Sentences with phrase «other side the question»

In discovery, each side gets to ask the other side questions about the claims and defenses that each has brought forward for discussion.

Not exact matches

Going PC by PC to retrieve e-mail in the event of a lawsuit is time consuming and expensive — and if you can't produce relevant e-mail because it was accidentally deleted, the other side could use it to raise the question of whether you maliciously deleted things you didn't want them to find, Larrivee says.

It means deciding what one believes not by conforming to fashionable opinions, but by taking the trouble to learn and honestly consider the strongest arguments to be advanced on both or all sides of questions — including arguments for positions that others revile and want to stigmatize and against positions others seek to immunize from critical scrutiny.»

And they are useful in figuring out what the other side's logic is — meaning that you should ask questions even when you think you know the answer.

«I always feel emboldened when we get a real doozy of an earnings report like we did from General Electric and the stock in question comes out the other side unscathed,» Cramer said.

The jury does pay attention to witnesses when they're in the witness chair, not only on the substantive responses to a question but the body language, the demeanor, and how they respond to cross examination by the other side's lawyer.

They bring with them proven success (where unknowns carry a ton of question marks), familiarity with company culture and processes (which means less training) and a reminder to coworkers thinking about leaving that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

In Question Period, Deputy Premier Carole James said, «Well, it's incredible to hear the other side and the rhetoric that is coming forward.

Only when I began to think for myself and to question what I had been told, did I see that the «other side» had some valid points — I simply didn't want to hear them, much less attempt to understand them.

One side will look down on him for acknowledging faith and the other will question any Christian who is not in church every Sunday.

The problem is that their «Jesus» doesn't ask them any hard questions; but is more like a child's «invisible friend» who is always on thier side whenever they find themselves in a conflict with others.

I even got questioned for detracting from the thread, though my intent was to offer my personal struggle with what the thread eventually evolved into, while feeling for genuinely for Julie (based upon her willingness to divulge to a public blog her side of the story), and while questioning all along what really happened given others» pov on all this.

The other problem I think (and this is not the result of the manic depressive side of my profession as someone who works in «Asile» (refuge), an organisation dealing with migrants) is that we must add to the central preoccupations of our thinking the question of refugees and asylum.

I won't discuss any of the topics you have raised, but I will only encourage you to ask questions, challenge every single doctrine, and (as much as is possible) refuse to accept any single side of an issue without investigating other reasonable answers as well.

Maybe to say «that is a good question but I cant give you a satisfactory answer» maybe put the ball back into his / her court by offerring an invitation to the Alpha course or to come along to a small Bible study group st your home or an invitation to a non Church tyoe activity with other Christians, walk, bike ride, five a side football or other sporting things, befriend them and truly love them without an agenda.

We Catholics, however, should like to be allowed to ask one pertinent question about the whole problem of ecumenism, not in order to manoeuvre the other side into an unfavourable position, but because it simply can not be avoided.

Oh John, you profess god's love from one side of your face while hating atheists from the other and then go so far as to question the morality and credibility of people you don't even know and know even less about.

The latter is a tangled problem at best, but it is clear that among the important founders of the process perspective — specifically I mean James, Peirce, Bergson, Whitehead, Dewey, and Hartshorne — it is Hartshorne's work which comes closest to being a kind of personalism.1 Whitehead explicitly sets aside the personalist perspective in Religion in the Making, considering its claims beyond the possibility of being established.2 On the other side, a number of personalists have been sympathetic to process thought, and Brightman is surely principal among them.3 Here I will not investigate the question of whether personalism in general, or even the idealistic type, is reconcilable with process thought.

Whether in private conversation, group discussion, a sermon or a speech, or in the interaction within the community, the question is whether there is, on the one side, conviction about what the gospel means and, on the other side, unqualified readiness to hear the other people and see the world from their point of view.

I watched President Obama's news conference last night, and he established beyond any question that the truest test of post partisanship is not whether one receives support from the other side, but whether the majority «listens» to what the other side says.

Avoidance of the emotional side of the centuries - old discussion about faith and religion is the better way to reduce the noise and to understand the other side of the question.

A temporary victory has been declared in a part of the debate conducted on the terms of the other side» the question of utility.

fishon: i could repeat all the questions, but in your preferred forms... example: «Is it possible to dwell together without one or the other side making you choose a side?»

