> I meant the Cherrypad 2 article. [...] Please reread my
> previous post, but mentally substitute "2" where the "1" is.

I'll do:

> I've already said my opinion that it's not a review.

True, you did. And if we apply a definition for "review" that says a review can only happen on something that's actually publicly available then it's clear it can only be a "preview", if at all. But that's not what my questions to you are about. First and foremost thing I want to know is if you think the author had a real physical unit to base his article on or not. I think that's the most important thing to judge the nature of that article. You said in posting #159 that in your view "neither of the authors has actually based his or her text on hardware that he or she has received" and that it "is based on a picture and what the author read elsewhere". Is that still your view?

> explain your perspective on [...] whether or not you think it is a review.

If we apply the above definition for the term "review" it's clear that the article is no review. If we don't apply this strict definition and instead view previews as a special kind of reviews it depends on whether or not the author based his article on a physical device which he had access to and which was presented to him by Cherrypal as the CherryPad 2.

> At that point if necessary I'll either counterpoint or agree with you

I'm looking forward to it.

> and then move on to other things.

Like not evading my questions? That would be nice.