[10:24:04] --------------------------Paper P7--------------------------
[10:59:59] werty: Hi all
[11:00:02] danidott4e: hello
[11:00:03] Corettamc: Hi
[11:00:03] Esther: hi
[11:00:03] werty: Good to see you
[11:00:12] Esther: yes samehere too
[11:00:14] werty: Have you got lots of questions on F4?
[11:00:21] Esther: loll
[11:00:23] Esther: lol
[11:00:24] Corettamc: lol
[11:00:29] adedayoolutayo: lol
[11:00:30] Esther: p44 yes
[11:00:38] Corettamc: {Esther} :no:
[11:00:39] werty: well, it's 16.00 london time
[11:00:40] Esther: how about p7
[11:00:45] werty: so we're off and running
[11:00:48] Esther: yes
[11:00:52] werty: yes, ok, P7
[11:00:53] adedayoolutayo: yeah
[11:01:06] Esther: due diligence tell us something on that please?
[11:01:11] werty: ok, any more?
[11:01:22] adedayoolutayo: other assurance engagement
[11:01:32] werty: {Esther} I presume that you have no practical auditing experience.
[11:01:40] candicec: no

[11:01:41] danidott4e: Group issues
[11:01:47] Esther: {werty} some
[11:01:52] werty: Ok, due diligence is typically done when a company is about to buy another.
[11:02:10] peax12: or when there is MBO
[11:02:22] werty: What is important for the buyer is that the previous fin stats can be relied upon and are prepared in accordance with IFRS
[11:02:58] werty: It clearly didn't take place when ADT bought Britannia Securities
[11:03:23] Esther: {peax12} {werty} thanks
[11:03:23] werty: {peax12} agreed - but same principles - one business / company is being bought
[11:03:34] mhamza: {werty} it falls in direct reporting! but wat is this direct reporting
[11:03:43] werty: {danidott4e} what group issues?
[11:04:13] werty: {mhamza} reporting direct to the people who asked you to do the work?
[11:04:30] mhamza: thanks got it
[11:04:47] adedayoolutayo: {werty} SO no liability to the shareholders of the coy
[11:04:48] werty: I presume that indirect is where your report is the looked at / used by others
[11:04:51] danidott4e: particularly with Goodwill recognition in acquisitions during the year...
[11:05:30] werty: {adedayoolutayo} what's your point about assurance engagement? Or was it part of the due diligence issue?
[11:05:46] werty: {adedayoolutayo} agreed about the liability point
[11:06:03] peax12: Well, assurance engagement could be part of a due diligence but its not limited to due dilgence
[11:06:17] adedayoolutayo: {werty} is it an other assurance engagement
[11:06:20] werty: {danidott4e} clearly, goodwill will be mnajorly affected, but so also will the agreed sale / purchase price per share
[11:06:26] werty: {adedayoolutayo} yes
[11:06:32] peax12: Assurance engagement basically looks at reviews of future financial information
[11:06:46] adedayoolutayo: what is the standard that guides the performance

[11:06:49] werty: {peax12} not necessarily, but that is included
[11:06:49] peax12: and because of its nature, a negative opinion is always issued
[11:07:19] candicec: always?
[11:07:34] werty: {adedayoolutayo} heaven knows - I don't know any of the standard numbers. Lisa will not ask you, for example, (What does ISA 257 say"
[11:07:44] adedayoolutayo: {werty} or is it ISA
[11:07:51] candicec: thank god
[11:08:16] adedayoolutayo: {werty} I mean is still Int'l std of Aud
[11:08:18] werty: {candicec} yes - you can't give, nor are we ever required to give, a positive opinion unless it's on t + f
[11:08:31] werty: {candicec} agreed
[11:08:45] candicec: yes
[11:09:04] werty: {adedayoolutayo} so far as I am aware - if you know different, please share with the room!
[11:09:18] adedayoolutayo: {werty} you ar the Boss
[11:09:36] werty: {adedayoolutayo} but it's you doing the exam!
[11:09:57] adedayoolutayo: {werty} But due dilligence is not an audit
[11:10:18] werty: {adedayoolutayo} agreed - so no positive opinion given - it's negative assurance
[11:10:18] Esther: nope its other assurance services!
[11:10:26] werty: {Esther} yes
[11:11:14] Esther: {werty} can you tell us a little on transnational auditing?
[11:11:19] adedayoolutayo: {werty} so if we ar not satisfy with FS, do we issue a disclaimer?
[11:11:33] Esther: {adedayoolutayo} it depends
[11:11:46] Tay_Kiat_Leong: depends on LOS or accounting disagreement
[11:12:02] Esther: {adedayoolutayo} if we have a diagreement and it is material then we do except for
[11:12:12] candicec: yes on materiality of the item
[11:12:12] adedayoolutayo: {Esther} {Tay_Kiat_Leong} I understand that

