>>> you miss that your point of interrogation is answered in the next few words.

>> My point of interrogation was your "buggy hardware" claim referring to any (not
>> some) PPC hardware of the past 20 years, thus including the Apple, bplan/Genesi,
>> ACube and Varisys/A-Eon PPC hardware. I don't see where you answered this.
>> If you did and I missed it, you can surely quote it. (Honestly, your claim is so
>> ridiculous that I cannot even imagine how it could be proved seeing as it could
>> be falsified by no more than one single counterexample.)

> It doesn't matter what I write

As long as you refuse to back up your ridiculous claim, it really doesn't matter what you write in your attempt to further distract from it. This has been true since your very first reply to me in this thread. It was never about anything else than your ridiculous claim in my replies to you.

> There is no interrogation because we are not at a police station.

You introduced this word to this discussion. I should better have put it in quotation marks to reflect that I merely adopted it.

>> I don't see where you answered this.

> What don't you?

I don't see where you answered my point of "interrogation".

>>> If you did and I missed it, you can surely quote it.

>> Quote what?

Your answer to my objection of your "buggy hardware" claim.

> I have actually already written something that, if you'd had bothered
> to read, would mean you didn't need to ask this. But because you
> don't actually read anything, you haven't noticed.

I just re-read everything you wrote in this thread and I surely can find "something" (whatever thing that is) but I can't find your supporting arguments for your "buggy hardware" claim. Can you please be so kind and point me to them?

> in my last post I already I proved you don't read what you reply
> to before you reply to them.

I don't think this is what you did (proved anything, that is). What I sincerely believe is that you didn't properly read what you replied to in your first reply to me and are now too ashamed to admit it, thus trying your best to distract from the original point of disagreement (i.e. your "buggy hardware" claim and my objection to it) and to turn this into a nonsense discussion about me instead.

> Otherwise you wouldn't question posts that answer your question in the next sentence.

Please point me to that "next sentence" that answers my objection of your "buggy hardware" claim.

> Read posts all the way from the beginning to the end, only reply after you finish doing that.

That's exactly what I do. Thanks for approving my approach.

> you're just [...] guessing at it's meaning and getting it wrong,
> and asking questions of it that are answered by it.

I repeat my question from comment #28: What is the meaning of the word "buggy" you used with regard to PPC hardware, if not the presence of bugs?
My objection to your ridiculous "buggy hardware" claim surely isn't answered by the claim itself. I'm sure you can see the logical fallacy of this.