Toubani Resources Ltd T.TRE

RE: whoa - comprehension

[whoa_rimcheese]

I consider the argument won as you are clearly frustrated and just venting. Not sure how my original comments relates to to your following opinions. Clearly, you don't trust "professional firms" to begin with, so why trust the auditor's report issued by a professional firm.

1) a favorite evasion tactic of "professionals", when their feet are in the fire, is to accuse those not in the profession, meaning the rest of society, of not comprehending. 

2) one of the ways professionals attempt to evade their responsibility is by introducing professional gobbledy-gook, for example, auditors attempting to deny any responsibilty for uncovering fraudulent activities in their audit by defining/classifiying that audit as a financial statement audit.

And I already gave you an example of something that would qualify as a reason to check if a document was forged - if it looks manipulated, maybe? Or perhaps the signature doesn't match the signature of the same person on another document. Like, really, pinecone - do you have any clue of the difference as to when a forensic auditor would be brought in as opposed to the expectations of a financial statement auditor to detect fraud. If financial statement auditors were expected to verify the validity of each and every piece of documentation, the audit would be so costly and timely as to be useless to those that rely on the opinion.

As an analogy - when you get a physical from a doctor - do you go with the expectation that they will detect everything that might be wrong with you - of course not. And, if they do find something amiss - say a wierd lump - what do they do? Send you to a specialist.

I realize you are trying to keep your pride and thus continue to argue, but you clearly don't know enough about these matters, and have resorted to just expounding your negative impression of "professionals." This was not the original debate.

You do not add anything of substance - just snide comments.