Hi ZaZarb,

You'll note I'm intentionally not responding to FatMan at this point. Since my first post highlighting the possibilty of this dispute arising, I have intentionally limited the size of my posts and tried to keep comments specifically focused on the original agreed terms. I've done this out of respect for the terms themselves but also significantly respecting your time and intended role in any dispute (as defined in clause 6).

Briefly I can assert that I find FatMan's attitude and posts consistently false, dishonest and toxic. One very brief example: FatMan insisted on the 0.9% threshold, it was entirely his invention and he wrote many of the clauses. His repeated suggestion to the contrary are flatly, demonstrably and intentionally dishonest. I take no joy in saying that but rather am doing everything I can to avoid proving this or drawing you further into this and other points.

However, if you rule to accept, or are otherwise visibly influenced by FatMans submissions (as you appear to be above, and as is specifically contrary to clause 6), and on that basis conclude that the refund will not be processed as is undoubtedly required at this point by the original terms (clause 3), I hope you understand that it is fair, and I will want, the opportunity to review and make a detailed response to FatMan various false narratives. As noted, I've still not read nor responded to his google document "argument" for example.

I strongly hope it is sufficent to simply note again that clause 6 clearly empowers and requires you to refuse any discussion or submissions, but rather to "rely on the original agreement as the sole basis for your decision" in any dispute... and I maintain that on that basis clause three is unequivocal as you yourself appear to recognise above.

I once again am sincerely sorry that this dispute has arisen. I made extensive genuine efforts to reach agreement and/or reconcile with FatMan before initiating the refund request or dipsute.