[11:12:19] werty: {Esther} question came up recently - two exams ago? It's in BPP revision kit. It's also not likely to rear its ugly head again in the near future. Can I ask you to read the q and a, and then ask again if there's anything unclear
[11:12:27] adedayoolutayo: {Esther} Does it follow thesame trend? like audit?
[11:12:51] Esther: {werty} ok thanks
[11:13:08] werty: {adedayoolutayo} or qualified negative assurance - "Except for the matter referred to above, nothing else came to our attention ...."
[11:13:18] Esther: {adedayoolutayo} you mean the due diligence?
[11:13:26] adedayoolutayo: {Esther} yeah
[11:13:37] adedayoolutayo: {werty} ok
[11:13:54] Esther: {adedayoolutayo} yes but it has rules related to this engagement
[11:14:20] adedayoolutayo: {Esther} different from audit?
[11:14:21] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} No longer referred to as "Limitation of Scope" Following Clarity
Project, it's now "an inability to obtain sufficient reliable audit evidence"
[11:14:44] peax12: {werty} Thanks
[11:14:45] werty: sorry - "appropriate audit evidence"
[11:15:03] Tay_Kiat_Leong: okay...thanks...
[11:15:05] candicec: {Werty} is there a term as horizontal consolidation?
[11:15:53] werty: {candicec} If there is, I'm not sure I know what it is! If it were desribed to me, I may know it, but possibly refer to it as something different
[11:16:26] faith_bosom: hi guys
[11:16:29] peax12: {candicec} Haven't heard of one before
[11:16:35] adedayoolutayo: {werty} What are the differences between forensic accounting, forensic audit and forensic investigation
[11:16:36] peax12: {faith_bosom} hi
[11:17:03] peax12: forensic accounting is the umbrella holding forensic investigation and forensic auditing
[11:17:21] werty: {adedayoolutayo} are you trying to catch me out? There's a question ( recenty ) from
Lisa's papers. She wrote a Stud Accountant article on the matter and the q is in BPP rev kit!

[11:17:35] candicec: {Corettamc} remind us of the question please
[11:17:53] adedayoolutayo: {werty} have not seen that
[11:18:05] werty: {candicec} Where's Coretta's question? It's not on my screen
[11:18:06] Corettamc: its in the Pilot paper Question 1 Beeski
[11:18:23] faith_bosom: {werty} yeah...the C part
[11:18:32] werty: {Corettamc} q 49 in BPP
[11:19:42] werty: Sorry, different conversations. Forensic auditing is in qs 21, 31c, and 54
[11:20:32] Tay_Kiat_Leong: all from BPP kit?
[11:20:35] werty: Efex Engineering, Mulligan and Crocus
[11:20:43] werty: Do you want the exam references?
[11:20:43] adedayoolutayo: {werty} thanks
[11:20:54] Garfie: Hi Werty, re:Forensic auditing qns, may i hv the qn name pl? Bcos i dont hv BPP rev kit
[11:20:59] faith_bosom: {werty} ok so what is it that we must know about forensic auditing be4 exams?
[11:21:17] candicec: {Werty}horizontal groups (ie non consolidated entities under common control)
[11:21:23] werty: {Garfie} I'll give you the exam references, but give me a second or two
[11:21:52] werty: Crocus is Dec 08, Mulligan is Dec 07 and Efex is Pilot paper
[11:22:21] Esther: {Garfie} it beeski
[11:22:22] Tay_Kiat_Leong: thanks:)
[11:22:36] adedayoolutayo: {werty} is fraud investigation thesame as forensic investgation?
[11:22:42] werty: {faith_bosom} faith ( I'll call you that, and not bosom! ) You should know everything about everything - because Lisa could ask you anything
[11:22:56] werty: I don't personally think forensic auditing will appear
[11:23:07] werty: {adedayoolutayo} It's part of it
[11:23:31] adedayoolutayo: {werty} what esle?
[11:23:35] peax12: I think it will appear.. i.e forensic auditing or SEA

