Sentences with phrase «use less words»

The answer is simple, use less words and avoid loading it with resume and business jargon.

It also increases dialog and understanding, and serves as an idiom (where one can use less words to describe something).

Not exact matches

In other words, the person who is asking a factory to deliver 5,000 orders tomorrow is the same person who has asked them to do it using 50 % less water.

It turns out, lost deals actually have a 12.8 percent higher sentiment score (in other words, the buyer uses more positive and less negative language, generating an overall higher «score) than closed - won deals, across all calls that span the sales cycle.

We can also use words that sometimes mean slightly less than we'd like them to.

If your words won't help, then you're less obligated to use them.

Conversely, if you habitually use fuzzy, ill - defined words crammed into long and convoluted sentences, you're training your brain — and the brains of your team members — to think less clearly.

The contest Google asked non-developer types to post ideas in 50 words or less on Google + and Twitter on how they would use the glasses, for the privilege of pre-ordering the developer version of the Glass, dubbed the Explorer Edition.

In other words, they might start using Facebook less.

Presentation plan: Whether you're using a pitch deck or a written business plan, the information in your presentation plan will be, more or less, the same as in your working plan but worded differently and styled for the eyes of an outsider.

Hint to the Times: laptops use so much less power than a jet taking off that they are qualitatively different — in other words, negligible.

The lending standards on equipment financing can be less strict because your equipment will be used as collateral for the loan — in other words, if you default, the bank has the right to seize your equipment to cover the cost of their lost money.

CNN: My Take: When it comes to «God» in our political platforms, less is more Stephen Prothero, Boston University religion scholar and author of «The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation,» discusses how the Republican and Democratic parties have used God as a ««prop» of our politics» during the 2012 presidential race.

The church may use roughly the same words to describe a SBNR, but in a less complimentary way:

(Jefferson originally had used the word sacred for these truths, but Franklin convinced him to use the less religious term self - evident.)

And again, you are correct, I did not use it and erroneously used the less precise and more general word «majority» It was an error which unfortunately I can not correct because CNN does not allow edits... which is a good thing... I don't believe in revising history.

Obviously, so the argument goes, if we want to cut teenage pregnancies and abortions we must have access to sexual health services — in other words, teenagers are less likely to get pregnant if they are using contraception; failing contraception, then we should give them access to the morning - after pill, which may be seen as preferable to a twelve - year - old getting pregnant.

What is less clear to me is why complementarians like Keller insist that that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a part of biblical womanhood, but Acts 2 is not; why the presence of twelve male disciples implies restrictions on female leadership, but the presence of the apostle Junia is inconsequential; why the Greco - Roman household codes represent God's ideal familial structure for husbands and wives, but not for slaves and masters; why the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy about Ephesian women teaching in the church are universally applicable, but his instructions to Corinthian women regarding head coverings are culturally conditioned (even though Paul uses the same line of argumentation — appealing the creation narrative — to support both); why the poetry of Proverbs 31 is often applied prescriptively and other poetry is not; why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the supremecy of male leadership while Deborah and Huldah and Miriam are mere exceptions to the rule; why «wives submit to your husbands» carries more weight than «submit one to another»; why the laws of the Old Testament are treated as irrelevant in one moment, but important enough to display in public courthouses and schools the next; why a feminist reading of the text represents a capitulation to culture but a reading that turns an ancient Near Eastern text into an apologetic for the post-Industrial Revolution nuclear family is not; why the curse of Genesis 3 has the final word on gender relationships rather than the new creation that began at the resurrection.

As usual, God will even use the words of those who are leading less than exemplary lives to reveal something of the truth to the rest of us.

The more words you use the less I understand what point you want to communicate.

From the words we speak to get through the day and the colorful messages we use to insult one another every female of every age on this planet is fed a constant stream of reminders we are simply lesser creatures than males.

You're more than welcome ttm ~ > The word treasure is a good word to use because what He offers us is nothing less than a treasure.

According to the article, atheists use the words «think,» «reason» and «question» and that makes them less happy than people who don't.

Along similar lines, physiologists believe that the human eye is capable of distinguishing among more than six million hues, and yet the fact that we typically use only about a dozen words to describe colors suggests that we see them much less richly than we are capable of doing.3

I should not have used the word «strong»; I should have said, ``... less than perfect, invincible, having all the answers, etc.» I believe people can overcome being stuck in the past.

In the 24 verses involved in Genesis chapter 3 we can clearly see that this word is used only two (2) times, no more, no less.

Furthermore, that this is the product of his own thought, stated at least approximately in his words rather than in the diction of the early church, is borne out by the fact that we find the term used much less frequently in the letters and in Acts than in the Gospels.

While such a suggestion may have theoretical value, it does not help much practically, since the word «god» continues to be widely used and to serve as more or less useful means of communicating religious ideas.

What is of interest is how and when we decide to use the word «theory» and the affect that it has on less sceptical audiences.

