> No, that is not what I believe.

Then what is it you believe happened to Motorola Semiconductor in 2004? And what is it you believe how Freescale started?

> Taken over, spun off, splintered from, they all serve to mean the same
> thing in terms of which company now is in control of CPU production.

We've been talking about *how* Freescale got control of Motorola Semiconductor's CPU production as that's what might be relevant for the availability of certain documentation (or alleged lack thereof) within Freescale.

> In large companies, rarely does any one person know all the history
> of previous products and licenses

Don't try to change what your question I replied to was about. It was *not* about "any one person". Quote:

"Could it be [...] Freescale just doesn't have the info about those chips?"

You were clearly talking about Freescale as a whole here, not about "any one person" within. Besides, nobody here ever implied that "any one person know all the history of previous products and licenses". That's what internal databases are for that are accessible by employees who want to retrieve certain information they don't know by heart yet need for their work.

> who knows how much time the Freescale employee providing the information
> posted, spent researching a question that is of no importance to him.

I don't know how seriously he takes his job but I'm more inclined to take his statement ("I can confirm that MC68060FE133 is not a valid Freescale part number.") for fact than your baseless speculation that Jim's question was "of no importance to him" which might have made him not doing proper research.

> It appears to be a favorite pass time of the two of you to speculate and come to
> conclusions and then post them ALMOST like they are facts, or at least like they
> are the most likely probabilities

It *is* a hard cold fact, not speculation (or even conclusion), that a Freescale employee stated that "MC68060FE133" was not a valid Freescale part number. I see no reason to not believe him (which of course also means I believe Jim didn't make up that answer).
As for my general posting habit (I speak only for myself here obviously), I always try hard to make sure that speculation and conclusions of mine are clearly recognizable as such and cannot be mistaken for a statement of fact (not even "ALMOST") by anybody who's able to read properly. And I certainly wouldn't know what's wrong about posting educated guesses and conclusions like they are "the most likely probabilities".

> which I find amusing and naive

I find it amusing and naive to speculate that Jim's inquiry might have been "of no importance" to the Freescale employee so that the latter went without doing proper research.

> even when they are educated and well researched guesses

It seems you don't like educated and well researched guesses more than non-educated and badly researched guesses like those of yours. Why's that?

> and once in a great while turn out to be correct.

Guessing involves being wrong from time to time. I see no problem with that as long as the guesses are posted as what they are.

> forgive me for not getting sucked into believing every speculation,
> or conclusion that either you or Jim post on these forums.

It's only *your* speculation and/or conclusion that a Freescale employee might not have done proper research before replying to Jim's inquiry.