[11:23:38] werty: {candicec} And that's what I know it as - horizontal consolitaions! It's related parties
[11:23:57] werty: {peax12} Your guess is as good as mine
[11:24:24] Esther: http://www.accaglobal.com/pubs/students/publications/student_accountant/archive/sa_sep08_weave r.pdf this is the article for forensic auditing that lisa wrote
[11:25:09] adedayoolutayo: {Esther} 10ks
[11:25:22] werty: Compliance with corp governance, identification of bribes, identifying intentional misstatements
[11:25:35] faith_bosom: {werty} so what is prospective financial information?
[11:25:41] candicec: ok, so how should they be considered in the group audit?
[11:25:54] werty: {faith_bosom} based on the same principles as cash flow forecasts
[11:26:14] adedayoolutayo: {werty} all those ar stil fraud...Misrepresentation
[11:26:19] faith_bosom: {werty} thats vague
[11:26:30] Tay_Kiat_Leong: PFI was appeared on last sitting...will it appear again??
[11:26:45] werty: {candicec} related party work - full disclosure of the existence of related parties together with identification of material transactions or statement that there have been no transactions
[11:26:54] peax12: {candicec} Related parties are material to the F.S irrespective of their monetary value
[11:26:54] candicec: {faith}they are the audit of forecasts
[11:26:56] Garfie: I agree wif Kiat Leong
[11:27:10] Esther: {werty} where is coretta questions
[11:27:11] faith_bosom: {werty} i know its about auditing projections on fin info ...i.e the assumptions of those projections for resonableness?
[11:27:12] werty: {candicec} thanks Candi
[11:27:48] werty: {faith_bosom} and consistency and accuracy of calculations and achievability of the assumptions used and ...and ....and
[11:28:10] adedayoolutayo: {werty} and reasonableness as well
[11:28:20] werty: and by definition, the forecast will not be reflected in the final figures

[11:28:27] faith_bosom: great werty :yes:
[11:28:32] candicec: {Werty} but the question indicated 100% control, i see them being more than related party transactions?
[11:28:45] werty: In addition, have any of you auditors ever seen a cash forecast which did NOT show what it was hoping to show?
[11:28:59] werty: {candicec} which question?
[11:29:02] peax12: {werty} no
[11:29:12] candicec: beeski
[11:29:19] peax12: It always shows what it is expected to show
[11:29:25] werty: {peax12} So, what conclusion can you draw from that observation?
[11:29:37] candicec: que 49
[11:30:10] peax12: {werty} Its simple, untill what the cash forcast materialises, there is nothing wrong with it
[11:31:51] faith_bosom: {werty} ok great werty whcih areas do u personally envisage?
[11:32:03] werty: {candicec} That looks to me like MTBox should be consolidated as a foreign subsidiary
- but I would need to read the question more carefully
[11:32:04] candicec: i think the importance is its purpose ie prospective financial statements
[11:32:33] peax12: I envisage group audits and or audit risks for question 1
[11:32:51] peax12: Assurance engagements for question 2 with issues relating to going concern
[11:33:00] faith_bosom: {peax12} lol
[11:33:20] werty: {faith_bosom} tips are on OT website. I should add to those an additional element - internal auditors. They haven't been asked as a major question. I don't think they will be this time either, but could come up as a smaller bit of a bigger q
[11:33:22] peax12: then Ethics, reporting, and Matters to consider and evidence for questions 3,4 and 5
[11:33:33] Esther: {faith_bosom} {peax12} guys we need to have everything covered do not spot the syllabus
[11:33:51] Corettamc: {Esther} agree
[11:33:55] werty: {peax12} so, pretty similar to my own tips

[11:34:02] Garfie: I agree too
[11:34:08] Corettamc: {werty} lol
[11:34:11] werty: {Esther} agreed - but time is running out
[11:34:15] faith_bosom: {Esther} we arent spotting...we just like favourites...
[11:34:16] Garfie: Lisa can cover lots of area in one qn
[11:34:25] werty: {Garfie} agreed
[11:34:34] Esther: {Garfie} yep
[11:34:35] peax12: I have covered my syllabus somehow, its time to focus on some specifics
[11:34:38] mithunmako12: hello
[11:34:49] adedayoolutayo: {peax12} yeah
[11:35:05] candicec: {Werty} did you see question 49 (d)?
[11:35:08] faith_bosom: {werty} when did u release ur tips?
[11:35:13] mithunmako12: hello can i join with u
[11:35:15] mithunmako12: hello can i join with u
[11:35:21] mithunmako12: hello can i join with u
[11:35:24] mithunmako12: hello can i join with u
[11:35:26] werty: {candicec} yes, and commented higher up the screen
[11:35:29] peax12: {mithunmako12} yea sure
[11:35:29] candicec: yes u can
[11:35:35] Esther: {adedayoolutayo} {peax12} you all are correct to an extent
[11:35:38] werty: {faith_bosom} last evening
[11:35:39] candicec: ok
[11:35:58] Esther: {mithunmako12} yes you are joined already
[11:35:58] peax12: {Esther} to an extent? What extent?
[11:36:04] faith_bosom: {werty} k...afta santa spoke to u huh? :d

