>> "No, I said there were *almost* no speculations."

> Yes you did say that.

I'm glad you decided to stop this lie. Thanks for that.

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

Yes, that's exactly what I said. And I'm still of this opinion.

> you'd like 11 Goggle links?

If you can give a total of 11 hyperlinks (not "Goggle links") to articles or forum threads discussing the matter then I'll admit being wrong, which is what you asked me to do. So you could assume it's not that I really want you to give me those links but rather that I think you should be eager to give them to me ;-) Seriously, I'll happily admit being wrong when being convinced of being wrong. For me it's more important to know the truth than being right.

> Probably doable.

Yes, I think so. I really tried to be fair by "demanding" only one 100,000th of current Google hits.

> the first would be this thread

Yes, and second would be the link to the forum post I gave you, and third would be the link to the article you gave me. Makes only 8 to go.

> I'd have to agree with allowing you to define the term
> and state the qualifications that would satisfy your
> definitions.

Of course, an agreement on the quantification would be necessary to come to a final conclusion. I really tried to be fair in my assessment. If you think that 11 is not an appropriate number of required links to support the claim of something being "the current buzz" about an announcement I'm all ears for your proposal.

> That is a political game

I don't see it that way. It's all about making claims and presenting sufficient supporting evidence. Nothing political about that.

> there is no buzz

Fine. I'm willing to accept your retraction from your "buzz" claim. A pity as you've been mere 8 links off ;-)

> except for what we both know is there

...which in my book is still too little to qualify as "the current buzz" about the "Denver" announcement.

> everyone else is getting such a kick out of using
> the term buzz

Let them have their kick. Besides, it's not only been about the term "buzz" as such but more about the whole phrasing "the current buzz" (as opposed to just "a current buzz").

> How you feel about hardly influences that.

Exactly. Nothing about feelings here, only about claims and hard evidence (or so far rather lack thereof, unfortunately).