> You're taking the statements too far out of context, they
> were not made in the same post.

Yeah, I found that most people contradicting what they said before do so with some time passed in between. That's why the latter statement would usually be interpreted as an implied retraction of the former.

> Let me bold the key words for you in the second sentence:
> " Yes, it could be a review of hardware not publicly
> available. No, it could not be based on looking at
> pictures, watching videos, or doing websearches." What
> Velcro_SP is saying is that there is a chance that a
> proper review has happened, in essence saying there's a
> chance you might be right

You're massively mistaken here. The discussion at that point was not on the CherryPad 2 article anymore but on the meaning of the word "review" in general. So with that Velcro_SP is *not* saying that there is a chance that a proper review has happened, in essence saying there's a chance I might be right. You can clearly see that in the second sentence you quoted the pronoun "it" must refer to "a review in general", not to "the CherryPad 2 article" as "looking at pictures, watching videos, or doing websearches" is exactly what he says he thinks the CherryPad 2 article *is* based on in his other posts before and after, so it can not be a review as reviews must be based on real hardware.

> A loose link does not mean unrelated.

Yes, that's exactly why I gave my example sentence where the comma does imply a semantic connection between the phrases yet the phrases don't reveal any. With that I wanted to show that a comma (or dash, or semicolon) usually *does* imply a semantic connection between the phrases it separates.

> What's the semantic function of "however"? It links two
> statements but it does not imply anything more than
> another perspective to consider.

Exactly, the semantic function of "however" is to initiate a consideration of another perspective on the subject talked about in the phrase preceding "however".

> The same with when in this context

So you say that Vecro_SP's statement

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

is equal in meaning to

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

...right? If yes, then I really wonder how saying that it hasn't been reviewed (phrase succeeding "however") could be *another* perspective than saying it's a mistake to claim it has been reviewed (phrase preceding "however"). Is it maybe that I don't get your concept of "another perspective" here?

> it is [...] rather a 'when' saying 'look at it like this'.

Okay, let's try it:

"It is a substantial mistake to inform MZ readers that the "CherryPad 2" has been reviewed, look at it like this: not only hasn't it been reviewed, but it hasn't been sold"

This reads like he says I made a mistake calling the article a review and then goes on saying the article isn't a review and then mentioning something he later on in another posting says does not even have anything to do with the article being a review or not. Does that make sense to you?

> people don't have to talk exactly like you for you to
> understand them.

That's true as a general statement. However the sentence we're discussing is a nice example where the difference in usage of a small word does lead to a gross misunderstanding of the meaning. I've been interpreting "when" in this context as initiating a justification of what preceded that word, whereas you say it's similar in semantic function to "however" or "look at it like this" in Velcro_SP's sentence.

> Understanding context is as much about understanding the
> intentions of the author as it is about looking at the
> words being used.

True, as your misinterpretation of what Velcro_SP was referring to in the first paragraph of posting #171 is a good example for ;-)

> You're only seeing half the picture, if you looked at the
> other half I'm confident the words would make sense to you.

So what was Velcro_SP's intention in writing the sentence in question (if it's not the intention I read from it, that is)? I still don't get it since "however" or "look at it like this" don't semantically work for me there as shown above. As it seems to work for you I'm afraid we don't get any further at this point. Thanks for sharing your view anyway.