> we'd know the Cherrypad 2 had at least been released, so who cares if you
> misidentified the article as a review.

I guess the readers of the article who take that article for a review would care, especially as the article contains statements that make it sound like a genuine review.

> I'm *not* saying A) and B) *caused* the mistake. If I wanted to say that, I would have
> said "because." I *am* saying A) and B) absence makes it substantial.

You mean A) and B) absence *causes* it being substantial?

> I classed the release of photos and supposed specs of an unmarked and
> (presumably) Chinese unit, as a "tenuous connection."

...and you classed Cherrypal identifying the device as a "tenuous connection" in #165.

>> In your opinion, what would have been a stronger connection for a pre-sale
>> device other than Cherrypal "identifying the device"?

> pictures of a branded unit, an online video showing Max Seybold playing with it,
> pictures of the unit being unwrapped from a Cherrypal box, a picture of the
> device booting a Cherrypal logo with the screen showing

Thanks for addressing another one of my questions.

> this dispute also perhaps involved the basic statistical misunderstanding
> that a correlation of factors (or conditions) equals causation.

No, at least not from my side.

> I don't know if you've learned statistics.

I consider your example more like a matter of common sense (or basic set theory) than of statistics ;-)

> I do not intend [...] to address your other assertion that my silence on the article
> paragraph you cited means that I conclude the author pulled it from thin air.

You seem to miss that you already addressed this assertion by saying in #173 that I was wrong. Hence my question to you in #174, #176 and #194:
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? Would you please tell your opinion on said part of the article?
And the other ones which are still unaddressed:
Do you have examples for this "elsewhere" you talked about from which he could have adopted the statements I quoted in a previous posting?
Could you please rephrase the one statement from #199 which I said I failed to get the meaning of in #200?

> I've found when I answer two of your questions it leads to another five

Could you point me to those alleged 5 new questions that arose from you answering two of my older questions (as opposed to from dubious statements like this one)?