I wish I could do something to stop all these taking place around the earth... I think we human fear the fed laws more than we fear the laws of our Creator, for example not to associate any partner with Him, taking the life of others, drug dealing, human trafficking, believing in hereafter and so on... I remember a story that I was talking with one of my friends... I was telling him look we all obey the law of the land so much like for example when we drive and no one moves even an inch when there is a school bus stop to pick / drop kids as it is a fed laws but when it comes to the laws of our Creator, we don't care... like having physical relationship outside of marriage and many more... then he said something nice... he said that its because we see the consequence of breaking the law of the land but we do not see the punishment of hereafter even though it is mentioned very details in Quran, it even gives pictures of hereafter....

I like your culpability... but I don't agree on the future point.

«I might not agree with all of the reasoning here, but I strongly agree with him on that fundamental point.»»

As I hope I've made plain in my just war writing over the last fifteen years, there are certain forms of political «order» that are not «right order» and need not be preserved — indeed, conscience may require that they be resisted, by a variety of means, a point on which Thomas Jefferson and Lech Walesa would have agreed.

I find it interesting how the «false prophet» teaching is always used on anyone who doesn't agree with one's particular view point.

The fallacy of the one - point theory should have become manifest the moment it became clear that scholars themselves could not agree on what the one point was — though each was certain that he knew!

I can understand making the point that the people of Ferguson should be invited to forgive what they perceived as a wrong on the part of the officer...... but for you to make the assumption and then state that the Officer's action was «wrong» (if that is what you meant to say) is not something I can agree with, not without your full rationale (which maybe I missed from an earlier post)....

The documents show signs of the tacit bargaining that often goes on in drafting groups: we'll let you get your point in if you'll let us get ours in — even if the two don't agree.

I wd somewhat agree Jenny, it seems we don't have other options when we speak of «invisible beings»...» got ta put some flesh on that ghoul», but my point suggests or asks how far can we take that metaphor before we sound downright silly?

From the earlier post I also think we do nt agree on the definition of judgmental so I wont argue that point.

While I don't agree with every point in every one of these comments, articles, and quotes — I've included thoughts from Christians, Jews, and even atheists — I think they provide great fodder for conversation and may help you as you work through all this on your own.