Sentences with phrase «understand my points first»

I understand Trenberth's point and I understand your point your first, which my comment is a response to.

I hope you take the trouble to understand my points first, if you intend to disagree.

Not exact matches

After all, reviews provide a first stop for any potential customer to understand a product from a consumer point of view, delivering honest and impartial insight from peers.

Understanding customer health at certain points of the lifecycle is extremely important, especially the first 90 days of the relationship.

If the meeting is to be a success, Trump and his advisers must first understand how we look to the North Korean leader, peering at us from his very particular vantage point.

If the first prototype brought in front of potential customers doesn't work, it means «you don't understand their pain point — there are five or 10 things you are not addressing,» Zenios says.

The manufacturers want to create about 400 charging sites in a first step and, by 2020, ensure that customers have access to thousands of charging points, they said, citing a memorandum of understanding.

When Slava Rubin, the founding CEO of Indeigogo, one of the very first crowdfunding sites that launched in January 2008, talks about it, he hits a point rarely discussed and even less frequently understood.

It may be a little hard to understand, but the point is that people have been fleeing long volatility ETFs and piling into short volatility ETFs, to the point where the public is no longer net long volatility, for the first time in history.

The first definition points to reaching an understanding of the behavioral framework that surrounds the new social buyer persona.

The starting point to negotiating your way out of a personal guarantee is to first understand why they are requested.

Although people understood the rules of open book management, at first they didn't see the point of adding yet another meeting to their busy schedules.

I would have the urge to open it as fast as possible, but knowing my christian friends» inability to acknowledge or at this point even understand what truth is, I would first arrange a live PayPerView event with thousands of recording devices and as many people as possible to witness the opening.

@fimilleur from time to time mankind experiences the presence of God, there have been and continue to be events that testify to the presence of Him.The multiple gods you continually point to have an unique difference from the God who first revealed His presence to ancient men i.e. the Hebrews.The particular gods you mention roman etc. are all man made and in many instances men themselves i.e. hercules, but even the ancient greeks realized the limitations of their understanding and included an «unknown» God in their worship structure.many cultures did likewise, having a glimpse of God but not the fullness of understanding that was given to the Jews.Whether or not «we» believe, does not alter the fact that God exists as an unique being, whether or not «we» acknowledge Him «we» will stand before Him.You do not choose to understand, but we are actually standing in His presence right now as He is much bigger than the doctrines and knowledge man ascribes to Him those things you find so questionable are the misconceptions and misrepresentations of God made by men throughout history.

@tea: i still do not understand why all you jesus freaks insist on making darwin the point of your anti-evolution propaganda when he only placed the first stone; hundreds if not thousands of other sciectists have refined and attempted to debunk the progess of evolution along the way and all have failed to.

Though I have no desire to deprive experts of their pleasures and I do understand the joys of fluency in a another tongue, in terms of expediting interpersonal contactual points in time, the aspects of which appear on first examination to be of a nature so non-effective as to be thought hardly worth facilitating, hopefully, the sum of these co-optations, possibility-wise, are thought to be so negligible, that while on the surface appearing deep, in terms of clarity what I have said is not.

First, each of them has perfect self - knowledge and unlimited understanding of the other two persons; there are, accordingly, no points of disagreement between them as a result of ignorance or simple misunderstanding of one another's intentions.

Perhaps, my point was that you asking such a question in the first place was clear evidence that you understand neither.

Bootyfunk, you need to understand the Bible yourself, first, before you can point your finger and condemn as you do.

The journey of a thousand miles to Omega Point may indeed begin with a first step; but the one who makes the trip should understand how far a thousand miles is and should be prepared to negotiate a lot of rocky barriers along the way.

To understand this point about Intelligent Design, first consider two stories that have happy if improbable endings.

The point is, the great changes that need to be effected in our churches are not first of all changes of behavior but changes of understanding and will.

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

My point in the article is that we can only truly love ourselves when we first come to understand how much God loves us.

To understand how to put on the belt of truth, let me first just point out a few things.

Even I, although I have argued throughout this chapter for understanding the ministry basically from a monoepiscopal point of view, have sometimes been nostalgic about the first century, where everybody seemed so keen and enthusiastic (literally filled with God) that things got done and «offices» were not established.

