Seeking Alpha

Reel Ken

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Reel Ken's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi CBN,

    ......".........I am astounded you don’t yet see that ......"

    I'm still waiting for your proof that children are being victimized. This is the fifth time I've asked you. See my "you're in a debate" answer. You're just confirming it.

    ......"...... I was asking you what your answer to the question .........."

    Why would you want to know my answer when you could know THE answer?

    ......".....I am beginning to wonder if you actually know the answer or if the information you have directed me to on the Internet turns out incorrect .........."

    Oh yeah, that must be it. My post graduate degree in mathematics and my straining as a statistician and actuary and I can't figure it out.

    But you may have something on my sending you to an internet site that "turns out incorrect".

    You've got me red-handed... I didn't think you would figure out that when you posted your question, I hurriedly bought a web-site, programmed it in a matter of hours, deliberately made sure it figures out wrong answers and sent you a link. Guilty as charged. You're obviously much brighter than you make yourself out to be.


    ..........".......Can you offer any proof I am wrong? ......"

    We've been around and around on this a zillion times. Your statement is a logical fallacy (onus probandi). You have made an assertion and it is up to you to prove it is true. It is not up to me to disprove it....all I need do is challenge you to prove it.
    Jul 31 09:51 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ......".......Which is why your rounding the interim step is inconsistent with your proof, where you used the "exactly the most precise" methodology and rounded the last calculation........."

    I have to admit you keep trying, no matter what absurd conclusions it takes. You first asked for an exact number and I repeated the formula, saying an exact Arabic-numeric would be an approximation. You even acknowledged that.

    Then, here's what transpired ....(me) "If you want an Arabic-numeral approximation, then you'll just have to ask and I'll give you an approximation. However, you've previously insisted on an "exact" answer and that can only be represented with non-Arabic-numeric symbols."

    (you) However you want to answer...."

    So, you gave me permission to approximate the answer. Now, if it was your intent, all along, just to ask for a value so you could say no value exists, then you need to see a shrink.

    Additionally, it was consistent with the proof in the sense that it rounded to the next integer. I never said I was making a "rounding change" in the formula, just rounding for purposes of answering your specific question in accordance with your expressed permissions and parameters.

    You seem to have a continuing problem with setting parameters, finding they don't get you what you want, then changing them. I suggest you engage think more fully next time, before posting.
    Jul 31 08:43 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    So here's what you would like us all to believe.

    You decided to substitute 50%COGS for 50%SRP, and so forth.

    That when you made that substitution, you weren't really changing the co-efficient we had been using all along, instead you were treating 50%COGS as a non-numeric symbol that represents 50%SRP. But, 50%SRP, and so on, still represents a numeric coefficient and a variable.

    And even though 50%COGS (and so on), when expressed as a coefficient and variable, does not accurately represent 50%SRP...you would like us to believe you have deliberately chosen a non-numeric symbol that, when expressed numerically, would lead to a completely different result.

    So, let's help the SA readers that don't follow COGS and SRP, understand this better.

    You say 2+2=5

    I say, no, 2+2=4

    You say that "5" in your equation, doesn't mean the number "5", it is now symbolic of the number "4".

    But "5" is already a symbol, a symbol that has a numeric value and everyone knows what that means. Are you sure you want to do this?

    You say, "yes" because you're not only changing what "5" means, you're changing "6", "7" and so forth.

    So I say then we just replace all the numbers with new numbers that mean the same thing as the old numbers....isn't that confusing?

    You then say ... however, in some contexts, "5" still means the number "5" and not "symbolic4". ... and so on.

    I ask how does one know when "5" means "symbolic 4" or when "5" means numeric 5?

    You answer by saying you'll ket me know.

    Now, you would like us to believe that's how your mind works.
    Jul 31 08:41 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    Yeah, right.

    If a customer wanted a discontinued product, why wouldn't the distributor just sell them "updated product"? Certainly the dist would realize that if he continues to sell someone else's product and never upgrades the customer, they don't make money.

    And, according to you, Amazon and Ebay have plenty of discontinued product that the dist could buy at discount. For that matter, so could the customer.

    So you are referring to a hypothetical situation in which a customer wants a discontinued product that one dist doesn't have. And there is one and only one person that has that product and the dist knows who they are (how, I don't know) and that one person sells it to them.

    If that's the case, you've just proven that HLF is not a Pyramid, because there is no theoretical inventory loading because stockpiling inventory is a very smart thing to do. In fact, it would encourage distributors to buy even more inventory and try to "corner the market".

