Sentences with phrase «very wrong time»

Not exact matches

«We are in very strange times where things that would normally be the reasonable thing to do can actually be disastrously wrong.

Sure, the task at hand sounds very easy at first, but using the wrong strategy will lead you to waste time and money and possibly get you in trouble with Google — which is something you definitely do not want.

Cash flow is another very important metric because businesses want to see not only how you manage your money, whether you overspend and pay late or never stretch beyond your limits and pay on time, but also how much cash savings you have in case something goes wrong.

If you time your sale wrong in hopes of getting back in, the market may very well price you out.

But markets can be «wrong» for a very long time before they decide to change direction.»

These people know the basics and at the same time they make very basic mistakes like pick wrong keywords, have no idea of landing page is, get involved with companies that offer Google ranking in 24 hours, etc..

Similarly, if you are about to retire, there is very little time left to recoup losses if you go wrong on a risky investment.

Some commentaries on whether it's time to buy value stocks, why Karl Marx is very wrong, and the controversial move to allow depositors to have crypto styled bank.

But the next time you see a gay or lesbian person and think to yourself, «They are sinful, they are lost, they are wrong, or they are an abomination...» understand that you may very well be speaking about your own partner, your own child, your own parent or brother or sister... and you don't even know it yet!

If all you have to back your claims is a 2000 year old book that has been debunked numerous times over and has been shown to be wrong, then you have very little.

When the journalist says for the thousandth time, «Living religion is not in dull and dusty dogmas, etc.» we must stop him with a sort of shout and say, «There — you go wrong at the very start.»

Even worse, those very atheists who spend all of their time on forums like this and fighting against the truth (rather than being out enjoying the world in what little time they have) will ultimately die and go to hell only to then find out the truth — that they've been wrong about everything they've believed their whole life.

except your wrong... this many gods objection was brought up in Pascal's time... and he explicitly rejected it because he maintained that christianity is unlike all those other religions and if they examined it in detail they would realize as much... youre twisting pascal's own beliefs... he very much was postulating that either the christian god existed or it didn't

That would explain so much more, than a conscious «Divine Intention» that always blames very flawed, very ignorant humans every time something goes wrong.

Firstly, it must be remembered, that he disclaims very early in the book that he can only speak for the mainline denominations with which he is familiar, and although my memory may fail me, he implies that he can only speak for his observations of the churches / leaders with whom he is familiar, and also that he may be wrong, and also, that he is only pointing out what he calls a possible cause for the problems he has seen, and hopes that his suggestions / ideas, will be considered, researched, etc, and that time will tell if his thesis bears any truth or not.

Trying to insert god into scientific theories is only setting yourself up for science to prove you wrong in time, so how about you try and look at things with a fresh perspective and consider the possibility that god (or at least the version of god you have in mind) has a very low probability of existing.

I realized, as a non-Catholic at that time, that something had gone very wrong in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

If we trust our heavenly Father to deliver us out of all sin — we can't deliver ourselves — from the day that we start with Him, until the very end, while also trusting Him to forgive us every time we repent of a discovered sin, and so, are able to receive that forgiveness without any continuing guilt, or shame, what is wrong with that?

Besides the fact that chronologically religion has man's existence here on earth ALL wrong, there can be no doubt we have experienced evolutionary change in the very short time that religion has been in existence.

I chose to disregard it for a very very long time, same as you, and it wasn't until 2 years ago when I examined the bible to prove it wrong that God proved Himself right to me.

«Time is the healing river», said W. H. Auden; and there seems to be a way in which the worst of evils, which as evil are not to be welcomed nor valued, can be incorporated into some later ordering which may very well be all the deeper and more significant because it has absorbed and used that which in itself was horribly wrong.

People with low IQ are very fearful of having a lot of information thrown at them and many times don't have the ability to step out of their own experiences or handle that what they were taught by their pastor or whomever that X, Y and Z are wrong.

This new confidence was first prompted, unless memory at this point is all wrong, by two very hard facts: the invincibility of a clear - headed medical student dying of cancer, and the impassive bulk of the Rockies above timber line, which I saw for the first time four months later.

Think that would help them understand that they've been very wrong for a very long time?

We are told that these desires that are part of our biological / psychological make - up are the very catalysts to eternal torture because the first family chose the wrong snack in the greatest garden of all time after the talking snake had convinced them to.

