Sentences with phrase «simplest answer to this question would»

I do not argue that there are simple answers to the questions I have raised.

The simplest answer to this question would be: «Yes, Maca Root is -LSB-...]

Not exact matches

My unease stemmed from several questions that didn't have simple answers: Would I be able to effectively explain my desires for any given project?

The answer to these questions boils down to one simple concept — a gold mine that makes people trust that you have just the product they need.

I realize that, if we were only dealing with conventional wisdom, the simplest, most straightforward answer to the textbook question of, when should a company's CEO stop selling its products and services day - to - day, the answer would be: never.

It all seems so simple and easy, but pitching a plan someone else has created, can be unnatural, and result in the inability to answer hard - hitting investor questions.

According to bestselling management author and CNBC contributor Suzy Welch, there is one simple mistake that even the most well - prepared candidates make: They use an interview to answer questions instead of to have a conversation.

When we answer a few simple questions to let our friends and family know which Muppet character we're the most like or which car we'd drive if we had our pick, we're sharing a digital piece of our analog lives.

This one says you just have to answer a few simple questions and will be «done before you know it!»

You might say fear of failure, lack of dedication, or simple exhaustion, but apparently science has a different answer to this question.

But the question of why anybody in the secular world would turn to the Amish for business advice in the first place is answered right off the top in Erik Wesner's Success Made Simple: An Inside Look at Why Amish Businesses Thrive (Jossey - Bass).

Before every meeting, Lopp takes a few minutes for this simple hack: «Whether I run the meeting or am a participant, I write three questions that I'd like to get answered at this meeting.

So, again, if the leader of the Liberal Party believes in accountability and responsibility, perhaps he should answer this simple question: how much money does a Liberal senator have to steal before they are not welcome in the Liberal Party?»

The answer is to the first question is simple, and long term clients have seen it before.

There, you'll see a very simple list of questions that you will have to answer in order to get a loan quote and a follow - up call from someone who represents our office.

While the passive path to accumulating your pension pot is well lit by blogs, books, and preachers of the gospel, the more difficult question of how to safely ration your retirement savings has no simple answer.

The question, even in its simplest form, is quite difficult to answer and the implications of that answer have huge impacts on your business.

Unlike other lenders, our application process is simple and quick and we are always available to answer any questions you may have.

While I am no theologian, I believe the answer to this question is simple and unchanging: the Church's hope is not a question of plausibility and never has been.

My life is much simpler now that I've been able to replace that list with a single answer for all of these questions: There is no God.

Trust me, it's far more work trying to justify a delusion and rationalizing why what you believe isn't consistent with what you see in the real world than having one answer for all the questions you people flail about trying to answer and be able to rely on simple logic and facts to conclude there is no god.

In response to your question as to what my reasons were I have a very simple answer.

It's really pathetic to see so many Christians that are so LACKING HONESTY and INTEGRITY that they would refuse to answer simple yes - or - no questions or even care enough about TRUTH to admit their own quotes were made.

While I definitely agree that his response is great in many circumstances and (without knowing the context of that conversation) may have been the perfect thing to say at that moment, I think calling this statement «a template that can be used to respond to questions concerning sexuality, gender and other important issues» reduces a very complex issue down to a very simple response that doesn't really answer any questions for anyone.

Just ask a simple question (its a question that everyone would agree on that the question is the exact one to ask to get the truth) and by the answer (yes or no) given by the most knowledgeable / high positioned persons of that religion, you will eliminate every religion except Christianity.

The partisans on both sides, of course, have simple answers to these questions.

B) If you've ever watched even the most simple programs on cable TV regarding the Big Bang, the scientists are the first ones to admit that these are questions they can't answer... yet.

But if I am right and no one can answer how he came to be, or answer many other simple questions that are based on the assumption there is no God how does anyone here have the arrogance to think that they know more than me or anyone else.

but its not a simple question, we would need a scientific text book to provide you with the answers to all the questions you asked.