    So, I contend, if someone thinks buying at COGS=SRP makes sense, then "stupid is as stupid does".
    Jul 31 07:08 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    .......".....me reads you consider rounding in any part of expression to be okay, which is not consistent with the "proof" as the "proof" indicates to round only the value of 4401/(...s/2)..."

    Why is it that you are indicating rounding in the "proof" at all? It seems odd for a mathematician who cares about precision...."

    First: Rounding is perfectly o.k. Rounding is common-place and perfectly acceptable. In fact, rounding is required when one wishes to express an irrational number in Arabic-numeric symbols. There is nothing wrong in rounding unless the purpose is to deceive. Orders of Magnitude is a rounding.

    Second: I rounded the final number....the solution. When one submits a proof that consists of several parts that are being defined and subsequently incorporated in a solution, it is appropriate to round only the solution, not the interim steps. Each "rounding" carries a margin of error, and if interim steps are rounded, the margins of error are magnified. So, I did exactly what the most precise methodology is... to round the final and last calculation.

    Third: ....".....50% COGS is intended to be a description to indicate setting COGS at S/2......."

    Nice try, you are backing off, once again. Now you're raising the level of absurdity. You said 50%COGS = 50% SRP. If what you're saying now, is that 50%COGS is another description for S/2 ... I assume you meant to say 50%SRP?

    So, 50% COGS means either 50% COGS or 50%SRP or S/2. How are we supposed to know which is which?

    Would it not follow that I can substitute 50% COGS for S/2.
    So, that means.my formula can be stated as.........4401/Log(e)... – 50%COGS). How stupid would that be?

    If 50% COGS is "intended to mean" S/2 and 50%SRP ...
    1) Why have you not stated so previously?
    2) Why would one ever do that anyway? and
    3) How is 50%COGS any more descriptive of 50%SRP than 50%SRP? and 4) What purpose does defining 50%SRP (and so forth) as 50% COGS serve?

    The simple fact is that your original statement said ....."...change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...." when you should have said SRP instead of COGS. A simple "typo".

    When I pointed it out, you could have, without shame, simply said .."oops, I meant SRP" and we could have moved on.

    But that's not what you did ... you were so adverse to admitting a very understandable error (we all make "typos", etc.) you felt the necessity to rationalize it as being correct.

    "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive".

    Now, you are trying to rationalize your rationalization with even more rationalizations. You have managed to transform a "typo" error into one that directly challenges your credibility and forthrightness.

    How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you change things around, don't tell anyone, and when exposed, say "..it's o.k., I intended it to mean something else"?

    Are your statements and examples some sort of "secret code"?

    So, I ask you, once again, will you finally admit that your initial statement was an error, that all subsequent explanations were improper and that when you said you stand by them it was erroneous?

    You have an opportunity to limit the damage you've done to your credibility. Or you can continue to make one absurd statement after another until you have nothing left.

    Which will it be?
    Jul 30 08:49 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    .....".........Also, it is possible for COGS to equal SRP if a distributor has to buy product from another distributor for resale to a retail customer."

    I just had to take this as a separate post it is just that funny.

    Why would a distributer pay SRP to sell at SRP? They can buy at a discount directly form HLF or drop-ship to the customer. It seems to me the dist could buy at 50% SRP and offer the customer 25% off SRP and both would be better off.

    Or, why wouldn't the dist go to their upline and buy at a discount and then sell at SRP?

    Unless, of course, you're saying that there are distributors out there that are so stupid they would come up with the COGS=SRP solution despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense at all. "Stupid is as stupid does", I guess.

    Next, why would one distributer sell at SRP to another distributor? Are the distributors in some sort of "war" I don't know about?
    Jul 30 08:48 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi CBN,

    You say....

    ......"........I did want HIS answer and a “pole” of others on both sides for a debate relevant to Herbalife.........my grade ten education sending me to a web site for the answer.........."

    You've been in a debate on HLF for quite a while. It goes like this...

    CBN: "HLF is a pyramid scheme that victimizes widows, orphans, children and veterans, etc., etc.,etc.."

    Others: "Do you have any proof that HLF is a Pyramid"?

    CBN: "I'm batting 1.000, that's all the proof any one needs".

    Others: "Do you have any proof you're batting 1.000"?

    CBN: "HLF is a pyramid scheme that victimizes widows, orphans, children and veterans, etc., etc.,etc.."

    Others:" Do you have any proof that HLF is a Pyramid"?

