> No, No, No. That's an error/typo.

Ah okay, thanks for clarification.

> I'm still pretty sure these are re-labeled chips. So over, not under.

Okay, I fell for your error/typo here obviously.

> That 133 designation is really getting to you, isn't it?

I was arguing from a "does eliminate the possibility that these are re-labeled chips" standpoint here.

> there are no EC parts with 133 speed ratings (and, for that matter,
> there are no FE chips rated to 133).

I'm well aware of what Motorola/Freescale chips are rated to.

> If the Natami team supports this fiction, then they may offend Freescale.

I think the NatAmi is and will forever stay way below Freescale's radar level. Besides, the consumer version isn't supposed to have a physical 060 chip anyway.