I thank You Frog for setting me straight on this issue. As allways I am indebted too you.
Now with that out of the way, lets adjust our thinking caps, OK ?
First.. Mr. or Mrs. Jones stated as an unqualified fact, that there can be only one(1) sole subsidiary. I pointed out that if that is true, the China people are doing something very wrong.
Second..For all my 54 yrs on Earth, I do not believe I ever invented a word with a meaning for everyone else too use. Being as this phrase has probably been around longer than myself, I would have assumed,(evidently wrong) that anyone doing trading with stocks, would have known what "sole subsidiary" meant.
Third..If they already knew what it meant, but argrued the point anyway, too me that would seem as if someone was just trying to inflame the board.
Get it???
