Hi again, names!
It seems once again you’ve fallen into error, which includes your continual grasping at some banter about ‘getting our money back’ to be literal.
Unless you’re a bot/troll, you’d clearly know that wasn’t to be considered exactly as stated.
Are you not the one who’s been incessantly squabbling over what the definition of inference is and whether and whether or not there were certain inferences from the scoping study? Doesn’t make much sense on your part to then deem it as an irrelevant read, methinks.
Oh, and by the way, if you haven’t read the report yet, how can you be in a position to suggest the valuation in it is flawed?
Hi again, names! :)It seems once again you’ve fallen into error,...
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?