It has taken me the best part of an hour and two cups of tea to wade through all of that!
I have read arguments based on geometry, semantics and lingusitics. Man, some people really want to argue a point. Is it that important to be right? Take a gold start out of the tin and sit at the front of the class.
At the end of the day - its a game. Your big blocks of troops represent hundreds of little men, who, upon sighting the enemy, will charge and swirl around in the hope of a) staying alive and b) winning the combat to get some loot. Their training will play a major part, but I can't see Gallic troops conforming the charge 'A' to result 'C'.
If you look at the diagram from that perspective 'B' seems reasonable for 'A'. Ultimately though (I can hear the whine of flamethrowers starting up), they have the same result on the ensuing melee combat (4 dice vs 4 dice).
What worries me is that some people would rather spend their wargaming time arguing about such things (and if they are willing to do so, it makes me think there is some 'gamey' advantage to be squeezed out of such actions). Generally I prefer to spend my wargaming Sunday mornings actually wargaming, rather than arguing about millimeters. Normally we look at the situation, apply real world physics and knowledge, come up with a solution and get on with the game. As RBS said - life is short.
And in Shadowdragon's example I would conform so that both red blocks have a base in front to front contact with the enemy. It just seems to make sense and stops people charging at odd angles to get advantageous conforms (something that happened in other systems in the past).
But that's just my 2c worth and I know the FOG police are not going to arrest me for playing 'incorrect'. Well they won't take me without a fight at least
But if you enjoy spending your time arguing, then more power to you.