> That you may have been understandably misled doesn't mean you didn't
> make substantial mistakes. It may mean you shouldn't be blamed for them.

Okay, that's a thing we can agree upon I think.

> It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2"
> has been reviewed, when not only hasn't it been reviewed

As I said I should have put quotation marks there as it wasn't meant to be my claim but a reporting of the website's claim that it is a "review". Not putting it in quotation marks was my mistake (substantial or not), yes.

> but it hasn't been sold

A "preview" kind of review then ;-)

> and even its existence is in some doubt

That's an interesting thought. What do you think is it the author believed he wrote that article about, especially in the light of sentences like the following?

"The screen is a capacitive 1024×600 multi touch display [...]; though it still works better with a stylus than without. This leads to a decent picture quality and makes the slate quite capable of showing decent video playback. Physically, the screen itself is still susceptible to glare and the front casing is a tad flimsy"

I'm not sure you can really see those things from paper specs and pictures of the device alone.

> except perhaps as a tenuously-connected Chinese unit that could be rebranded

Ah, so exactly like the original CherryPad then ;-) You believe the author could have taken some random Chinese tablet and called it "CherryPad 2" in his article at a whim?

> I also consider it a substantial mistake to tell them about a CherryPad 1
> review that is not a "review" but rather a person's summary of reviews and
> other information he or she has read, which is what I believe that one to be.

So it's not a review but a summary of reviews, okay. Seems I made the "substantial mistake" to call it "review" instead of "summary of reviews".