AFR Articles, page-28

I am a tad confused. At the AGM FAR spent a significant portion of the Chairmans Address commenting on PE, the strength of FAR's case and other general PE rhetoric, this was a significant step up by FAR in their rhetoric towards PE/WPL/FAR.

This increase in rhetoric by FAR was seen by many on here as a good move, 'stick it up em' etc etc.

Now PC fires a shot of rhetoric back at FAR and he is laughed at, described as being rattled etc etc. Using this logic then aren't FAR equally as rattled given the step up in rhetoric and commentary at FAR's Chairmans Address etc?

The way I see it - FAR hit a good serve at the AGM and PC just hit it back. Now the ball is in FAR's court for it to do with as it pleases.