Tactician wrote: Ps: Thanks Newbiestock, I think some of your posts provided me with greater insights into the company, and they do seem to fit my understanding.
Pps: I'm still quite irritated that Joanna has not replied to me yet. When is the next company meeting, I will have to let Eratat know their IR firm is doing a lousy job. They did a much better job previously with Shellyn? (Did I get her name right?)
Tactician,
I have to apologise to u for causing a confusion. I hv drop u a private message. In June, u drop her an email and I drop Joanna a call. so, apparently, she thought we are the same person and hence she didn't reply to your email since she had replied me via the phone. no wonder i also got confused during the phone when she talk about email. sorry, this is really my fault.
Joanna's number can be found from Eratat's website. HP no is 96367510. For those who have qns can just call the IR's hp no directly.
The former IR name is kellyn, i think...
Eratat seems to be rebounding back with a gradual pickup in volume...
There was a post in another forum. The post reflects naivety.
It is always EASIER to determine whether a statement is valid or not, by trying to prove that it is wrong, rather than trying to prove that it right. In scientific hypothesis testing, we always try to prove that the null hypothesis Ho is wrong - if we can't, then we accept Ho's argument.
In other words, if we want to validate the statement 'all swans are white', we just need to find 1 black swan to get our answer, rather than waste the time searching for thousands of white ones. Similarly, d.o.g does not need to find tons of reasons to prove whether Mr Lin is a shrewd businessman, he just needs to find the ONE reason to show that he is NOT.
This is naivety. U cannot expect a shrewd businessman to not make mistakes at all. This is not a all-or-nothing situation, or a win-or-lose situation. If you think this way, you show how green you are, or how wet behind your ears you still are.