>> the alleged "buzz" regarding the prospect of "Denver"
>> being 64-bit just wasn't (and isn't) there

> Really?
> http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?p=92886

It's almost funny how you use the single link and quote *I* gave you to prove the "almost" part in my "almost no one" claim against me now. Is there really so much buzz on the web about the prospect of "Denver" being 64-bit that you couldn't come up with an own find?

> There are LOTS of reference to this speculation spread throughout the web.

In the posting in which I gave you the link and quote you re-quoted above I asked you for links regarding this (quote: "Maybe you have some links for me?"). So far you've chosen to ignore that question, and your most recent response doesn't add anything of value to answer that question of mine. Capitalized words like "LOTS" aren't going to convince me.

> He's not the only person on the planet posting this speculation

I never claimed I was. Re-read what I actually wrote. There's a wide range between one single person on the planet discussing a matter and that matter being "the current buzz".

> It doesn't even require his usual in-depth investigation and thoughtful insight.

That's correct but doesn't change the fact that I fail to see "the current buzz" about the prospect of "Denver" being 64-bit.

> For once Andreas, admit YOU are wrong.

I'll do as soon as you've convinced me of me being wrong. Remember, only links will do. That shouldn't be too hard I think. (And btw, why "for once"?)

> There has been previous speculation posted on this topic
> on the Internet. Its not that original

Previous than what? Mind you, speculations about the "Denver" announcement can't be older than the "Denver" announcement itself. Any prior speculations about 'ARM64' (to which *I* gave the links btw) do not include the "Denver" announcement.

> It's easy to find.

Then I'd appreciate a link (and please not the one that I gave you).

> your tirade against my claim that its a buzz on the Internet, its tiresome.

So is your tirade against my claim that there's no "buzz on the Internet" about the prospect of "Denver" being 64-bit.

> find some other inaccuracy in my statements

;-)

> this isn't one of them.

I still think it is.

> People ARE speculating as to whether or not Denver is a 64bit processor.

In which places, except here on MorphZone and on the one link I gave you?