> I was saying that I need more than that to accept something as fact.

More than what? More than my link to BBRV's announcement which I gave back in April in the Volari thread, which I hinted you at several times already?

> I wasn't denying the existence of anything.

You're running in circles. Again: What *exactly* are these "representations about it" that you don't take as fact? My "representation about it" was that this project announcement existed. If you don't take the existence of something as fact, you deny it's existence. There aren't exactly many possibilities besides existence and non-existence.

> Genesi makes numerous announcements

For sure. I even compared them to capricious women during menstruation here and there.

> I wouldn't know what they said in each email two years ago.

I never mentioned private conversation via email or even non-private conversation via email. I told you several times that this announcement from 3.5 years ago is public on Genesi's webserver (powerdeveloper.org). And this announcement led to news items on various websites, among them even non-Amiga ones. A quick Google search reveales:

http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2006-04-00078-EN.html
http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/AN-2006-04-00078-DE.html (German version of above)
http://www.ann.lu/detail.cgi?category=web&file=1145038429.msg
http://www.ppcnux.de/?q=node/6311 (German)
http://www.pegasos.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=984 (even predating the later announcement by referring to a prior statement of BBRV)
http://www.ppcnux.de/?q=node/6278 (see above, German)

BBRV referenced that project in their blog as well:
http://bbrv.blogspot.com/2006/04/genesibook.html
http://bbrv.blogspot.com/2006/05/open-source-3d-graphics-support.html [start with "The encore is the V3XE, which goes right on the next EFIKA."]

> Why would I deny one of them?

I don't know why you did. Tell me.

> I'm sure they discussed many things.

...and they announced many things.

> I don't deny those things.

You did deny the existence of that particular "MPC5200B with onboard Volari gfx chip" project.

> I just don't accept what Andreas Wolf says as fact because he says it.

I had told you several times that the announcement is on Genesi's webserver and that I linked that announcement already. So there was no need to rely only on me. You just had to follow my link and read it yourself. You decided not to do so and instead continue your denial. Only you know why.

> Some of it may be, some of it's not.

That's why back in April I provided the link to that announcement and hinted you at that, so that you know it's a fact, not just "my fact". I didn't do that for fun.

> each time I used the term 5200B I referred to a 5200B board

You didn't say "a 5200B", but "*the* 5200B". There are dozens of MPC5200B based boards from many different manufacturers and vendors out on the market, maybe some even with onboard gfx. So which one did you mean?
You later linked to the Freescale Lite5200B, which indeed has no onboard gfx, implying you meant that particular board ...no, wait, you linked to the MPC5200B *processor* product page claiming that was a board's product page.

You wrote:

"The 5200B [board] has a gfx card slot. The 5121e [board?] has onboard gfx."
...and...
"A 5200B device doesn't have onboard gfx."
...and...
"The reason that onboard graphics means the board couldn't be 5200B [board] is that the 5200B [board] doesn't have onboard graphics."

Care to explain these statements, especially in context of the feasibility of Genesi's "MPC5200B with onboard Volari gfx chip" project?
I already explained my opinion as to what your (failed) line of reasoning these "arguments" should serve. I'll recap: I think you wanted to illustrate that there couldn't be technically any MPC5200B based board with onboard gfx. Which would mean that the project announcement takemehomegrandma and me were talking of could never have been made.
Should I be wrong, then please explain the purpose of you bringing into play other MPC5200B based boards.

> and this was clear from the context.

No it was not. First, "*the* 5200B" is hardly to associate with a board when you don't say which specific board (Or did you mean any MPC5200B based board on the planet?). Second, in the sentence before, you were referring to takemehomegrandma's mention of the MPC5200B *processor*. And third, in the next sentence you were referring to the MPC5121e *processor*. That's certainly not "clear", rather being confusing on purpose.

> I wasn't distinguishing the Efika 5200B board from the Freescale
> 5200B board.

That's why you linked to the Freescale board and not to the Genesi board in a discussion about (announced) Genesi boards?

> All throughout that quote I referred to board not SoC and I did not
> say *MPC*5200B

It's not unusual to omit the "MPC" prefix with Motorola/Freescale Power Architecture processors, just like it's very usual to omit the "MC" prefix with processors of the 68k line.

Compare:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/+mpc5200b (644 finds)
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/+5200b (104 finds)

But it's certainly *not* usual to call the Efika 5200B or the Lite5200B or any other MPC5200B based board just "5200B". Up to now, the "Efika 5200B" denomination was shortened "Efika". (Of course, with the Efika MX coming up that's going to become ambiguous.)

> and refer to the SoC

Fair enough, but you still don't understand. Even if *I do* accept that by "5200B" you meant "MPC5200B based board", it still doesn't make any sense to me because I still don't know how reference to such other MPC5200B based boards would bear any implication for an "MPC5200B with onboard Volari gfx chip" project or its technical feasibility.

> When I said "5200B device" I also referred to the board.

Yes, and I did understand it exactly that way. Read my reply to that and you'll know.

> It's your imagination running wild that I was using that to build
> evidence for some case you claim I sought to make to deny the
> existence of some Genesi announcement and project.

Why do you keep failing to explain what the purpose of those "other 5200B [board]" arguments was? Instead you just keep insisting on what their purpose allegedly wasn't. Suspicious.

> I didn't deny the existence of that.

I still think you were.

> I'm not gathering pieces here and there to try to prove you said it.

I rather would also not have to do that. The problem is that you don't read my posts properly, if at all. You even confessed that. So I have to write and to quote numerous times the same things, else you would just ignore them forever. And without quoting someone it's hard to prove he said it.

> You said it in a short emphatic sentence.

That was because I felt sure of it. But I was wrong. And you are sure that a "5200B [board] has a gfx card slot", that "a 5200B device doesn't have onboard gfx" and that "the reason that onboard graphics means the board couldn't be 5200B [board] is that the 5200B [board] doesn't have onboard graphics".

> I pointed out the error in your logic

It was no error in logic, but lack of knowledge. I simply didn't know about the Atom based LimePC models.

> The next time you call me mixed up and forgetful and whatever I'll
> be reminding you that I never got so mixed up and forgetful to make
> such a huge mistake as yours.

If you can prove that I once knew about the Atom based LimePCs and had forgotten about them, you can call me "mixed up" and "forgetful". Else I was just wrong, as I confessed a gazillion times by now.