> I responded briefly to your observation that the neighboring paragraphs
> "specifically" referenced 5121-based systems and its clear implication that
> therefore the middle one does too.

Yes, and by doing so you commented these paragraphs. That's why I don't understand that you asked me to not comment them either when in fact you did.

> I said that they also specifically reference other systems and so that
> logic really seems to lean the other way.

You are right. The 3rd paragraph mentions ACube systems specifically. Here I said something I didn't mean. Sorry for that. I was thinking of "mainly" when I wrote "specifically". My bad.

> I then said just post the paragraphs since you brought it up, don't further comment

Yes, you said that in the same posting where you yourself had commented them.

> and let others decide.

I don't think it's about any "others". At least not from my side. But of course it's a public discussion and anybody can take part in it, passively or even actively.

> You didn't say "main point" at the time. That's different from your "specifically."

Yes, you're right in that. See above.

> "Main point" requires reading and evaluation.

Yes, that would be my "short story".

> Before I do that, would you mind clarifying what your end point is? That I specifically
> advocated putting a PowerVR chip on a 5121e-based system and wasn't speaking
> of anything else at all?

No, but that you were also (and, by taking the two surrounding paragraphs into account, even mainly) speaking of MPC5121e based systems and thus also (or even mainly, see above) advocated putting a PowerVR chip on an MPC5121e based system.

> That you recognized I was speaking broadly but putting a PowerVR chip on
> a 5121e-based system was one possible outcome?

No.

> That maybe I wasn't advocating that at all, but you had fair reason at the time to
> believe it and did believe it because of the context and the words I used?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: The second part (after "but") would be "yes". The first part fails to regard the conceptual difference between "intending (not) to advocate" (which only happens in the author's mind) and "actually (not) advocate" (which is what is actually written down). As I can't read your mind (and also couldn't at that point in time of course) I cannot answer that question as a whole with "yes" because I'm confident that your actual *words* advocated (also, or even mainly) putting a PowerVR chip on a 5121e based system, which I objected to.