Sentences with phrase «say much regarding»

Pearl Jam has some good songs, but in his suicide Kurt Cobain was better, and his suicide ought to say much regarding how good that kind of «grunge» music was.

Hyundai hasn't said much regarding the Veloster, but if the i30 N and Elantra GT are anything to go by, the quirky hatchback will most likely get the same powertrains.

Not exact matches

As a small country, Denmark rates much better than most developed nations in this regard, but it too is seeing an erosion in that trust, Nørretranders says.

Michael Jordan, a machine learning expert and computer science professor at University of California, Berkeley, said there is «way too much hype» regarding the capabilities of so - called chat bots.

«The fact that inflation didn't heat up as much as most economists had expected plays into the narrative that the Bank of Canada is going to be very patient with regards to future rate hikes,» Royce Mendes, CIBC World Markets director and senior economist, said in an interview.

What critics said: «Even those of us who regard the Marvel aesthetic as a plague on world cinema can find much in Spider - Man: Homecoming to be charmed by.»

«We are hopeful that now that this proceeding has concluded, the IRS will focus its efforts on clarifying its vague and much criticized 2014 guidance regarding the taxation of virtual currency transactions,» said Weiss.

Paul Donovan, senior economist at UBS, said in a podcast: «While Cyprus might be characterised as a special case, there have been so many special cases across the euro that political reassurances in this regard will not have much worth.

It is amazing how we can say good or bad things regarding Jesus and Christianity, and I will never judge anyone whatever their beliefs are or aren't, but please before trashing Christianity do your homework first, that is study the Bible and I can pretty much guarantee after you do that you will be filled with love and kindness.

Remember, you always have Thomas Aquinas too — regarding reason and revelation, this man and his writings are a truly a divine gift (I say this not knowing much of divine gifts).

The media of course did its usual best in stoking up and reporting much of the furore and ire; and it did so with scant regard for what the Pope actually said.

For I was also somehow involved in the Council, even though I did not have very much say, and I regard its spirit and its decrees as very important, especially for the Church of the future.

Verse 28, therefore, with which we are particularly concerned, must be regarded as having existed as an isolated logion before it was inserted into its present context, and since, as we have seen, the probability is that the Lukan version is nearer to the original form, we must, in fact, regard the saying as having so existed in very much the form it now has in Luke 11.20.

Then the psychophysical problem of «deciding» is shifted to a combination or interpenetration of physics and religion, both of which may certainly be involved in the whole activity of deciding, but neither of which has much to say as regards its specific activity.

I'm saying you probably shouldn't put too much weight on testimonies that differ on important points regarding the same events.

Regarding the eternal state of people who do not believe in Jesus for eternal life, I do think there is some sort of eternal separation from God, though I am not sure Scripture says much about it.

Christians should care about as much what the Bible says regarding homosexuality as they do about how it commands parents to stone their disobedient children to death.

I do remember clearly coming across a sixth - century homily which said that we ought to go easy on one another, and not judge one another, because God regards us so much more mercifully than we regard one another, and more mercifully than we regard ourselves.

Regarding Schrader's «The Canyons» I can't say much more than what has already been written, except to say it is not as bad as every critic would have to believe.

They are surrogates, which is a way of saying that they are agencies by which God works; they are not substitutes, although much of the time, in our foolishness and defection, we regard them as such — and in so regarding them bring about a state of affairs which is disproportionate and destructive.

Paul knew very few sayings of Jesus and did not have a kind of religiosity, much less a theology, built on Jesus» sayings; he even argues that knowing Jesus according to the flesh, the earthly Jesus, is not really necessary (2 Cor.5: 16), so as to argue that he is in no regard less qualified than Jesus» own disciples.

Much of this is unstated, but given what on the surface seem to be strange corollaries — say, that between tobacco and pornography — the reader can only be left with further questions in this regard.

† Christians do not really exist, they just pretend that they believe in God and argue with non-religious people while not knowing very much at all regarding Christianity or the meaning of the bible and disregarding half of what the bible says only to strongly vocalize their stance against the other half of the bible that is against things that they either do not understand or that do not affect them personally.

Disagree with the other person if you want to, but recognize that they are trying to understand and explain the text just as much as you are, and that just as you want them to listen to how you arrived at your conclusions regarding the text (and don't say, «I just read the Bible,» because you didn't), so also, that other person likely engaged in deep study of the biblical text to arrive at their understanding and it would benefit you to hear how they came to their understanding.

In a similar vein, though with much stronger words, the Calvinistic author Spencer writes this regarding his belief about what Jesus is saying:

* Regarding the councils and their formulations of doctrine there is much to say.

Christians should care as much about what the Bible says regarding homosexuality as they do about how it commands parents to stone their disobedient children to death.

He can do so because the twenty - one sayings are selected from a much greater number, and no doubt were selected because they were compatible with elements in the gospel tradition which Jeremias regards as authentic.