[11:36:15] Esther: {faith_bosom} lol
[11:36:29] Esther: {peax12} with reagrds to focus on specfic areas
[11:36:29] mithunmako12: but am not wrioting f7 only 4.5.6
[11:36:30] werty: {faith_bosom} wasn't Santa - it was the tooth fairy
[11:36:32] adedayoolutayo: {werty} is there any other thing to knw about related party apart from dis losures?
[11:36:35] mithunmako12: but am not wrioting f7 only 4.5.6
[11:36:37] candicec: {Werty} i agree thanks, that was my reasonable assumption
[11:36:49] mithunmako12: not writing
[11:36:50] Esther: {mithunmako12} you are in the wrong house
[11:36:57] peax12: {candicec} lol
[11:37:02] candicec: lo
[11:37:31] mithunmako12: i knoe but no one inthe f 5 house
[11:37:33] mithunmako12: i knoe but no one inthe f 5 house
[11:37:35] mithunmako12: i knoe but no one inthe f 5 house
[11:37:54] werty: {adedayoolutayo} is there anything not to know? Know who they are, the sort of relationships which qualify as related parties. Clarity project, from meory, has extended the scope - check out the OT course notes
[11:38:13] werty: {mithunmako12} well, please don't take up screen space in this house!
[11:38:40] adedayoolutayo: {werty} one ques
[11:39:04] werty: {adedayoolutayo} wasn't there a recent article on rel parties in stud acc?
[11:39:18] peax12: {werty} I don't know about that
[11:39:23] faith_bosom: {werty} nope no recent article
[11:39:27] adedayoolutayo: {werty} if I discover that related party transactions were not done at arms length, wats the audit implications?
[11:39:39] werty: somewhere deep in my overloaded memory, I seem to remember reading one
[11:39:54] peax12: {adedayoolutayo} nothing once it is disclosed

[11:39:59] Tay_Kiat_Leong: werty. do we need to quote ISA when answering? there are some new ISA eg ISA 265...so we have to memorize it?
[11:40:12] peax12: you're only auditing disclosure with regards related parties transactions
[11:40:15] werty: {adedayoolutayo} none - so far as I am aware. Other than full dosclosure and probably a note of the affect on the fin stats.
[11:40:23] mithunmako12: were do i get downloadable video lectur
[11:40:28] faith_bosom: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} yeah esp isa 265
[11:40:30] adedayoolutayo: {werty} 10ks
[11:40:43] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} said earlier in this room - I don't know any ISA numbers
[11:40:43] mithunmako12: were do i get downloadable video lectur
[11:40:58] Esther: {mithunmako12} we do not have that here look on the site
[11:41:04] werty: {mithunmako12} Please go to general chat room and ask there
[11:41:16] adedayoolutayo: {mithunmako12} Dis guy go out of here
[11:41:21] acltang72: {mithunmako12} click on tv link. this is a session for p7. please dont interupt again.
[11:41:22] Esther: {mithunmako12} this is a chat session with the tutor please do not disturb
[11:41:35] adedayoolutayo: {mithunmako12} ur eldelry ones ar busy!
[11:41:49] werty: {adedayoolutayo} Ooooo!
[11:41:53] faith_bosom: {adedayoolutayo} lol
[11:42:04] mithunmako12: ok sorry
[11:42:11] adedayoolutayo: {mithunmako12} better
[11:42:15] Esther: {mithunmako12} no probs
[11:42:32] peax12: {mithunmako12} Don't be sorry
[11:42:44] adedayoolutayo: {werty} Do we earn extra mark by quotin specific ISA nos
[11:42:47] Esther: guys we only have about 15 minutes remaining
[11:43:13] peax12: {mithunmako12} we're sorry that we can't help you... you can look up other pages, you might find some people doing the same thing as you