First of all, it should be pointed out that an inability to hear and understand the message of Jesus is not necessarily the same thing as an inability to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

My existence seems utterly useless and I can't even understand the point to why I was born in the first place.

The Holy Father's spontaneous answer on this point to the priests of Aosta diocese during his first summer vacation (see page 7) is full of compassion and understanding.

Both of these points, that early statements were based primarily on the narrative of Scripture and the behavior of believers, will become critical later in this chapter for understanding how we as twenty - first century followers of Jesus can stand up for the truth without the damaging and destructive statements of doctrine that have divided Christianity for so long.

It would be well to conclude this brief survey of some of the most significant recent theories in source analysis with the judgment of Aage Bentzen.6 It is of first importance, he states, that we understand the «import of tile «old school,» so that continuity in science can be seen and the new points of view get their true background.

It is a type of anti-communism distinguished by the following characteristics: it has no understanding of the causes of communism and emphasizes only self - defeating methods of opposing it; its starting point is a type of economic individualism that can not tell the difference between the modest institutions of the welfare state in this country and the first stages of communism; and it closes minds to the changes that have taken place in the Communist world.

His first point is to argue that phyletic gradualism — understood in the sense that evolution proceeds at a single uniform rate of speed, called «constant speedism» by Dawkins — is a «caricature of Darwinism» [46] and «does not really exist.»

First, Christian hope prevents secular hopes from becoming false absolutes and, in turn, totalitarian: one need only consider some of the tragic secular utopias of the 20th century to understand this point.

No, the only thing we can do is read and learn and discuss the first three acts, and then, based our understanding of those three acts, the plot structure up that point, the way the characters act, and how we think the conflict might resolve, improvise the fourth act to the best of our ability.

Great contemporary intellectuals such as Rémi Brague, Pierre Manent, and Philippe Bénéton are among the first points of reference for many of us as we seek to understand the thought of the ancient, medieval, and post-Enlightenment worlds.

This is almost automatically understood from the first point, but it sometimes has to be said.

And I understand your point about if he comes up and struggles, but again, that could happen even if he first gets hot in AAA then comes up.

more to the point for an Economics graduate, who doesn't understand inflation moaning about the fact the the price of players has gone up considering annual revenues of the premier league teams have shot up too is incredibly stupid... But hey Wenger knows best; he wouldn't be in a position not having to spend over the odds for quality players if he acted in the first place, that's the icing on the retard cake there for me..

Hamann made some good points but he probably does» t understand how we give an unofficial testimonial season to players who would rather stay than look for first team football elsewhere.

If I was undecided before now, now I am certain Wenger's been right all with his approach of not signing prima donnas who think that they are bigger than the team, it's refreshing to see a player with as much enthusiasm as Sanchez but at some point discretion and good sense has to prevail, afterall he and Ozil are Barca and Madrid rejects, I would take RvP and Fabregas over him and Ozil, players we didn't have to pay over the odds for, players who despite the circumstances of their exits understood the team comes first.

He will also need to understand that the NBA is a business and if he isn't a first round pick he'll have to toe whatever line they point to or be unemployed by tomorrow afternoon.

I understand ur point but let me be the first to say i'm a big ramsay fan.

Being a business student I can understand that management is the first to be blame when anything goes wrong in an organization so I understand from that point of view but let's be rational guys.

If you are going to be smug, try understanding the point you are responding to first.

Iowa is getting to a point where — first and foremost — the QB is getting to a place where he understands when and where to cherry pick each of these «6 plays» and there seem to be 10 other guys who don't tilt their hand as to run / pass and they can execute it.

The first step is recognizing that the problem is not new and understanding that pointing fingers and assigning blame (it's the parents, the kids, the schools, the teachers, the «system») only adds to the problem.

Talk to other mums in the Community, or help your partner understand about the the first few weeks with a newborn by getting them to read our dad's point of view on this.

He did not like this very much at first, but he was 3 years old at that point and could understand when we told him it was time he slept in his own bed.

12 to 18 months Your child isn't saying any words by 12 months (including «mama» or «dada»), didn't babble before his first birthday, is unable to point to things, doesn't respond to others or his name, or you still can't understand a word he's saying by 18 months.