1) We're highly evolved primates 2) We have overactive imaginations 3) Our greatest evolutionary asset, our large and highly-folded brains, are also responsible for an insatiable curiosity 4) As a species, and a survival tactic, we make things up to comfort ourselves in difficult times 5) As a complex societal species, we create commonalities and «traditions» with others in our clan / tribe / community 6) These «traditions» result in security, trust, and strong relationships that make the collective more able to survive than the individual 7) These common beliefs also act as a means of numbing the brain to questions and concerns without legitimate or tangible answers 8) Religion is simply a survival mechanism 9) When we die, we simple «are not alive» anymore.

Millennial columnist Emily Shire comments in The Daily Beast, «The General Social Survey asks how many partners respondents had sex with, but the generation that grew up with the Lewinsky scandal blasting into our living rooms knows the answer to that question isn't so simple.»

Mr. Blake, the answer is very simple but also very truly spiritual few would not even attempt to question.

This process model of divine spacetime, projected from Whitehead's theory of interpoints and his critique of the Newtonian fallacy of «simple location,» slips into the logical difficulty with which process theology has accused traditional theism: It is always possible to ask whether any proposed empirical signs are signs of God, and it is never possible to provide empirical evidence with which to answer the question (1:42).

It is questions like these that have provoked the simple answer in much of the university today, not only in the United States but in Europe and Asia as well: Drop the idea of a core education altogether, especially when we know that what we really need to be studying is science, technology, and economics.

The simplest yet by far the best answer I've ever found to that question is by trying to love more.

People have been asking that question for thousands of years and yet a simple «yes» doesn't really answer it, again, you can go on and keep on believing, I on the other hand have not found sufficient reason for me to believe in judaism.

I initially asked the questions (simple and concise questions) to anyone who had an answer.

Here we have only «a simple answer to complex questions.»

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.

I have one question though to which I was not able to find a simple answer and that is regarding the absorption of nutrients from bee pollen grains.

However, the answer to one seemingly simple question has eluded me: How should I decide whether or not to refrigerate a particular hot sauce?

This is a tough question to answer, but I would say that the thing my Mom cooked that stayed with me was her «fritters» — a simple batter with milk, flour, oil, that she would mix with cheese and cooked green beans, then fry.

let's face it, everyone and his brother has known what our deficiencies have been for several years, so why can't our management team seem to identify our weaknesses and aggressively target the necessary additions... the only plausible answer is we aren't willing to pay even close to market value for the players we clearly need and if we do actually get to the table we seem to make insulting bids that simple infuriate the team in question... for years Wenger has said he couldn't find any world class players to fill our voids, which seems to suggest that he thinks we currently have upwards of 40 world class players on our existing roster... if that is the case he should never be in charge of making personnel decisions... buying late in the window is so problematic, for obvious reasons, and especially since this year was supposed to be different (sarcasm)

The big question would be why Wenger didn't persist with the 4 -2-3-1 system, for which the answer is very simple: If you want to accommodate all your stars — Sanchez, Theo Walcott, Mesut Ozil, Jack Wilshere, Aaron Ramsey, Welbeck and Olivier Giroud.....

The big question would be why Wenger didn't persist with the 4 -2-3-1 system, for which the answer is very simple: If you want to accommodate all your stars — Sanchez, Theo Walcott, Mesut Ozil, Jack Wilshere, Aaron Ramsey, Welbeck and Olivier Giroud — in your starting XI, 4 -2-3-1 is not the best possible answer.

Wenger is worse than Sam Allardyce, very poor manager we have at Arsenal, poor, poor, dirt poor, watch Mahrez join Chelsea, anyway, I said it once I'll say it again the answer to all our problomatic questions on this here fine site of ours is simple: Wenger is a very poor mananger, Tony Pulis is even better

I could be here all day and still not come up with everything that is wrong with Arsenal Football Club.The writer could spend the next week compiling his theories (excuses) to any question raised.However the answer to ALL the problems at Arsenal Football Club have been caused by a simple 2 word answer.

When people refuse to answer a simple question and instead spend their time giving non-answers, it's usually because they know that the honest answer works against their position, and they're not willing to have an honest discussion that leads to a mutual understanding and a reasonable gray - area conclusion or a pros - and - cons conclusion.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

Throughout the 2013 NCAA Tournament, the team at Sports Insights has kept a close eye on Nate Silver's round - by - round predictions in an attempt to answer one simple yet profound question: Does new - age data analysis have a place in the uniquely unpredictable world that is March Madness?