d, how is it that I having a high school equivalent drop out status is able
to identify the mistakes in your Enlish language delivery ?
<<...the above statement contains an outright lie.
Barrick does not own any Trizec Hahn so far as I know.
And I think it's also true to say that Trizec Hahn
sold its last position in Barrick a couple of years ago.>>
You make a statement in a black/white yes/no declarative,
which was "an outright lie", and then you qualify it in a
manner to subaltern it and place a nullification status onto it.
<<so far as I know.>> = you have incomplete information,
which means that you do not have available information
that is necessary to decide true or false, yes or no.
<<And I think>> = a guess = what you want to be true without
knowing if it is or not.
<<Munk is chairman of both companies.>>
My interpertation is that Munk might be stealing from Peter to help Paul,
and I'm sure if true it would be illegal since the shareholders
of the stole from company don't care about the other, except ofcourse
for Mr. Munk caring about both.
Please identify any defects in my logic here,
as I welcome the chance to learn from my mistakes,
so that my future insight will improve.
And if so, then I'm wrong and will take back and say sorry
to you if what I did was incorrect and caused you any discomfort.
My purpose is to understand, and also to help others,
with myself being included in that others group.
with regards
Doug |
