@observatory, Hmmmm I admired you. Suspect you might be good teacher, telling me I make "unnecessary comment". Thank you in advance. Believe good student listen well to good teacher vice versa.
I hope just like you are "passionate about fairness", you can accept my passion for basic justice and decency as humans not animals. Your post about many other company, seem like wise person. Why no comment on @dragon328 slanderous claim about innocent analysts and journalists name from CIMB, Kenanga, The Edge by creating fake story?
If slander only big company, I might not be so "hot temper" (borrow word from @dragon328).
But becoming clearer agenda, because repeated false claims even after I explain where wrong. No longer slandering big company, now go further harm reputation of few small innocent analysts and journalists. And now go further say they should be the one RESPONSIBLE enough?
You claim passionate about fairness, but your posts only respond cheer about all of @dragon328 posts, and continuously silent about the slanderous parts and selective attempt to discredit my posts, raises question on your intent and collusion again.
Hmmmm I slow but just start answering @dragon328 questions after seriously studying each point and numbers, to give contrarian opinion, and cover what what might be missed, so we can have good discussion and more views. I took both of you seriously, add points from big professional investor Apollo blog that you like, so we can discuss and tell me where wrong.
@observatory, immediately after I write serious post with number and supporting information from Apollo, why do you create new post to say I am an "ongoing distraction"?
I earlier also try to give you better proof, than merely confirming yes/no for your insensitive question of whether I have strong tie with Scientex, it raises big question on your intent. I told you yes/no is useless because not verifiable, and I go further to share my direct opinion with you. Now I see your real reason to ask. If I pick yes, it will used against me, if no, also used against me.
Hope you do not find offense. Why you pick offense with one strange word "our", and selectively remove big part of my sentence to support your claim, implying to public I am defending Scientex passionately, immediately after I start discuss reasonings and numbers with @dragon328?
Is it because of face? Or create perception that I am very "sensitive to" (borrow your own words) any suggestion about "defending Scientex"? Hmmm are you working for someone, panick after I really started serious discussion, and make mistake while trying to frame me?
My original comment (the part that you removed inserted in CAP):
--------- @anti_colonialists9: @OBSERVATORY, BETTER DISCLOSURE OF MY POSITION, IS I agree more with @iknownuts, it considers risk management, instead of your posts that feel more bias to best scenario projection and application of fairness which is flimsy and subjective. Discuss our reasoning in next posts? Much later. ---------
Clearly accepting your earlier invitation to discussion, tell you that "our" opinion differ and will discuss the difference in "our" reasoning later. This is not what you ask me for earlier?
@observatory, I mean no offense and I ask again, what is your agenda? Did you try frame me? Just surprise what I bump into, seem like game and trickery agenda by 2 cyber troopers to make sure only one single voice here.
If you @dragon328 are genuine but have some agenda, you can confide to me privately. If both of you are "cyber trooper", I am opportunist too, willing to be silent and not interfere with your effort to create unchallenged single view here for your successful strategy.
@dragon328 said I have "hot temper". Maybe weather hot, I was wrong assume both of you playing tricks on me and to public with bad agenda? Should I apologise? Or are you both wrong? Note I am not first one to question, even old user @iknownuts also share concern about both of your intent (@iknownuts: "do you guys hate scientex and PJ Lim so much?")
Is @dragon328 just assuming? I also realise it might be a mirror to @dragon328 feeling hot temper after reading my post. Apologise in advance. @observatory, if learn from white people, can I call you assumptious sexist bias and how dare assume my gender in all your posts? Can I call @dragon328 $%^%# for implying I mood swing? See how assumption work? No offense my intent to show how weird this can be if we are not civilised.
On light note. I no longer admire your i3 posts because your latest attempt to sway public opinion and frame me, give doubt on your character. Where is the fairness. Pfft. Should we return to discussing "our" reasoning?