[11:43:28] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} if you know any ISA numbers, quote them - it could just make the difference between pass and fail. If you've got 49% and the marker is trying to get you over the 50% hurdle, they may just say to themselves "He / she knows which ISA to look at for this problem. That is probably
[11:43:55] Tay_Kiat_Leong: thanks;:)
[11:44:01] werty: worth half a mark" and that would make the difference, because half marks are not catered for on the exam front sheet
[11:44:22] adedayoolutayo: {werty} is there any purnishment for not using the current terms per clearity project?
[11:44:37] faith_bosom: {werty} hmmm....ok werty the revised isa on audit materiality says materiality should be based on the whole group...explain
[11:45:01] werty: {adedayoolutayo} not punishment - as in, you won't lose a mark - there's no negative marking
[11:45:17] Tay_Kiat_Leong: so we have to follow up all those latest changes? jus like we LOS changed to
Sufficient appropriate audit evidence..
[11:45:19] adedayoolutayo: {werty} thanks
[11:45:43] werty: But Lisa wants to see current terminology in use - and why not? Because it's the words you should use when talking with clients of training juniors on the job
[11:45:49] adedayoolutayo: {werty} no more peliminary and final analytics
[11:46:18] werty: {adedayoolutayo} I honestly don't remember that in the Project!
[11:46:21] candicec: {Faith_bosom} yes it should be recomputed for the group
[11:46:22] adedayoolutayo: {werty} they ve got new names
[11:47:12] faith_bosom: {werty} the threshold will be increased?....and whats the effect if this is not done?
[11:47:20] adedayoolutayo: {werty} wat about the newly created ISAs. Any thing to note/
[11:47:25] werty: {adedayoolutayo} again, tell me the new name - share it with us all. I probably do remember it, but have not taught it often enough since the project was issued to remember it
[11:48:00] werty: {faith_bosom} Is the threshold not decreased? So a greater number of transactions fall into to test?
[11:48:30] werty: {faith_bosom} If it isn't increased, the scope of the audit test will be greater than if it were increased

[11:48:37] adedayoolutayo: {werty} Oh. next session
[11:48:51] werty: {adedayoolutayo} you mean you want more of this?
[11:49:00] faith_bosom: {werty} ok great
[11:49:08] adedayoolutayo: {werty} I will tell u the new names
[11:49:48] werty: {faith_bosom} Threshold of significance? I know it's in my own F8 teaching - but I've not taught F8 this time. It's also explained in P7 course notes
[11:50:06] werty: {adedayoolutayo} Oooh, you tease
[11:50:22] Tay_Kiat_Leong: werty: anythg about social /environmental audit ?
[11:50:29] faith_bosom: hmmm..decreased, increased words...what if it was innitially 2% for the individual client...what does it bec for group? 3% or 1.5%
[11:50:35] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} I think so - it's in my tips
[11:50:36] faith_bosom: WERTY
[11:50:56] Tay_Kiat_Leong: anythg to focus on it?
[11:51:42] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} q Medix, June 08, part c is a brain stimulator
[11:51:54] werty: {faith_bosom} WHAT?
[11:52:15] Tay_Kiat_Leong: okay..thanks
[11:52:17] abuomar: check the connection between audit risk and financial statements risk ,as per analysis '' audit risk question'' is expected
[11:52:38] faith_bosom: ok thanks....uhm so anyone with the full list of the redrafted ISAs?
[11:52:42] werty: {faith_bosom} What are you looking for? I believe that you drop the threshold for individual tests on particular items, but increase it when looking at the fin stats as a whole
[11:52:57] adedayoolutayo: {werty} diff between audit risk at assertion level and at FS level
[11:53:17] werty: {abuomar} relationship between business risk and fin stat risk is also in Medix
[11:53:19] abuomar: never forget that examiners are also aware of exam tips
[11:53:44] werty: {adedayoolutayo} I think that's what I meant, but said it so much more clearly than I did
[11:53:45] abuomar: so do not focus on tips solely

