> it might be of interest to HenryCase and amigadave as well as me to know
> if your comments in the dialogue we've had here have undergone changes
> without time-stamping.

They have not.

> you already said you weren't going to take my word for this

I said I'm not going to take your word for what the word "when" in such sentence constructions means usually. I'm now asking you for the mental concept you attempted to put into this word when writing your sentence, which could be just about anything in theory.

> why don't you just take HenryCase's at #177

Because in #177 he didn't even address my question. That's why I explained to him in #178 what my question was.

> or a dictionary such as MacMillan (it's the first entry).

1c ("used when someone knows or says at what time something happens, or in what situation it happens") more specifically, right? Going by that,

"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"

just means that I made the alleged substantial mistake (of informing MZ readers that the CherryPad 2 had been reviewed) at a time the CherryPad 2 had not been reviewed and had not been sold, right? If so, I still don't understand what the point that it has not been sold has to do with anything, as reviews do not depend on the reviewed device being sold or not.

> Your portrayal of it as making a causal connection seems more downplayed looking
> back at the thread than I originally took it for.

I'm not sure I understand. Could you please rephrase?