> you appear to me to intentionally make heavy use of questions as a debate tool

That's correct. I believe that straight questions are a good means to get clear answers in a debate, provided they're not ignored that is.

> to control the dialogue

No, raising question for me is a "tool" to get answers, not to "control" anything.

> that questions such as [...] get far astray from the lighthearted and
> positive interaction MorphOS fans like me used to come here for.

No problem. If my questions are not "lighthearted" and "positive" enough for your liking you can always choose to not answer them. I cannot force anybody to not ignore anything I write here anyway. But that doesn't mean that I'll stop longing for the answers to those questions, and it doesn't even necessarily mean that I stop reiterating them.

> As to semantic conceptualizing of "when" I don't think you'll find it listed under
> the various definitions and synonyms at English dictionaries and thesauruses
> as equating to "because,"

Correct. If I did I wouldn't have asked here, obviously.

> I welcome you to link to a online dictionary or thesaurus that does so.
> Or scan and post the page of whatever you've got there.

Errm, how should I link something I was not able to find?

> Or furnish a scholastic article that explains how context (as you referred to in #180)
> somehow can override what is expressed [...] by the person making the remark.

I'm glad you're directly getting to the point here. What is it that you as "the person making the remark" wanted to express by the usage of "when" in that sentence? Of what semantic nature is the link created by "when" between the two phrases? Or put another way: What's the semantic connection between the part preceding and the part succeeding the word "when" in your sentence?

> It is also difficult for me to gauge the author's agreement or disagreement
> with my sentiment about the tenuous connection between Cherrypal and
> the device illustrated in the specs and pictures it released

Thanks for eventually addressing one of my four questions. Of course you do not have to have an opinion on this at all. You can always choose to not take sides, like I did before.

> I don't understand the relevance of this at all.

I think that to know whether the author of the article believed it was only "tenuously-connected" or rather believed he wrote about the device to be released by Cherrypal as the successor of the original CherryPad could help me to identify the nature of that article which is filed under "reviews" but you say you believe is not a review.

> You were very polite with the one question

Sorry for this. It wasn't intentional and won't happen again ;-)

> this is not going anywhere positive.

That's okay for me. I'm not looking for positivity but for answers.

> I corrected the mistaken remark about "reviews" you posted and you
> acknowledged it graciously.

You may remember that regarding the CherryPad 2 article I said I was still undecided as to whether my remark was mistaken or not. My stance on this has not changed so far.