[quote name="Wombat" post="11209304" timestamp="1383929626"]
shill
SHil/
- 1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.
We are not in business with Microsoft, nor do we have a financial interest. We have opinions that differ from yours. That doesn't make us shills, it makes us people.
[/quote]
1. Cheapy has stated in the past to owning MS stock, so he kind of does have a financial interest in MS which in turn would make him a shill. He wrote something to defend MS, something that I only saw one other website during that time do and it wasn't as long nor did a MS spokesperson (Major Neslson) was so happy with that he responded. Not to mention a shill is only effective if no one knows they have a stake in the product or service.
2. You have just proven my point Wombat, out of everything I wrote you nit pick a word that I used which was stated by YOU guys on the podcast. Once again, instead of having a meaningful discussion and in this case someone with a different perspective, you (Cag crew) look for a quick, meaningless, juvenile jab and the pretend that anyone who speaks up is simply a Sony nut, good job Wombat.
[quote name="CheapyD" post="11211037" timestamp="1383957723"]
Yes, it is my opinion that the Xbox 360 was the superior console for at least the first half of this generation. I think we've all be pretty clear that is what we believe. We are plenty critical of every company's screw-ups (including Microsoft and Apple), and if you don't recognize that, that's your shortcoming.
When I see someone haphazardly throw around the terms "biased" or "shill" I automatically assume it's them with the bias or perhaps...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/quote]
Unfortunately you are the one with the shortcoming Cheapy, you may have "touched" on the deficiencies of other companies but the responses have been nowhere near being even handed. This is where the problem is, its not that you don't say anything its that when company A says something you talk 5 min and done but when company B does something less serious, holy hell you guys rant for like 20 mins sometimes. Again this is the problem, its the uneven and clearly biased handling over certain news and as others have stated the "proof" you want are in past Cagcasts, it's not that you may prefer one system over the other.
I work for a pretty big company that I just started in over a month and personally over see a team of 30 people, the first thing I said was that they should tell me about any concerns about my performance as time passes. Why? If one person tells me something then I may just brush it off but if 15 people tell me the same thing then I need to take a step back and see what I'm doing to rectify the situation if my self-awareness is lacking.