It's either you or me searching; I already know the conclusion, so I don't care to take the hours looking through the thread (stupid bitcointalk won't let me download all the posts in it for some reason).
If you say that the bet should have been a Win for BFL then you must know the terms for the bet. Putting me to search for them is a waste of time. If you don't know the terms for the bet then you just talked without nothing to back it up, but I am sure it's not your case.
I knew the terms over a year ago when it was an active topic.
I recall the conclusion (that it should have been a BFL Win), but not the details.
Ok. I won't search and you won't either. I remember that bet was for BFL delivering units before 1st April. No matter how you or me interpret the terms of the bet,
the purpose was the same. No matter happened with your unit the facts remain and those are that the next unit and even your unit left BFL 3 months later. This whole discussion on the terms of the bet is pointless for me. The bet wasn't made by lawyers or by someone who can state some neutral terms. Bet was made by a normal person and he put what he thought to be decent terms for it (unfortunately very vague and arguable like in our case). Trying to twist the bet statements is a waste of time since BFL really failed to deliver units before 1st April.
Even if they have physically delivered the unit to you it was still a twist because next units went out of the door 3 months later. I realize that in a court that would stand as a win, but in real life you get shit on your door and some human parts stuck in your holes for such gimmicks.
Carry on!