Re:
Actually.. OS/2 was in fact written from scratch, while there was some compatibility with windows and dos, even that support was at the time written from scratch.
This is what was gleaned over the internet with regards to the morphing/development of the OS/2 Operating System; and, it is supposed that "IBM" would be the best source for confirmation. 
Actually, nothing you point to says anything similar. Actually, if you read into some of those articles (and others on the Internet), you will see that early NT morphed from early OS/2 code. While OS/2 was written from the ground up to be a replacement for DOS based operating systems.
Regardless, we dont need to wait for IBM for an answer... the core components of OS/2 (ie: not including the device drivers and added subsystems) all hold IBM or IBM/MS or (in the most recent version) IBM/"Others" (as IBM started referring to MS) copyrights - and there are a list of IBM patents out there that are for OS/2 technologies and tied chronologically with it's development.
Certain things were ported to OS/2
after it was already long since a mature, stable OS (like the AIX firewall) - while others were re-written, nearly in their entirety based off designs and concepts from AIX (like JFS - which if memory serves, was then ported BACK to AIX as JFS2 with larger per file size limits).
A Short History of OS/2
http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html
Which as referenced at the link below (which you already posted just a little earlier) is just a better formatted version of the new link you posted. Have you even read the articles? Just curious. Because you have just posted a link (to a different site) containing the same article and pretending it is new evidence of your point. The first link (which I re-listed below) wasnt - and the link above that you just posted - which goes to a better formatted version of the article thus is not either.
http://www.os2bbs.com/OS2News/OS2History.html- Thus, another redundant post from you, which proves nothing more than the first. Congrats! Better formatting of the same thing does not help prove a point the initial article couldnt.
I don't agree that making an OS/2 like linux distribution makes any more sense then any other project which has built upon the code. What makes OS/2 unique to me is the way it handles the hardware, sure it doesn't support a large amount of hardware. The threading model was great for it's time and could easily be improved. These sort of things aren't going to happen if you just try to make linux feel like OS/2. I could spend some money and make a geo FEEL like a mercedes.. but it will still be a geo.
What is "eComStation" may I ask? 
"eComStation is fully OS/2 compatible and will run your existing OS/2 applications!"
http://www.ecomstation.com/
eComStation
IS OS/2. It is
NOT Linux or some other OS/kernel masquerading as OS/2. So, I dont see what you are trying to point out. Robert was discussing a Linux based implementation designed to look and feel like OS/2 as a successor he does not feel viable.
From someone who has seen what the threading model in OS/2 (and the still in progress one in Linux) can do, and the amazingly large amount of control a program or user has over thread and process priority under OS/2, I dont blame him.