> people will decide this

People will decide what?

> you made claims about wattage calculations that left out the
> monitor wattage in a way that benefited your position.

No, they explicitely *included* the monitor wattages with both the notebook (with built-in monitor) and the C114 (with mandatory external monitor) figures. In what way did that benefit my position?

> You persistently mischaracterized my comment about "a gfx
> co-processor"

No, I did not. Either you really meant "graphics co-processor" (as in "not gfx core") -- which wouldn't have made any sense due to your "128 megs" figure -- or you just confused AXE and PowerVR. You didn't want to answer my question as to which of these two possibilities were the case.

> You jumped on an unverified casual estimate from a single user that
> his EeePC ran at 10 watts

Unverified? Estimate? EeePC? 10 watts?
You're surely confusing me with someone else. Or confusing reality with your imagination.

> Here I am told that that I am wrong about my explanation that
> development started before May 2007, but I said nothing at all
> about May 2007.
> [...]
> I referred only to when Genesi was involved in the project that
> became the CherryPal. Yes, I was thinking of the device with the
> onboard graphics that Granny referred to. I didn't say anything
> about May 2007.

Again: May 2007 was when Genesi started selling the Efika Open Client incl. the XGI Volari V3XT/V3XE gfx card, which was the self-confessed reason for pega-1 to start development of the respective driver. Consequently, his driver development must have started somewhen between May 2007 and August 2008.
The plans for the "[5200B based] device with the onboard [Volari] graphics that Granny referred to" were announced in April 2006 (already linked to) and eventually scrapped again no later than October 2006 due to the emerging 5121e with on-chip PowerVR gfx, which BBRV had known since long before its public announcement in May 2007.
So according to your explanation pega-1 would have had to start driver development even before October 2006.

> For all I know Genesi was involved after May 2007.

Involved in or with what?

> you haven't shown even that MorphOS devs had no involvement with
> V3XT before May 2007!

I have, for sure. Read again pega-1's statement I cited.

> What the heck are you talking about?

I'm talking about your perception of Genesi and MorphOS history being distorted and about how I perceive it taking the facts into consideration.

> Why?

Because I'm in love with the truth and hate untrue things being told, be it intentionally or not :-)

> Why is this a big deal?

I never claimed it was a big deal. Who defines what's big and what's not anyway?

> In all of these you choose to argue about minutiae and not
> substantive issues

That's rather subjective. I hope you don't mind me thinking another way of my arguments.

> to engage in an endless mind-numbing polemic about nothing that
> goes nowhere.

Your're utterly misinterpreting my intention.

> I responded only because you're criticizing my comment.

Yes, your original comment containing a statement about when and for what purpose MorphOS support for the Volari was begun. Fair enough. That's how discussions work.