    CBN. I have a tenth grade education. Don't ask me to look something up, its too complicated...HLF is a pyramid scheme that victimizes widows, orphans, children and veterans, etc., etc.,etc..."
    Jul 30 08:48 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy

    So far we have that COGS could be SRP; it could be 58% SRP; 50% SRP and so forth. In addition to COULD it also IS 58% SRP; 50% SRP and so forth.

    Additionally SRP is COGS; 58% COGS is 58%SRP; 50%SRP is 50% COGS and so forth.

    So, with a little algebra, i.e. a=b therefore b=a, we can get to…

    COGS = 100%COGS; 58% COGS; 50% COGS and so forth; PLUS 58% SRP; 50% SRP and so forth.

    Also 58%COGS=50%COGS; 100%SRP; 58%SRP and so forth.

    We could shortcut all this by saying anything with the letters COGS is or could be anything with the letters COGS or SRP without regard to the coefficient that precedes it...100%; 58%;50% and so forth. Not to mention S/2.

    So in essence, everything is totally interchangeable.

    I finally get it …. It’s an updated version of Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First”.

    For the SA readers that get lost in COGS and SRP, here’s a more colloquial version of your argument (skit)…

    Ken: Bob and Jane are engaged.
    Willy: Oh, then Bob is marrying Bob.
    Ken: No, Bob is Marrying Jane, isn’t that what you mean?
    Willy: No, Bob is Jane.
    Ken: Then is Jane…Bob?
    Willy: Yes.
    Ken: So Bob is Jane and Jane is Bob, so when you say one, you mean the other.
    Willy: NO. Bob is Jane and Jane is Bob, but Bob is also Bob and Jane is also Jane. So when I say Bob, Bob could be Bob or Jane and when I say Jane, Jane could be Bob or Jane.
    Ken: So if I say Bob is going to the store, is Bob going to the store or is Jane?
    Willy: Tom is going to the store.
    Ken: Where did Tom come from?
    Willy: Tom could be Bob.
    Ken: Could be?
    Willy: Yes and he also is Bob.
    Ken: Where’s Jane?
    Willy: She’s at home Base.
    Ken: Who went to the store?
    Willy: No Who’s on First
    Ken: I don’t know
    Willy: Third base.
    Jul 30 08:48 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    You say .....

    .......".......Here's what I wrote several posts earlier.

    me->I stand by it. Both the formula and the "proof" are applicable whether COGS is 50% of SRP, 58% of SRP, any other % of SRP, any discount % to SRP, and so forth.............'

    However, that was non-responsive to my question and you altered the actual statement that was questioned, which was....

    ......"....... I stand by it. The proof and formula are applicable with COGS at any % of SRP. 50% COGS is 50% of SRP, and 58% COGS is 58% SRP, and so forth...."

    Once again you're trying to back off your statement and evade the question.

    Let's take it one step at a time..

    Your original quote... "...change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    I said NO, this is not what I did...COGS is not SRP. This is an error.

    You followed with ...".....50% COGS is 50% of SRP, and 58% COGS is 58% SRP, and so forth......"

    I said are you sure, is this another error or do you stand by it?

    You said ..."I stand by it"

    I asked yet again ... is this an error or do you stand by it. You="I stand by it..." and you gave an example.

    I illustrate the absurd conclusion that can be drawn and ask, once again, if you will admit it is an error?

    Now you say ..."COGS could be 100% of SRP, it could be 50% of SRP, 58% of SRP, 23.3453% of SRP, and so forth..."

    Once again you are changing what you said. Saying COGS could be 50% of SRP... is nowhere near the same as saying 50% COGS is 50%SRP....

    And you say ...".....I'm really not sure what you're getting at..."

    Here's what I'm getting at ..,, accuracy and the truth. You have said many different contradictory statements and stood by them all. I'm just trying to get to the truth...which ones are errors and which are accurate.

    Now, this isn't all just "red-herring". It is FUNDAMENTAL to any discussion that involves COGS or SRP. If your original and "stand by" statements are not errors, then COGS and SRP are interchangeable and chaos results. If they are errors, you need to admit it.

    So...

    1) Will you admit that... "50% COGS is 50%SRP and 58% COGS is 58%SRP and so forth...." is an error?

    2) If it was an error, will you admit you also erred in saying you "stand by it"?

    3) If you admit it was an error, and standing by it was an error, will you admit that your varied attempts to change or re-define it were non-responsive to the question and inappropriate?

    Or, do you continue to stand by everything?

