Discussion Forum

Final Words

This topic has been closed to new replies.

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)
  Posts Author Post Number
May 24, 2012 at 7:23 pm harjiner #11822
 

It is disappointing that ‘professional’ accountants post comments that cannot be supported by facts and evidence. It is worst with the anti-merge crowd.
May 24, 2012 at 8:18 pm ca in hk #11827
 

I thought this forum is meant to be a place to express opinions from various stakeholders not a place to share thesis and researches. My understanding is that opinions (though may be based on facts) expressed here do not need footnotes or anything to reference to the source for supports unless I misread the guidelines.
May 24, 2012 at 8:29 pm ijustwanttobeaca #11829
 

The irony in this post (11822 in case there is any confusion) is hilarious.
May 24, 2012 at 8:36 pm harjiner #11831
 

TAK and the whole anti-merge crowd ask for independent third party evidence whenever they see something they do not like.
May 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm ca in hk #11833
 

I think one can ask for it but there is no obligation on the other party to provide. so there is no need to make a big fuss about it.
May 24, 2012 at 8:41 pm harjiner #11834
 

But then they will say…the ball is in your court now….blah…blah…blah…
May 24, 2012 at 8:44 pm ca in hk #11836
 

Oops! You lost me…Supreme court? I do not agree taking legal action at all.
May 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm harjiner #11839
 

The ball is in your court means it is now up to you.
May 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm ca in hk #11840
 

how does it have anything to do with your point about providing supports?
May 24, 2012 at 9:17 pm harjiner #11841
 

Never mind. Just say your final words before this is shut dow.
May 25, 2012 at 10:02 am t. advisor king #11877
 

harj – wasn’t it your main campaigner (indianca, aka cainfirm, aka ca in mid, aka lisa, aka accounting prof) who was banned more times than everyone else combined who kept demanding with virtually every post that any statement be backed up with supporting references?
…
as ijustwant has pointed out, it is a little ironic that you’re now complaining about it. You can’t have it both ways.
May 25, 2012 at 10:46 am olkcga #11879
 

There is a different between a professional and informed opinion to that of uniformed opinion. No one should respect an uninformed opinion. If you are wise you should not be entitled to your uninformed opinion in a public discourse, because you are then misleading the public.
May 25, 2012 at 11:17 am ca in hk #11885
 

An opinion is an opinion. If you think deeply about it, it is hard to differentiate or even comprehend the meaning of Informed opinion and uninformed opinion. These are purely academic terms used to manipulate information. If one doesn’t like an opinion expressed by other, one may categorize such opinion as uninformed or vice versa. If 10 people tell me that 1 + 1 = 3, do I have enough opinions to help me to form an informed opinion that 1 + 1 = 3? If not, what if 10 more people tell me the same thing, do have I enough opinions to form an informed opinion?
May 25, 2012 at 11:19 am harjiner #11888
 

good post @olkcga.

I like your informed and balanced opinions. It really showcases the shortcomings of the anti-merger camp.
May 25, 2012 at 3:27 pm olkcga #11913
 

An informed opinion is not the same as an uninformed opinion. A statement of fact is not a statement of opinion. 1+1 = 2 is statement of fact not opinion. We are professional accountants, we deal in facts. However if we offer an opinion, which we do, because of professionalism, it must be an informed opinion. As professional we are called on to reduce the risk of uncertainly with our opinion. Our opinion are only valid it is professional and informed. To be informed ones must be knowledgeably, free of bias, and ethical.
==
I need to revisit the opinion of 1+1 =3. I will accept that to be true, if the discussion is in the context of the merger and its resulting synergies. From Greek synergos, meaning working together; the whole is more than the sum if its parts. Synergy is a key concept in business merger. Anyway this is becoming to academics. Back to reality, I may still be a CGA after the dust settles, but I am convinced based on the evidence that merger is the right path. I think CMA and CA needs to work on the merger because it is the right thing to do. CGAs has basically pulled out, well CPAs you can wish us luck.
May 25, 2012 at 7:48 pm harjiner #11915
 

@tak #11887

Checking history quickly. You ask for independent evidence whenever you are cornered. It really showcases the irony of the anti-merger camp. Sigh!
May 25, 2012 at 8:11 pm ijustwanttobeaca #11923
 

@ harjiner

The irony I was pointing out in your initial post in this thread was that you were pointing out that the anti-merger crowd fail to back up their posts with facts and evidence more than the pro-merger crowd, but you failed to back-up that statement. Hilarious really.
May 25, 2012 at 8:17 pm ca in hk #11924
 

ijustwanttobeaca – harjiner also used “most” in the statement which implies that all are in the same camp. It is quite ironic too.
May 25, 2012 at 8:22 pm harjiner #11926
 

@ijust…

Do you want me to list all the postings without any third party evidence? or just the the occasions when the poster refuses to provide evidence or ignores requests to provide evidence?
May 25, 2012 at 9:07 pm t. advisor king #11940
 

harj – I think you’ll find that my requests for third-party evidence were all in response to postings from your main champion (indianca, aka cainfirm, aka ca in mid, aka lisa, aka accounting prof), who used that slogan as a mantra whenever he didn’t like anything pro-status quo posters had to say. So I threw it back at him a few times in a row just to make my point. And it worked because he went away.
May 25, 2012 at 9:54 pm toastytoes2 #11947
 

Sure harjiner…evidence…fine by me.
.
The pro merger group seems to contend that the governments are in support of a merger. Mr. Dancy, FCA indicated in a communication, that government might someday force a merger, however there is nothing to back this up. If you have said evidence please share.
.
This is what is called an “absence of evidence”.
.
Mr. Nixon, QC, FCA indicated in a communication that in previous cases of regulated professions wanting to make changes to their acts the Alberta government has wanted significant member support before they would entertain the possibility of amendments.
.
This is what is called “evidence of absence”.
.
With apologies for misusing a quantum physics analogy, the merger is in the same box as Schrödinger’s cat. We don’t know if it is alive or dead until we open the box, and as outside observers we do not know the content, until we lift the lid.
.
Hopefully they will lift the lid and give us some facts. Personally I’m more worried about the cat.
May 25, 2012 at 10:33 pm ijustwanttobeaca #11949
 

@ harjiner
-
As I said, it was ironic, and possibly even hypocritical. It also pointed out the effort that some pro-merger posters have gone to to “bash” anti-merger folks (I’m not saying it was most or that anti-merger folks did not do similar).
-
I am anti-merger. I have not bashed anyone on the forum. I have tried to include evidence where it is needed (and when it can be found) and I do my best to separate opinion from fact (I also try and separate my opinion/the opinion of a few from “wide-spread” or “popular” opinion (which most people tend to see as more credible and closer to evidence than one person’s opinion)). There are other anti-merger posters who are similar. I don’t see why you said “most” without having any back-up in your post and why you felt a need to post this thread at all.
May 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm toastytoes2 #11984
 

crickets