Anies has mentioned that they're here for intellectual calibration. Which is fine, but I just find it unlikely that you can learn my making conclusion first then fitting everything to get to your conclusion.
I meant rather than discussing what can be in the draft, the person immediately said that it's adverse and then backtracking steps from there. For example, lack of announcement is used as supportive at it's adverse. Forgetting that it's called draft for a reason. Let publish work in progress report because that is what a professional will do.
Also ignoring the fact that ASX has rejected announcement by ISX just not long ago because it classifies the announcement as "marketing" material.
Well, I guess this must be how the "smart" calibrate intellectually. By asking the same questions over and over again. By coming to conclusion without all facts first and refusing to listen to anything anyone else says, because no one is as smart as they are.