[11:53:57] pixel: {abuomar} they have made the paper by the time tips are out
[11:54:07] werty: {abuomar} but the excams, all of them, will have bben written about 18 months ago!
[11:54:26] Tay_Kiat_Leong: have to study whole syllbus except PFI...lool
[11:55:17] pixel: {werty} should i go through the chapter professional liability of auditors or rather prac other areas?
[11:55:22] abuomar: u r right but they have more than one exam
[11:55:27] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} If I were the examiner I would be saying to myself "People like werty and other tutors and students will be saying " that won't come up - it came up last time" so as a bit of a Devil, I'd ask it again.
[11:55:43] werty: {pixel} Why would you want to miss it off?
[11:56:15] pixel: {werty} i suppose i have very little time to mange my other sub
[11:56:21] Tay_Kiat_Leong: it make sense Werty...
[11:56:25] pixel: for all them i had little prac
[11:56:29] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} and then I'd ask it again - and then tutors would say "He obviously likes this, it's going to come up again" so I wouldn't ask it
[11:56:59] abuomar: attention every body ,focus your attention on what will be examined rather typical tuition
[11:57:02] werty: But there again, I'm a little bit twisted - I'm an accountant! :-)
[11:57:24] Esther: {werty} we must thank you sir for coming and sharing with us
[11:57:42] peax12: {werty} where can I get your tips?
[11:57:47] werty: Do you know something - I really get a big kick out of it!
[11:58:00] Esther: {werty} lol
[11:58:00] Tay_Kiat_Leong: so any advice for us, werty?
[11:58:06] peax12: {werty} Thanks for coming and for sharing
[11:58:06] adedayoolutayo: {werty} You are geat! Thanks bruv
[11:58:07] werty: {peax12} There on OT website somewhere - someone will no doubt direct you
[11:58:16] abuomar: does any one need''ftc qbr'' right now

[11:58:28] adedayoolutayo: {abuomar} wats dat?
[11:58:35] peax12: yea
[11:58:37] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} yes....pass this and you're there! Or certainly closer to being qualified that you were last year.
[11:58:47] Esther: ye sif you can share why now
[11:58:48] pixel: {werty} can u highlight important questions from the kit to practice!
[11:58:53] abuomar: question based revison focus on forthcoming exam
[11:58:59] pixel: {abuomar} i do
[11:59:30] werty: But all of you, remember, as accountants ( and as students, the world genuinely expects you to act ethically. I live in a country where corruption is openly acknowledged. It's you
[11:59:38] werty: guys who can make the difference
[11:59:39] Tay_Kiat_Leong: do we need to focus more on past year questions insteed of text books?
[11:59:43] pixel: {peax12} http://opentuition.com/acca/p7/ follow this
[11:59:54] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} at this stage, certainly
[12:00:01] Esther: ok
[12:00:26] Tay_Kiat_Leong: ok,,,thanks
[12:00:31] peax12: {pixel} thanks
[12:00:34] abuomar: lisa my cat gave birth to six
[12:00:46] werty: I rthink it's a different Lisa
[12:00:49] peax12: {abuomar} wow, congratulations
[12:00:55] Tay_Kiat_Leong: how about the industry on question 1 is likely to be tested?
[12:00:56] Esther: lol
[12:01:17] werty: Guys, gals! It's 17.01 by my clock.
[12:01:27] Esther: ok sir take care
[12:01:32] adedayoolutayo: {werty} thank you
[12:01:37] werty: Al good things come to an end. Let's hope your studying results in good things!

[12:01:41] pixel: {werty} is there a possibility to see u around again
[12:01:42] pixel: ?
[12:01:44] Tay_Kiat_Leong: sir...answer my question b4 u go
[12:01:50] Tay_Kiat_Leong: thanks sir
[12:01:51] werty: yes, but admin will arrange
[12:01:54] Esther: {werty} yep for sure
[12:02:14] werty: I'm teaching pretty well every day up to and including June 3, so time is at a premium
[12:02:16] pixel: {werty} just post on important questions from kit to practc first on the forum
[12:02:16] Esther: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} anything is likely my dear
[12:02:21] pixel: it will so nice of u
[12:02:47] Tay_Kiat_Leong: yea....
[12:02:58] werty: {Tay_Kiat_Leong} I don't inderstand the question. Post it on "Ask the tutor" in P7 section, but please be mnore specific
[12:02:59] peax12: {werty} thank you
[12:03:04] Tay_Kiat_Leong: jus wan to narrow down the scope><
[12:03:21] Tay_Kiat_Leong: ok
[12:03:21] werty: Bye all. Chat with you again
[12:03:24] Tay_Kiat_Leong: thaniks
[12:03:25] Tay_Kiat_Leong: bb
[12:03:27] Tay_Kiat_Leong: bye:)
[12:03:35] Esther: byeee
[12:03:38] candicec: thanks, bye
[12:03:41] peax12: bye
[12:03:46] pixel: {werty} bye