To suggest, then, that religious believers (much less majorities who, qua majorities, also have a second claim on shaping public policy) are «wards» depending on the Constitution for their religious freedom and its scope is, to use Posner and Segall's words against them, «to turn the Constitution upside down when it comes to government and religion.»

He conjectures why leaders of larger churches feel less comfortable using the word evangelical: «As a church grows, the core becomes surrounded by larger concentric circles that Rick Warren called the «crowd» and «community».

These are the ingredients of personeity (to use a word of Samuel Taylor Coleridge); and that is why we can not think of God as less than personal, to be conceived not as «It» but as «He,» and to be addressed as «Thou.»

In other words, nurturant fathering helps relieve sons of the compulsion to prove themselves adequately masculine by engaging in truculent and misogynist activities, and so frees them to use their energies for acquiring more adaptive and less rigidly gender - stereotyped relational and work skills.

The nightmare for abortion advocates is a spreading consciousness of how exactly a healthy fetus is turned into a mass of marketable organs, how, in the words of a senior Planned Parenthood official, one might use «a less crunchy technique» — crush the head, spare the organs — «to get more whole specimens.»

Most Likely to Totally Nail It in Less Than 600 Words: Mason Slater at Deeper Story with «Gender and the Gospel» «So then part of faithfully proclaiming that Gospel is proclaiming to the people of God that gender, social class, and ethnicity do not define who God can use and how he can use them... So yes, I think the neo-Reformed movement is right, gender roles have everything to do with the Gospel.

In other words, he apologized for using the word «slut» instead of some less insulting synonym.

«When I use a word,» Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, «it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.»

However, you rhetoric about me not being «special» and use of words like «delusions» to describe those beliefs that are not one's you hold could be outcomes of what you perceive to be less tolerable in others.

So it seems he misapplies it, thus robbing it of the meaning he presumably would like it to have and making it less likely that future use of the word will carry much, if any, weight.

Using big words doesn't make you any less irrelevant and ignorant.

Among the younger generation who struggle with the idea of Jesus being the unique path of salvation, it is easy to find an «out» here from actually engaging in traditional gospel sharing... after all those on the cutting edge say «the church» needs to talk less and do more... «if necessary use words».

In my Bible concordance the word «heart», including when preceded by a pronoun, is used no less than 640 times approximately!

Finally, there is a tiny fraction (I would say less than 1 %) of uses where the term probably does refer to receiving eternal life, though even in these contexts, the actual meaning of the word is debatable.

In other words, people wanted packaging that used less while doing more.

I was just pondering the same thing (but in much less crafty words I might add)-- just where have all the Halloween people gone?!? It used to be sooo cool!

Although many will suggest that Robson has a personal vendetta of sorts aimed squarely at the Grinch who stole soccer, that doesn't make his words any less truthful... such tactics are nothing new... in the U.S.this business practice has become so common that even the players regularly use the media to manipulate public opinion (LeBron James did likewise to rally public support for himself and away from his teammate, Kyrie Irving, who has asked to be traded)... whether for contract leverage or to rally support for or against certain players, this strategy can be incredibly effective at times, but when it misses the mark it can be dangerously divisive... for a close - to - the - vest team like Arsenal to use such nefarious means to manufacture a wedge between the fans and it's best player (again), is absolutely despicable... for the sanctimonious higher - ups who demand that it's players adhere to a certain protocol regarding information deemed «in house» or else to intentionally spread «fake» news or to provide certain outlets with privileged information for such purposes is pretty low indeed... no moral high ground here, just a big club pretending to be a small club so that they can continue to pull the wool over the eyes of a dedicated, albeit somewhat naive, fan base... so not only does this club no give a shit about it's fans, this clearly shows that clubs primary interests aren't even soccer related... for all intent and purposes Kroenke doesn't care if we're a soccer club or a tampon factory as long as we continue to maximized his investment... stay woke people... great to see more and more people commenting on the state of the franchise... this club needs to be held accountable for it's actions

maybe you don't understand that Wenger's words are simply an attempt to recover some of the market value that was lost due to the way they have mishandled his contract negotiations, which means that everyone, once again, knows that we have little to no leverage when it comes to negotiating a transfer... much like we did with RVP, when we sold the EPL trophy to ManU for less than $ 25 million... any reputable team with a sporting director would never have allowed this situation to occur again and if they had heads would roll... if handled correctly the worst case scenario would have seen us get a minimum of $ 65 million for a player of his ilk in the present economic climate and we could have used those funds to purchase the best available striker in the early days of the transfer window... just imagine what outsiders must think about the state of our team if all you did was read the headlines... sadly, things might just might be worse than they think

A fine article TA and an interesting debate, one thing I would like to ask though is could we use the word hate less on here, one surely shouldn't hate anyone or anything purely because it is non Arsenal.

but simply because the 60's brought the «F» word into common use and «everyone does it» doesn't make it less vulgar.

You can also teach your child how to count to ten until he is less angry, how to do deep breathing in order to calm down, or how to use his words by making statements such as «I am really, really angry right now!»