    Just the truth...that's all I want ... just the truth.

    Jul 30 07:51 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Dave,

    Your welcome, I enjoyed.
    Jul 30 07:51 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    First, the easy ones...

    .....".......round(a) x b does not equal round(a x b)..."

    I agree, however, "consistent" does not mean "equal" ... it means doing it in the same way... compatible. (http://bit.ly/1tpGL32)

    .."......It is 4401/Log(e)(7.5)x(A – S/2) that is rounded to the nearest integer, not 4401/log(e)(7.5).......

    Specifically, rounding 4401/log... to the nearest integer is consistent with having rounded 4401/(...s/2) to the nearest integer. It is being done the same way. If it was rounded to one decimal place, it would be inconsistent with the way other factors were rounded.

    Second: ..."......In the context of this discussion, yes. Curious2 said "Destroying HLF will save millions from being ripped off". Do you think it was probable he was thinking the number who are being ripped off could be actually as much as a billion?....

    What is there but the context of this discussion? Are we conducting multiple discussions in parallel universes? I have no idea what Curious2 was thinking. If he wanted to be scrutinized, he could have been more specific, as could have you.

    Now if you want to specify what he meant, ask him, if he agrees, let me know and I'll revisit my answer and we can start a new discussion.

    Lastly:

    ......"... For example, if the SRP of HLF powder is $40, 50% COGS as I've written it to a distributor would be 50% of SRP = $20, 58% COGS would be 58% of SRP = $23.20, and so forth. ...."

    Thank you for an example... you make it easier and easier.

    Your example deviates slightly from your actual assertion ..."....50% COGS is 50% of SRP, and 58% COGS is 58% SRP, and so forth...." (changed from "is" to "would be")..... but it probably doesn't matter so let's take your numbers and see where they lead.

    Per your example.... SRP=$40, 50% COGS = 50% SRP= $20.

    Well if 50% COGS = $20, then it follows that 100% COGS would be $40.

    And if 100% COGS is $40 and SRP = $40, then, once again, COGS=SRP.

    Looking at it another way... COGS is the actual transactional price at which the product is bought... the "buying price". If they can buy it for 50% of the "buying price", then they are buying product for 50% of what they are buying product for. How can someone buy something for 50% of what they are buying it for? It's like saying "I paid half of what I paid".

    Taken to its absurdity, if SRP=COGS, it is impossible for a distributor to buy product (COGS) at a discount to SRP. This, quite naturally, will upset them, because they actually think they are buying product at a discount to SRP (25%; 35%;42% or 50%).

    So, I'll give you one last chance ... are you affirming 50% COGS is 50% SRP therefore, COGS=SRP? or will you admit an error?
    Jul 29 07:48 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    Totally non-responsive.

    You said you stand by your quote and here's your quote.

    ...."............."...... COGS is 50% of SRP, and 58% COGS is 58% SRP, and so forth......"

    You are being evasive by changing it to "......COGS could be 100% of SRP....."

    Your original statement equates SRP and COGS at ALL AMOUNTS, 58%, 50% and "so forth". It is not conditional, it is pervasive. Furthermore "is" is very much different than "could".

    Will you "own your statement" or are you willing to acquiesce and admit a mistake?

    There is no shame in making a mistake and admitting it ... people err all the time. Trying to avoid it by concealment...well that's a whole other matter .. and it goes to credibility.
    Jul 29 07:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    .......".........You didn't ask a question, you made a statement..."

    Here's what I said ..."Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?.... Certainly looks like a question to me. I even remembered to put a "?" at the end.

    Next: ..."....This is not consistent with your "proof", which said....."

    Think you ought to look up the definition of "consistent". I rounded to an integer in one place and it is consistent to round in another place. In fact, not doing so would be inconsistent.

    Next ..."....How many more outcomes can I add?...."

    As many as you wish. I suggest you be able to show some reasonable explanation.

    ......".......200,000 is "hundreds of thousands". 2,000,000 is "millions". There is 1 order of magnitude of difference between them......."

    There you go, changing parameters.

    Once you put a specific number, an exact OM can be determined. It's like saying "I have two coins in my pocket that total 30cents .. what are they"? Very different than saying "I have 30cents, how many coins do I have"?

    The question at hand, deals with non-specific quantities and the solution requires dealing with what we were given. "Cherry-picking" is a logical fallacy. Now, if you want to, pick every specific possible combination of numbers, average them out and see what you get. It won't be 1.