But as McFague has said, «for theology to do less than fit our present understanding — for it to accept basic assumptions about reality from a very different time — seems blatantly wrong - headed» (McFague, 14).

Although I have to admit that David went through a very, very, hard time for his wrong doings, all of the book of Psalms was not a good time for him, but he kept YHWH in his heart wholeheartedly, and was loyal, and dedicated, with a lion's heart, so his «seeds» would get recognition in the future generations, and grace in the end, he accepted his wrong doings, and like a man dealt with them, being responsible for them.

I am «grown up» and that's why I'm asking you to do a very grown - up thing: JUST CONSIDER the possibility that you got Walsh wrong this time around.

He is wrong about what the bible says about being armed with the current weapon of the day, remember when the church officials came to arrest Jesus in the garden, the apostle Paul DREW HIS SWORD and cut a mans ear off, and what did Jesus say to him, he did n`t reprimand him he said, Stop there will be a time for the sword (GUN) but this is not it.So what can we learn from this, first the apostles carried weapons while in the company of Jesus, second, apparently Paul was very good with his sword, he obviously bested the guy whose ear he cut off.

Did you understand lying to be something wrong the very first time that you did it, or was it something that you did prior to being told it was wrong?

I so appreciate this blog post, I was going through a difficult time when I first started eating healthy and was very hard on myself if I «broke the rules» I agree there isn't a right or wrong, you should enjoy you're food and be happy in yourself Xxx

The only think I seem to not get right is that every time I make them they become very crumbly — I'm not sure if this is how they should be or if I'm doing something wrong.

People (most often times very politely, so thank you) point out that my nutritional information is wrong, and that the actual stats are higher.

:-P Tried it a second time and it was good, but I wasn't really tasting the flavors very strongly, and it was gummy and squishy... I don't know what I did wrong this time though!

By the time I made waffles for the third time, I had a kitchen full of dirty dishes, paper towels all around, two bowls full of unused «failed» batter or better If I say «dough», and one batch tossed down the sink disposer, and I was standing there covered with as much flour as you can imagine, very much frustrated, thinking like a mad scientist where it went wrong while regular waffles with all purpose flour were cooking in the waffle maker for my dear kids, making me crave them that much more.

By the time we were actual newlyweds nothing was really that new anymore (but still very exciting, don't get me wrong Honey!).

I've not had something turn out so awful & clearly wrong in a very very long time.

I'm getting annoyed that people fail to notice the positive he did recently (he started spending money, keep the team in tact, getting a new physio in, try to win game ugly when result is getting bad) while it is very fair points that he made very wrong judgement in not getting enough defensive cover, and his players are naive at time in term of tactics.

-- He is French Ligue 1 top scorer — but Giroud WAS Ligue 1 top scorers as well (even won the league) when he joined us — Do nt get me wrong he can be a very good player for us in 2,3 years time but for next season only the like of Benzema or Lewandowski can improve us

But the majority of the squad had a bad game big time, meaning something is very wrong in the dressing room.

On top of that, I feel we gave two very cheap goals away and they were at the wrong moments — just before and after half - time, with two minutes to go, and just after half - time.

if we perform they way we did, we will win the league, i We have beaten Chelsea after long time and that too very convincingly, there is nothing wrong in celebration

They did not get there with plain sailing however, after having very little of the possession in the opening half, an injury - time penalty was given for handball against Bastian Schweinsteiger, which Antoine Griezmann put away nicely, sending the keeper the wrong way.

Time for Wenger to address everything wrong because whatever he may say, spirit is not very high in the team.

You do n`t have to have a crystal ball or be a genius to know there is something very wrong at Arsenal and it «s been growing for some time.

There's so much wrong with Arsenal if we were given chances to write about them it would take a year.What kind of mentality is this.Forgive me for the way I come out but what has to be said has to be said and the truth hurts.I do nt know if you guys are happy with what's going on but am not.We live in a world where those who speak the truth are hated very much and a world full of incomprehensible things.Its just sad.Things have to change from this year especially the mentality of this club.I just wan na see my club succeed and its bothering me a lot we just can not seem to do what is right.It's time average players are taken out of the club and what I mean by that is players who do nt want to improve.You already them lot.

Jesus, you are right, but very wrong at the same time... they are limited players and if Ramsey is not from GB he would be long gone!

He has been very inconsistent and only really had the second half of last season where he looked like he was a premier league player... to then act like a big time charlie would be very wrong...

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