Stock: [SCIPACK]: SCIENTEX PACKAGING (AYER KEROH) BERHAD
2021-10-04 02:31 | Report Abuse
@observatory,
Hmmmm I admired you. Suspect you might be good teacher, telling me I make "unnecessary comment". Thank you in advance. Believe good student listen well to good teacher vice versa.
I hope just like you are "passionate about fairness", you can accept my passion for basic justice and decency as humans not animals. Your post about many other company, seem like wise person. Why no comment on @dragon328 slanderous claim about innocent analysts and journalists name from CIMB, Kenanga, The Edge by creating fake story?
If slander only big company, I might not be so "hot temper" (borrow word from @dragon328).
But becoming clearer agenda, because repeated false claims even after I explain where wrong. No longer slandering big company, now go further harm reputation of few small innocent analysts and journalists. And now go further say they should be the one RESPONSIBLE enough?
You claim passionate about fairness, but your posts only respond cheer about all of @dragon328 posts, and continuously silent about the slanderous parts and selective attempt to discredit my posts, raises question on your intent and collusion again.
Hmmmm I slow but just start answering @dragon328 questions after seriously studying each point and numbers, to give contrarian opinion, and cover what what might be missed, so we can have good discussion and more views. I took both of you seriously, add points from big professional investor Apollo blog that you like, so we can discuss and tell me where wrong.
@observatory, immediately after I write serious post with number and supporting information from Apollo, why do you create new post to say I am an "ongoing distraction"?
I earlier also try to give you better proof, than merely confirming yes/no for your insensitive question of whether I have strong tie with Scientex, it raises big question on your intent. I told you yes/no is useless because not verifiable, and I go further to share my direct opinion with you. Now I see your real reason to ask. If I pick yes, it will used against me, if no, also used against me.
Hope you do not find offense. Why you pick offense with one strange word "our", and selectively remove big part of my sentence to support your claim, implying to public I am defending Scientex passionately, immediately after I start discuss reasonings and numbers with @dragon328?
Is it because of face? Or create perception that I am very "sensitive to" (borrow your own words) any suggestion about "defending Scientex"? Hmmm are you working for someone, panick after I really started serious discussion, and make mistake while trying to frame me?
My original comment (the part that you removed inserted in CAP):
---------
@anti_colonialists9: @OBSERVATORY, BETTER DISCLOSURE OF MY POSITION, IS I agree more with @iknownuts, it considers risk management, instead of your posts that feel more bias to best scenario projection and application of fairness which is flimsy and subjective. Discuss our reasoning in next posts? Much later.
---------
Clearly accepting your earlier invitation to discussion, tell you that "our" opinion differ and will discuss the difference in "our" reasoning later. This is not what you ask me for earlier?
@observatory, I mean no offense and I ask again, what is your agenda? Did you try frame me? Just surprise what I bump into, seem like game and trickery agenda by 2 cyber troopers to make sure only one single voice here.
If you @dragon328 are genuine but have some agenda, you can confide to me privately. If both of you are "cyber trooper", I am opportunist too, willing to be silent and not interfere with your effort to create unchallenged single view here for your successful strategy.
@dragon328 said I have "hot temper". Maybe weather hot, I was wrong assume both of you playing tricks on me and to public with bad agenda? Should I apologise? Or are you both wrong? Note I am not first one to question, even old user @iknownuts also share concern about both of your intent (@iknownuts: "do you guys hate scientex and PJ Lim so much?")
Is @dragon328 just assuming? I also realise it might be a mirror to @dragon328 feeling hot temper after reading my post. Apologise in advance. @observatory, if learn from white people, can I call you assumptious sexist bias and how dare assume my gender in all your posts? Can I call @dragon328 $%^%# for implying I mood swing? See how assumption work? No offense my intent to show how weird this can be if we are not civilised.
On light note. I no longer admire your i3 posts because your latest attempt to sway public opinion and frame me, give doubt on your character. Where is the fairness. Pfft. Should we return to discussing "our" reasoning?