    .....".......9.999M is 50 times greater than 200k....."

    Thank you. However, what basis do you use to get 9,999,999. The "belief" that millions only goes that high?

    Did you examine the definition of "millions" and in spite of every definition ranging it to near 1billion, do you still think it only goes to 9.999M?

    Now if you want to hold to that, it's up to you. Maybe I'll follow your lead and ignore the requirement that OM be integers. Then you can re-define something else and we can keep going until Alice and the Mad Hatter show up.

    Lastly:

    ......"......50% COGS is 50% of SRP, and 58% COGS is 58% SRP, and so forth......

    This is so outlandish I'll deal with it in a separate post. I wouldn't anyone to miss it because the posts are too lengthy. But I'll make sure I confirm that you are actually saying this... just to be on the safe side.
    Jul 29 01:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    O.K. we're getting somewhere...At least you've gone from non-responsive to "I can't believe what I'm seeing".

    You state, now......

    ....."......50% COGS is 50% of SRP, and 58% COGS is 58% SRP, and so forth. ....

    This is true IF AND ONLY IF ....COGS=SRP...

    Here's the math, just to be sure you have no way out...

    .50COGS=.50SRP therefore COGS=SRP
    .58COGS=.58SRP therefore COGS=SRP
    yCOGS =ySRP where "y"= "and so forth" therefore COGS=SRP

    Do you stand by COGS=SRP? Or will you finally admit you made a mistake?

    I suggest you acquiesce before you get in more trouble.
    Jul 29 12:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    Next:... ."......For anyone doing calculations on your formula, I take it you are okay using 2184, or do you want more digits used.......

    This is non-responsive to my question .....

    .....Your statement...

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?

    Meanwhile 2184 is fine.

    Next:....".......No. You concluded there was no significant difference. This doesn't explain why you didn't run with 90-95% SRP and 42% SRP discount/58% of SRP for COGS....."

    This is non-responsive to my question .....

    .....Your statement...

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?

    Nevertheless, are you aware that once I post on SA, I cannot go back and change it? All I can do is add new comment. I made a calculation with revised numbers, concluded it was no different and posted my results. That's all anyone can do.

    ......".....I don't agree millions can range beyond 9M..."

    This is non-responsive to my question .....

    .....Your statement...

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?

    Nevertheless.....

    mil•lion (ˈmɪl yən) (http://bit.ly/1tnkx1B)
    n., pl. -lions, (as after a numeral) -lion, n.
    3. millions, a number between 1,000,000 and 999,999,999.

    See also..(http://bit.ly/1tnkx1C)
    "the numbers from a million to a billion.
    plural noun: millions"

    See also.. (http://bit.ly/1tnkzXo)
    (millions) The numbers from a million to a billion

    I could go on, but it would take up too much space.

    ...."......What about the order of magnitude system for star brightness created by the Greeks? Your veering back toward non-responsive.."

    This is non-responsive to my question .....

    .....Your statement...

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?

    Nevertheless...

    I am simply showing that there are many outcomes. If you want to add "Star Brightness" then it just adds to the outcomes.

    ...".......Also, the most precise answer you could have given for what you think are the possibilities would be any whole number from 2 to 7...."

    This is non-responsive to my question .....

    .....Your statement...

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?

    Nevertheless...

    Actually I thought of that, and decided that "7" could be assailed "esoterically" and I didn't want to get into that. I'll stick with >1.

    It's time-consuming enough dealing with your "beliefs" of things such as what "millions" means.

    .....".......Why is 1 order of magnitude not possible?...."

    This is non-responsive to my question .....

    .....Your statement...

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?

    Nevertheless....

    Anything is possible. We are dealing with estimates and probabilities. That is inherent in variable conditions. I find no probable basis for an estimate of 1.

    .........".......In this case we know the maximum difference, which is 50 times. 50 conventionally would have an order of magnitude of 1. This is less than ">1", in which case your answer would not apply. If rounded, it would be 2, which is greater than 1, but is there is no other possibility, in which case your answer would not apply.."

    This is non-responsive to my question .....

    .....Your statement...

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?

    Nevertheless...

    I don't even know where you get "in this case ...50...". There is no 50 that exists anywhere in this. This is too out-of-the-blue for me to even understand.

    So, it seems we're just left with your statement.......

    ".......... than the change of the constant from 58% of COGS to 50% COGS...."

    Do you stand by it, admit it's wrong or continue to be non-responsive?




    Jul 29 10:30 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
3,850 Comments
6,995 Likes