> then you respond to the clause as if the parent sentence didn't exist!

No, I did take the parent sentence into account when I replied to the modifying clause.

>> What do you think is it the author believed he wrote that
>> article about, especially in the light of sentences like
>> the following? [...]

> I think the author believed he or she wrote about the
> tenuously-connected Chinese unit.

What I meant is: Do you think the author believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or do you think he believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad?

>> You believe the author could have taken some random
>> Chinese tablet and called it "CherryPad 2" in his article
>> at a whim?

> No, tenuously-connected is different from random. The
> tenuous connection is that Cherrypal identified the device.

With "identified the device" I take it you mean "presented it to the author of the article as the CherryPad 2". In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"? What do you think the author had access to to base his statements in the article on? You said previously "a picture and what the author read elsewhere". Anything else like paper specs from Cherrypal or even a working, physical device he got from Cherrypal? Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?