Those questions should be posed to the lawyers arguing the cases before the Court — and through them, to their colleagues on the other side.

On the other side of the question, we hear, even today, that most gay men are not really interested in marriage.

Yes, the ultimate question about forgiveness, grace, mercy on the one side, and justice on the other.

At the time, however, most British people were unconcerned about this tragic event on the other side of Europe and were more focussed on the question of Irish Home Rule, which threatened to erupt into civil war.

In a contentious election between candidates with historically high disapproval ratings, voters across the country are asking such questions, incredulous that their fellow Americans could be on the other side this time.

Leslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984: Questions for the Churches (Geneva: World Council of Churches Risk Book Series, 1985), p. 32 - 32.

If, abstracting altogether from the question of their value for the future spiritual life of the individual, we take them on their psychological side exclusively, so many peculiarities in them remind us of what we find outside of conversion that we are tempted to class them along with other automatisms, and to suspect that what makes the difference between a sudden and a gradual convert is not necessarily the presence of divine miracle in the care of one and of something less divine in that of the other, but rather a simple psychological peculiarity, the fact, namely, that in the recipient of the more instantaneous grace we have one of those Subjects who are in possession of a large region in which mental work can go on subliminally, and from which invasive experiences, abruptly upsetting the equilibrium of the primary consciousness, may come.

«The world is divided on this question,» explains James Cuno, with «museums, private collectors and art dealers» on one side, and «archaeologists, academics, and source nation cultural ministers» on the other.

But Hartshorne shows its advantages in a range of questions from metaphysics on the one side to ethics on the other.

From the Platonist's side, the interesting question is why certain forms of togetherness are coherent and others not, why certain forms have great harmony and others little or none.

from the Platonists» side, the interesting question is why certain forms of togetherness are coherent and others not, why certain forms have great harmony and others little or none.

On the one side, its right to exist was questioned by those who insisted that whoever knows one religion (i.e., Christianity) knows all religions; on the other, its religio - scientific methodology was challenged by reductionist psychological and social - scientific approaches.

That's the big question, Gilad's family on the one side trying to do the right thing, and the government on the other side trying to do the right thing.

«When I get on the other side, the first question I ask will be: «Master, what's my next task?»»

Yet we reiterate that throughout the earlier period in question — from 1935, say, to 1960 — a few theologians such as Canon Raven in England had continued along the lines laid down in the twenties, while Professor Hartshorne and some others in the United States (notably E. E. Harris, in such books as Revelation Through Reason) were carrying on the work on the strictly philosophical side.

But what about the other side of the question.

In debates, both sides have the opportunity to question the other side.

Following the attempts by some of the commenters (from both sides of the debate) to get simple «yes» and «no» answers from each other to theological questions, I have a REAL LIFE situation to pose to the readers of this blog, and I want you to state with a simple «Yes» or «No» whether you believe the following woman is saved or not.

Quick question — when I make this type of thing, one side is nice and smooth because it was against the Teflex sheet, but the other side is not as smooth (depends on how diligent I am as I smooth it all out with my spatula).

Nevertheless, if looking at the three teams in question, it's undoubtedly Arsenal who need to address their defence more so than any other side.

On the other side of it, it's a fair question to ask by Sissoko.

That said, some will question how Zaha could even fit into this side with so many other world class attacking forwards in their ranks, as displayed tonight.

There has already been a lot of debate about how much the Spaniard brings to the table for Arsenal and how much his absence has hurt the team and their efforts to claim a major trophy like the EPL title but another question connected with that is how much losing Cazorla affects the other main creative star in our side, Mesut Ozil.

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 is the site of the most knowledgeable, intellectual A's fans, but I question any A's fan's understanding of the business side of baseball when they knock Beane and, unfortunately, it happens all the time, especially on other A's sites.

The other defender in question is West Ham United's Kiwi centre - back Winston Reid, another player who has shown a good run of form and another player who would surely be interested in a move to a side of Man United's stature.

They have a reputation as staunch and faithful family men (Art has four children, John and Tim five, Pat six and Dan nine), but at Steeler home games the wives sit together on the other side of the field from the men's box, so that the brothers won't have to entertain women's questions.