> I don't understand the difficulty of defining "review."

I didn't either until you said in posting #161 that it can't be a review of the CherryPad 2 "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold". It was you who made me think about the definition of the term "review" in connection to the availability status of the product.

> In the case of a review of hardware, the author must
> actually have had the hardware.

That's exactly what I said. I'm glad we agree here.

> Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly available.

I classify this as a retraction of your "but it hasn't been sold" statement of objection to calling it a review.

> A preview is something entirely different.

I'm fine with discarding that term in the scope of this discussion as the only reason I brought it up in the first place was your "but it hasn't been sold" statement of objection to calling the article a review.

> A review of prototype, unfinal, not publicly available hardware, is [...]
> a review of prototype, unfinal, not publicly available hardware.

I'm in full agreement.

> My view of the article has not changed.

So you still believe that "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". And I conclude that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author.

> Perhaps at some point you'll state yours

Gladly. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm still undecided whether the author of the article had a physical unit at hand or not as I believe there's supporting evidence for either view, which means I'm also still undecided whether the article is a review or not. It was you who took one side yet has failed to present his reasons for taking that side. But as you seem to feel so confident about your decision that you even say calling the article a review is a "substantial mistake" I ask some of my previous and yet unanswered questions again:

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?
In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?
Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?