> your interpretations of my remarks as a retraction here and a conclusion > there are wrong.
So you say that you think it can't be a review "when not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold" and at the same time say you think that a review can be done on "hardware not publicly available". Well, I'm not a native English speaker but I see a gross logical contradiction there as according to my understanding "when" equals "since", "as", or "because" in this context. I may be wrong in my understanding of this English phrase here but I won't take your word on it (as you surely understand) but prefer the opinion of another native English speaker. Anybody here being a sport and giving his opinion? If my conclusion that you must believe that the part of the article I quoted in posting #162 was pulled from thin air by the author is wrong then what do you believe how this part was written without access to a physical device as you say?
> You have me retracting something I didn't retract
I'm still convinced that you've been contradicting yourself. Interpreting the latter statement as a retraction of the former was the only way to avoid a cognitive dissonance as to my mind you can't believe both statements to be true at the same time.
> and making a strangely specific conclusion about something I didn't even address.
Exactly. The fact that you evaded addressing it and stating your opinion on it despite having been asked for it is the "problem" I see here. The part in question contains information and utterances of look and feel that could normally only be stated with access to a physical device. That's where I think it conflicts with your opinion that the article is not based on access to a physical device. So, would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?
> in #161 I phrased it as fact that the Cherrypad 2 had not been reviewed.
I hadn't even noticed.
> Everywhere else discussing it, including when I first responded to it, > I think I've phrased it as opinion
Yes, you have. All fine in that regard.
> It is only my opinion that the unit has not been reviewed.
And it's only your opinions that my questions to you in this recent discussion are about, just in case you didn't notice by now. After all, nobody is obliged to have an opinion and take sides, but you did, so I believe you have reasons for having the opinions you have. So far you failed to give even one single of those reasons that made you form your opinion that the author didn't have access to a physical device so that the article can't be a review.
> thanks for saying you are "undecided."
You're welcome.
> By undecided do you mean there's not enough evidence for certainty, or do you mean > that the evidence is so evenly balanced you have no opinion one way or the other?
