Sentences with phrase «without saying something»

I never comment, but I couldn't let this post go without saying something.

The Internet is buzzing today with nostalgic news of the Nintendo Entertainment System's twenty - fifth anniversary and I feel that I can't let the day pass without saying something about the console that started me on the road to life - long video game enthusiast, but I've already shared my NES origin story with you and told the tale of the time I bought my very first NES game.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, since there's no way a football manager — that is to say, a person doing an incredibly stressful job under intense scrutiny and appalling pressure — can go an entire season without saying something mildly intemperate.

World class players don't allow the team to have that kind of performance, without saying something to your teammates.

Does Merson ever open his mouth without saying something outrageous about Arsenal?

I do not want to end this brief survey of modes of biblical discourse without saying something about the lyric genre best exemplified by the Psalms.

Not exact matches

Without my directly saying yes or no, I've thus bounced the question back to the customer (s), forcing them to consider what they're asking and to give them a chance to point out something that could be of value to me.

Matt Mackowiak, a Texas - based Republican strategist who is president of the Potomac Strategy Group, said Trump was entering the situation without having previously dealt with such a disaster, something he said was «unusual for political figures.»

After congratulating the show for «struggling along for another 14 seasons» without him, Dunkleman announced that he had something to say to his former cohost.

He also says something else, something even more profound: «You can't create a positive emotional charge without first moving from the negative, and vice versa.»

It goes without saying, if you're stuck and can't see a way forward, something needs to change.

Don't start a new program without looking at your company budget and employee schedules to see whether the endeavor is something your startup can afford at this time, says Parcells.

It's something like adding more boxcars to a train without adding any locomotives, said Eric Burgener, a director at the market research firm IDC.

So the next time you'd like to excuse yourself for forgetting someone's name without offending the person, just say something like, «Oh sorry, I was just overly concerned with telling you my own name to remember yours.

He added: «But you ought to be able to tell the truth without being punished... People who haven't done anything wrong are still worried and nervous, and if we can't say what we think, we've lost something.»

Don't give the person permission to do something that they can do without you: Few things make customers angrier than a customer service representative who responds to a customer's threat to never do business with the company again by saying, «well that's certainly your choice.»

It means cultivating a space where everyone is comfortable speaking up, without fear of retaliation, being ostracized, or ridiculed for saying something that may not be so popular.

«Like many entrepreneurs... we spent too much time thinking what customers would want, without having something for them to buy,» he says.

«We feel we have something special, and we want to share this experience with more people without diluting quality,» Jaber said.

Several Tea Party Republicans have said they will not agree to lift the so - called debt ceiling without the White House making several compromises — something the White House has said it will refuse to do.

This irritant over distant imports is complicating the goal of a quick softwood agreement, something both North American governments say they want to achieve in order to start NAFTA talks in two weeks without a major trade irritant looming overhead.

The past 24 hours of news in President Donald Trump's various legal imbroglios — the replacement of outgoing lawyer Ty Cobb with Emmet T. Flood, who represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment as president, and the admission of Rudy Giuliani to Sean Hannity (subsequently confirmed by Trump on Twitter) that Trump did in fact reimburse Michael Cohen for a $ 130,000 payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election — are powerful reminders of something that can't be said often enough: Trump and his White House lie all the time, without apparent compunction.

For those of you not familiar with the SAFT, or «Simple Agreement for Future Tokens,» this is an option agreement modelled after something called a SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) used by Y Combinator to reduce the complexity of early - stage raises (say, $ 2 million - ish), staking out a position in a investment prospect's cap table in a legally - binding way without going through the trouble of doing a full - bore Series A process of diligence, docs & raise.

It was trying to just populate your feed with something interesting, and so they would say... If you bought something, it would pop on your feed without your permission, essentially.

Even looking at Glassdoor or something similar to learn what former employees are saying is invaluable information to have, because quite frankly, if you're going to approach employee advocacy blindly without even a sense of what your employees feel about the company, then a tool might even be a bad thing.

