I gotta say I tend to agree. All this DFAT then DF crap. Seriously, Parra, I warned you about this when you challenged it. The definitions need to be clear. This one definitely looks like it wasn't. Sure confuses the hell out of me.NSWAFL wrote:He says RL does not have a DF RLWC, wrong and proven. I never said that.
He says the DF sponsors the RLWC, he is wrong and that has been proven. You said that, not me.
He the says DFAT RLWC as in sponsoring, he is wrong again and it has been proven. You said that, not me.
He then says DFAT, the Department Of Foreign Affairs, well that's a side step and a half because he was going on about the Defence Force.. I was talking about DFAT as long as you said DFAT. I only went to DF when you went there, and it was ALWAYS about sponsorship as far as I was concerned. So there was no sidestep by me. It was made by you when you FINALLY clarified what you meant by DF RLWC.
That's enough. I ask that this file be closed as undecided and no points awarded.
This is not what the bs file was for. Its not to trick people. It's to hold people accountable for claiming bs.