Chris>You intepret a quote from Ad6 that they would "make clear how our [Ad6] OEM work feeds back into the retail market place and will be interesting and relevant to show-goers" as "We're not sure if this is a subtle reference to the Birmingham show last December, where Castle wheeled out an old development board..."
Thing is Ad6 did NOT infer that - what's more any reasonable, rational and unbiased person would not seek to read such an interpretation into it. I believe the Ad6 quote was a more positive statement about what *they* are about.
Ad6 also showed development boards before many of which would *not* find their way into desktop RISC OS products, there is a possibility another version of them might (great) - so how does that differ from what Castle's offering ? Why do Castle deserve to get clobbered because they showed the sort of work they do and Ad6 get praised for doing *exactly* the same thing ?
RISC OS users, being generally interested in things computational, would if Ad6 (or Castle for that matter) demonstrated an industrial controller using RISC OS be interested in this *even* if it were not directly relevant to their own requirements.
When I read Peter Naull's articles they don't slag off anyone, they deal with technical issues in an impartial, informed and scientific way. Chris unfortunately your articles can, from time to time, tend simply to slag off anyone who currently has raised you ire (usually Castle).
Unfortunately the negative sarcasm present in some of your articles devalues them as they otherwise are fine, well written and informative. If the article is an "opinion" piece it should be clearly flagged up as such and people will make the appropriate inferences.