Sentences with phrase «nothing wrong per»

If you are both satisfied with a deep, companionate love and this makes you both more committed to and invested in each other, then there is nothing wrong per se.

There is nothing wrong per se with oil companies funding research or information on climate change — it is an area in which they have a legitimate interest.

There is nothing wrong per se in splicing records together to get a continuous series — for instance I have just done the exact same thing in creating a series of solar forcing functions for climate model runs — but these things should be clearly explained.

There is nothing wrong per se with budget deficits viewed in vacuo.

Hi Mia — there's nothing wrong per se with milk chocolate.

There is nothing wrong per se about adding in this type of wording, and anything that encourages some sort of shade preservation or restoration is a positive move.

Hi Mia — there's nothing wrong per se with milk chocolate.

Not exact matches

Now, there is nothing wrong with stock buybacks and dividends per se, and indeed they can contribute to a very sensible corporate capital allocation strategy, but should this use of capital crowd out long - term capital expenditure (investment) in a firm's core business, or begin to threaten its credit quality, then it can become concerning.

Also Jesus» brother wrote about what undefiled religion looks like, so there's nothing wrong with religion, per se.

There's nothing wrong with symbolic gestures, per se.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the United States putting America first, per se; that's what countries do.

nothing wrong in what Per has said..

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

Nothing that was said about Foles here is wrong, per se.

There is nothing wrong with this per se and it's certainly no reason for them not to be shown respect, but they might be better regarded were they to admit this from the outset rather than disguising it.

«Nobody has shown me any evidence to support the view that she is a threat to the United Kingdom... she genuinely believes, and I back her 100 per cent, that she has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong.

One thing that's worth noting here: there's nothing inherently wrong with eating more protein than that — if you prefer it — but the main practical reason for the prior section is that most people find that eating 1g + / day per lb of bodyweight to be prohibitively difficult.

There's nothing wrong with methionine, per se, but high intakes of it «without sufficient amounts of supportive nutrients» could increase the risk of cancer.

Most research indicates that you'll make the best gains by eating around 1.4 - 1.8 grams per kilogram, but there's nothing wrong with eating slightly more, and there may be some benefits of doing so.

There is nothing wrong with eggs per se, especially «real eggs» produced in humane conditions.

There's nothing wrong with eating a little more a couple times per week, but I wouldn't go out of my way to over restrict the other days while purposefully overeating on the refeed days.

It's tastier than the Sunwarrior and has a few more grams of protein per serving, however if saving money is your thing then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the SunWarrior option!

There's nothing inherently wrong with eating 6 times per day, but there are no real benefits to it either.

Do you think that it's even slightly possible that you let people know that there's nothing wrong with eating 3 meals or even less per day?

There is nothing wrong with weight machines per say but they only target 1 or 2 muscles.

«There's nothing wrong with TV per se, but TV watching may be indicative of a sedentary lifestyle.»

There was nothing wrong with it per se, I just wanted something brighter and a little different for our new space.

There's nothing wrong with it per se, it's a classic black knee length pencil skirt from Cue and I did get quite a few compliments the one and only time I wore it but I'm not really a skirt kinda girl.

There's nothing wrong with being caffeinated, but $ 5 per order can really drain your bank account.

There's nothing wrong with that per se, but please, I urge you, don't treat it as anything more.

There is nothing wrong with that per se.

There is nothing wrong with it, per se.

There is nothing wrong with this per se, as segregation does lead to inequalities, and those inequalities (in access to good teachers, safe facilities, educational resources, etc.) tend to disadvantage poorer students and racial minorities...

There's nothing wrong with these actions per se, but we could do so much more by banding together NOW and having demonstrations, rallies, and marches between today and November.

Many cars have aftermarket exhausts, air filters, etc — nothing wrong with these per se, but the more standard the car, the easier the life it's probably led.

And there's nothing wrong with that because it is moderately fuel stingy and sports an EPA rating of 18 miles per gallon city / 26 mpg highway.

There is nothing wrong with the Kindle Touch, per se, but it also doesn't come with any such compellingly interesting new features.

There's nothing wrong with it per se — you can read on it just fine for the most part — but in a direct comparison with the Kindle and Sony screens the Novel's screen is clearly inferior.

Eddie @ Finance Fox writes 35 Money Lies People Tell Regularly — Men supposedly lie six times more per day than women, and when someone tells you, be a man or a woman — «Nothing is wrong, I'm OKAY», they're really lying to your face.

There's nothing wrong with being average, per se.

Nothing wrong with moving on, and your decision could look especially wise if oil prices remain near $ 40 per barrel!

And while there's nothing wrong with that per say, it's not necessarily the best approach for everyone.

Nothing wrong with that per se, but you quickly lose the reader when you talk to yourself.

There is nothing wrong with this per se; whats wrong is the inequality.

Nothing about this is wrong per se, but those who disagree with his policy goals and the assumptions from which they either precede or follow need to recognize that his playbook is political and scientific not solely scientific.

IMO, there's nothing wrong, per se, with the quality of being an advocate — but what matters most is the quality of your advocacy.

There's nothing wrong with that per se.

@willard Yes there is nothing wrong with models per se, and much current knowledge is put into them.

Scientists like Faraday, in the 19th century were largely self taught, so there's nothing wrong with that per se.

There's nothing wrong with $ 150 per hour for a new lawyer handling civil litigation, or 30 % contingency on a personal injury case, or a $ 500 flat fee to handle a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.