Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
As JFT said, he majored in History, and I doubt he understands statistical calculations such as just used in getting to 57% for "all three". I'm sure he was referring to Pet's estimate of 80 to 90% on EACH of the three wells, and, who knows, Pet may look at it as about 80% on "all three" (statistically speaking). It's just too bad JFT has such an inclination to post to/about people in such a condescending manner, although he is not the only one guilty of that at times.
Posts: 574
Threads: 27
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation:
101
Yep, I agree with that, Get, and who should know better than you about people posting in such a condescending manner?
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
Yes, sometimes we quarrel a bit (surprisingly little, as it happens), but that should be all over now. Lets move on, these probabilities are not determining anyway (that's why they're calle probabilities), so it's not that important.
MUCH more important is that they will be able to finish the drilling.
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
'kommonsents' pid='46003' datel Wrote:Yep, I agree with that, Get, and who should know better than you about people posting in such a condescending manner?
Ever since I objected to your trying to bring your political views into a thread a while back, you've been after me like some immature vengeful bully with your hypocritical crap; and I think you should take your condescending public and private message personal attacks and go to you know where. I would never launch a personal attack on anyone like you did on me by private message.
Posts: 574
Threads: 27
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation:
101
At least I did it privately, getit, instead of publicly like you do every day, day in and day out. It really does get old, getit.
BTW, your above post is more of a personal attack than my PM to you was.
Posts: 236
Threads: 34
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
37
Gentlemen, can we please be gentlemen here? This is tiresome.
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
'kommonsents' pid='46046' datel Wrote:At least I did it privately, getit, instead of publicly like you do every day, day in and day out. It really does get old, getit. BTW, your above post is more of a personal attack than my PM to you was.
Doing something "privately" because you don't want people to see what you are saying does not change the content or make it less vicious. Maybe you need to reread your extremely critical and ugly PM even suggesting a drinking problem and "senseless" incompetence among other things, because saying my comments above are worse is not true; and my comments above are in response to that personal attack initiated by you and continued lesser attacks since then on the Board without any such assaults initiated by me toward you. Enough is enough; your opinion is clear, not just to me but now to everyone. I will not make any responses to any of your posts, if you will not make any to anymore of mine. Obviously, you have a hard time with any disagreement. Feel free to agree to the offer or comment further if you want the "last word", another of your false accusations.
Posts: 2,623
Threads: 61
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
225
'calaban48' pid='46052' datel Wrote:Gentlemen, can we please be gentlemen here? This is tiresome.
I agree, Calaban, it got so "tiresome", I felt like I needed to respond again.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
'CAC' pid='45945' datel Wrote:
'jft310' pid='45939' datel Wrote:
Tusker together we are stronger because we all see the same info but we process it differently based on our backgrounds. Thus those different perspectives add value . I do agree with Tree some take the time and read what's written and then add value what's frustrating is those that don't take the time to read and understand and post without reading and don't add value to our forum.
I implore all to listen to the calls and read the reports to improve this forum. Together we will know more that way.
******************************
It's equally frustrating to read post after post containing overinflated (and often flat-out incorrect) comments (like today's incorrect and irresponsible statement that PET predicted 80-90% chance of sucess on all three wells). There is value, JFT, in trying to maintain some level of "credibility" in what you post. It is arguably even more important than whatever benefit you think is supplied by all the puffery.
My reference was to PETS work . His work was on an individual well basis. Others want to inject a new subject the probality is another subject not contained in my post. But I freely admit its a good point if the subject is changed to the probability of the wells success in total.
I graduated later near the top of my presigious MBA class. Hint I understand statisitcs but did not use them in my post. Had further training for 3 year post MBA. If some read my post to mean the statistical probability that was not the intent nor was it the language used. Nor was it in PETs work so referenced in my post.
This board needs to be more about Interoil and less about personal attack. The stock price frustration shows for some. Feel free to PM anytime about where I got the info I post about.
Posts: 549
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
119
The issue here is the thread itself. There was a time when we all abhorred the MF articles touting the sky high PE multiple. IOC never has nor will it trade on a PE basis. One time cash payments wouldn't factor into that anyways. Proper valuation would be a DCF based on the LNG plant and/or a discount to firms' NAV. That discount will shrink as MH improves the firm's credibility. That will probably be the clearest sign he is succeeding.
|