«Doc Loren Marks found much of the studies by the APA were convenience samples and can not draw a conclusion in regards to gay parenting and the Mark Regenerus study while some said was flawed is not so flawed after all.

Christians should care what the Bible says regarding hоmosеxuality about as much as they care about what it says regarding eating pork or stoning disobedient children to death.

The story ends with a vision of the all - merciful God, compassionate over Nineveh and calling his representative to a similar outreach of saving goodwill — «And Yahweh said, Thou hast had regard for the gourd, for which thou hast not labored, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night: and should not I have regard for Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that can not discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?»

While it might be true to say that Intelligent Design (ID) was not given much credence by the delegates, it would be quite wrong to draw any conclusions from this regarding the value of ID research.

Regarding the age of the earth which you are claiming the bible says is 6000 - 9000 years old: Question: how much time elapsed from verse 1 to verse 2?

That said, I do happen to regard Bishop Wright as one of the most effective apologists for Christianity in this dawning century, not so much for his Simply Christian as for his magnificent trilogy on the historical Jesus, especially the last volume, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

You can do so much better than to resort to such stock canards as «If humans evolved from monkeys when you know full well what the theory of evolution says regarding the multiple species of primates.

Seeing that I don't believe that the physical traits of either partner necessarily matter much with regard to what they bring to a relationship, I would have to say no.

Regarding the reader comment saying roadside problems in the US would be much better than in any 3rd world country: Yeah, probably.

I think there really is genuine interest in Dybala from us and I hope we do get him, don't mind what the Palermo president is saying regarding his price tag it's just business and you can't blame him for trying to get as much as he can for his club.

I doubt very much that Wenger or the board cares about what fans have to say in regard with the transfers or how the club is being run.

It would be good to have him fit to add to the competition for places, in truth we do not have much injuries or what i should say injuries to major players, therefore if this situation remains in regarding to injuries we can have a fantastic season.

I asked the question of how much of a final say Wenger has on transfers and I honestly do not believe Wenger has the final say on everything regarding transfers, Gazidis has tried to stamp his authority in it and messed up which Wenger got the blame for afterwards.

Im with you Mick, I too find it almost impossible to comprehend — but I did see di Maria has come out and said pretty much the same thing regarding his torrid season.

I hear what you say regarding «Ospina or De Gea» or «Ospina or Courtois» etc but, and I think you say as much afterwards, these are not real - world options so it is pretty much wasted energy to ponder these hypothetical questions.

It seems slightly strange that Messi seems to have so much of a say in matters concerning the club, whether it be transfer talk or decision - making with regards to the current team as he is often paired with having an influence by the Spanish media.

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

there is some suggestion that wenger is backtracking on his fervent stance regarding what players would be staying at the club for the remainder of the season... some might deduce that this is all part of a much bigger, more elaborate plan... by shifting the blame wenger is attempting to, not so slyly, flip the narrative... by doing so he hopes to evoke empathy from his most ardent supporters, while attempting to rally any fence - sitters, whose faith was waning unless a more legitimate agent of blame emerges... unfortunately, and incredibly insulting to the fans, when wenger attempts to spin a tale and / or tries to eat his own words, he doesn't seem to play it all the way through in his head, so invariably gaping holes emerge... say we believed his version of the truth, would that not make him either an incredibly well - paid custodian of destruction or a spineless jellyfish because what manager worth his weight in salt would stay at a club that didn't give him final say after 20 years of supposed «success»... no matter the answer, neither bodes well for us... how ironic, in a way, since many pundits claim this team has lacked a «spine» for some years now... so whether we win, lose or draw on Sunday is frankly immaterial, as the problems will remain, and although it will be easier to digest if we left the Pool with 3 points, it might just be the worst result for the betterment of this club... a fact that both breaks my heart and baffles the mind

We are sorry if we seem ungrateful sometimes Admin, you are really doing a GREAT job making me especially happy and i don't know about any other person cause i might not comment very often but i visit this site every single day of my life to read comments from everyone and it really makes my day... So thank you very much and nevertheless, i personally am tired of reading articles of Alexis Sanchez now... I must admit i personally thought Sanchez was holding Arsenal to ransom before, until Wenger came out to say he has never asked for a transfer request and i think the club has made there intentions known that they don't want to sell him, not even to a title rival and i think that is why city are now going after mbappe, seems they are desperately in need of a striker and if they are that desperate they should fork out 80m for Sanchez if they really need him, I LIKE THE RISK ARSENAL IS TAKING AS REGARDS SANCHEZ..

I appreciate what your saying but there's an opportunity here to go to the next level and really really become a power and we all know they wont take the chance because there's too much caution with regards to money, both from the board and Wenger.

As a neutral that would be great but if say ten clubs become much more competitive in regards top honours well that would be a very very bad thing.

Much has been said over the course of the season with regards to the shape of the team.