> No, I am not going to quote your objection to my statements about you and
> Jim speculating about what the MC68060FE133 might be, or most likely is.

No problem, so I'm dismissing your claim about me objecting "to the use of that term so much" as an untrue statement.

> Are you really going to deny that you objected to me calling all of your
> discussions regarding this chip "Speculation"?

Yes, I'm denying that I did.

> If you weren't objecting to my assertion that you were both just speculating, why the
> angry responses questioning my speculation about possible alternatives?

The fact that I was questioning ("Angry"? Huh?) your speculations about a "licensed clone" as being improbable doesn't mean I was objecting to your assertion that Jim and me were both speculating.

> I don't know why I bother to reply to anything you write

But maybe you know why you claim things about me which you can't back up?

> I usually only reply to others in threads

As you might have noticed, that doesn't make me not reply to you, especially when you make untrue statements about me and what I allegedly objected to.