Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are we seriously discussing FttF in a thread that has nothing to do with it?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Keep ignoring this fact and you'll continue to be wrong. You've utterly failed to cite any rule or definition that supports this part of your argument, and failing to do so means that your argument utterly falls apart.

Ignore what fact? I’ve failed to cite which rules or definitions?

I've asked you to define "accompany" using either rules or a dictionary. You've done neither.
You've made statements implying what you think it means but that conveniently allows you to say "nuh uh!" If we attempt to define it.
I'd like to have something to argue against instead if making assumptions for definitions.

I have posted the page numbers and specific references for all relevant rules that support my argument, as well as examples. I have followed all tenets of this forum in stating my position. Neither you nor Nosferatu have done likewise.

That's a lie. Please retract it. I've cited rules that support my position, as has Nos.

If you'd read my post you'd understand the objections I have with your argument. Please respond to it instead of ignoring it and straw manning me.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Keep ignoring this fact and you'll continue to be wrong. You've utterly failed to cite any rule or definition that supports this part of your argument, and failing to do so means that your argument utterly falls apart.

Ignore what fact? I’ve failed to cite which rules or definitions?

I have posted the page numbers and specific references for all relevant rules that support my argument, as well as examples. I have followed all tenets of this forum in stating my position. Neither you nor Nosferatu have done likewise.

SJ

Please stop lying, I have provided rules which you have ignored, rules which destroy your argument from the ground up. Retract it and apologise.

Rigeld - I have reported this as this thread needs closing. Jeffersonian has trolled enough here.

Thread terminated; next time I see this topic come up in a thread not specifically devoted to it, the participants are going to regret derailing the thread.