Ok, lets deconstruct this a minute.  BFL has stated that our chip is a custom ASIC, end of story.  That's what it is.  bASIC is a Cell Based ASIC, which is another name for a sASIC for all intents and purposes.  So we have a parity there; we've both stated what our chip is.

Performance figures based on a prototype no one has seen and Thom has refused to give evidence of.  Now, I'm not saying he's lying, because I believe he probably does have some fashion of a prototype, but we're talking about comparing apples to apples here.  I could just as easily tell you the same thing and you'd ask me to prove it, so instead of going down that path, I am not going into detail with regards to that because I do not want to be in the same situation Thom is currently in. (or is it Tom?  Sorry, I have seen it both ways, so my apologies if I have it wrong).  I'm sure he's regretting making that statement now.

The ModMiner Quad was delivered almost a half year later than BFL and had the benefit of the trail BFL and others had already forged to work with.  It's easy to be on time and under budget when you don't have to create a device from scratch that few or no one has created before. Couple that with the fact that it was and still is the best performing, least expensive FPGA device and I think there needs to be some leeway there.

Who ordered a single that got an email that said 9 - 10 weeks?  We just shipped orders from early August today, we are under 4 weeks at this point.  But regardless, the ASIC generation is going to be quite a bit different in terms of construction and parts, so it can't even be compared.  

As far as the statement goes, I don't see how an opinion such as that needs to be qualified with anything more than has already been said to be considered reasonable.  I honestly believe he will be happy with the device(s) outright, but especially when compared to the competition.