There is ample evidence for the existence of God, what you decide to do with this evidence is ultimately up to you, but do not claim that there is none... and I would submit to you that many people believe many things without evidence every single day... but do not lump all people of faith into one basket... I have personal proof that God exists, but proof for me may not be proof for you, some people can see something with their own eyes and still deny it, that is why I said it is ultimately up to you to decide what you believe... there is much evidence both for and against the existence of God, you need to decide which evidence you choose to believe...

If you want to say «god» did something, that's fine, but that event can most likley also be explained without saying god did it.

I just wanted to hear what they had to say without worrying about anybody being attacked for saying something.

If he meant well then he could have simply said something without going to all this trouble of stealing your name.

David, you said, «Can something be true without being historical?»

Mouw concludes that LDS leaders «are simply saying nothing about it in the hope of keeping it on the margins of their historic teachings without issuing a straightforward rejection of something that loomed large in the LDS past.»

and being aware of your environment, being respectful of those of all beliefs and none beliefs, and of our world, and its about personal responsibility, with that said why is is such a bad thing to believe in something greater than yourself, how can somebody live there life without believing in something, what kind of life is that, life is meant to be discovered, its one big mystery, and all the science in the world can still not prove how we exactly came to be?

Second, to say that something can Exist without a Creator invalidates their first argument that Everything that exist need a Creator.

@Lycidas: You said, «After all, how about you tell us something «only a god can do» that you would accept without hesitation.

Another way to say that is, «Faith is believing something without proof.»

Sometimes I do it without even realizing and have to go back, apologize to her and divulge the simple truth; other times, I have to say something and can't bring myself to say the actual words because I'm too embarassed; I end up beating around the bush, attempting and rejecting spin after spin before I can finally bring myself to admit something I've done or say something that I know will be difficult for others to hear.

@photografr7: «Another way to say that is, «Faith is believing something without proof.»

i tried to say something, but they think i'm a basket case — i knew that even before i came to the realization that without Christ, i am eternal toast.

Perhaps it is because they can say something quickly and then immediately leave without having to face an extended conversation.

You said «you can not deny something without first acknowledging its existence.»

That is to say, the relation simply adds something extrinsic to the object of the relation, without determining in any way what that object is in itself.

All I can say is that I've experienced what I've experienced, that there are certain things that can not be made known without first hand experience, and that if you happen to find yourself in a situation where you want to know or need to know something that can not be made known without first - hand experience there option of trying out for yourself and see if you like it, although I don't think there is any money - back guarantee, but then again I didn't have to pay any trial offer either.

Russ, you said, «while it is a «huge leap» (as you say) to claim the specificity of the Judeo - Christian God in this particular finding, how is it not * equally * (if not more so) a leap to filter out the concept of transcendence (which you call a «self - contained oxymoron»), without any alternate explanation for the paradoxical «something out of nothing» origins of our universe?»

while it is a «huge leap» (as you say) to claim the specificity of the Judeo - Christian God in this particular finding, how is it not * equally * (if not more so) a leap to filter out the concept of transcendence (which you call a «self - contained oxymoron»), without any alternate explanation for the paradoxical «something out of nothing» origins of our universe?

Once something is taken to the scale of a singularity, quantum mechanics can be said to apply and at that level, effects to happen without causes.

There is something profoundly sad about those people who say there is no purpose without God, and we may as well die and all that.

Where most Bible translations accurately translate the Greek as saying something along the lines of «The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God,» the NIV reads Calvinistic theology into this verse, and assumes that the natural man does not even have the Spirit, and so translated the verse this way: «The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God.»

Its the difference between me getting angry and saying something I don't mean where I later repent for my actions as opposed to knowing god hates adultery and having an affair for a year, day after day without repentance.

after all, how can you say that the Boston bombings might have been «good» (something which MUST be allowed without an objective anchor for morality) & simultaneously extend «compassion'to those who suffered from a supposedly «good» action?

Saying something is a «non-argument, without refuting it, or explaining why you say that, is disingenuous, and you loose the debate.