Dan Choi

"I am making the point that in order to be impartial, one must be unbiased with all of their writings, not equally biased at different times. This is because when readers absorb all unbiased posts, they are not going to receive a clear reporting of the facts in any case."

Again, that depends on your definition of unbiased, Chris. Apparently, the people here at Joystiq take it to mean opinionated, as it's hard to poke fun or complain about something on a blog without at least displaying some sort of opinion. Consider the fact that essays are written essentially to present a case for a certain point of view, and you might see where I'm going with this. As offering an opinion is intrinsically a part of the writing style here at Joystiq (and a big part of what makes an independent site valuable), that's probably not gonna change anytime soon. Now does that mean we're biased? I'd hope not, but I believe we're arguing from different definitions, so I doubt this will be resolved anytime soon.

"Dan, I wasn't trying to quote your post word for word. The purpose of my post was to point out the fact that there's biased journalism happening here and elsewhere despite fervent denials by the staff."

You don't have to quote my post word for word, Chris, but one word can make quite a difference (as you might see from the subject of this very post). As for biased journalism, if we complain about every company and console, are we not even in our whining? Praise goes where praise is due, but I seriously doubt that I'd be able to change your mind about this issue. Sorry, but this is a topic that simply won't be resolved between us.

"Do not stray off topic."

Uh, remarking how replacing a word of mine changes the meaning of a sentence (when it specifically is what you called out in your original comment, all the while keeping everything in quotes) is off-topic? Okay... If this thread is really about what Stringer meant when he said "There's an obsession!" then maybe everything outside of that is actually off-topic, but that would be going on a tangent we needn't explore here. ;) Quoting the actual words you referenced (and misquoted) to make your argument is generally considered on-topic. Let's give this topic a rest. Please.

If I have to delete comments that really go off-topic, I'll do it. Let's just agree to disagree (on the whole biased-journalism thing), okay? This may be a happier world because of it. Oh, and if it helps any, the meaning of my original sentence was that the Xbox 360 is the console that would (like/intend/pretend) to dethrone the PlayStation 3. (The Wii could also fit this description, but Stringer was talking about the Xbox, so that's that.) I'm sorry if my words translated differently to you, but I hope you enjoy the explanation.

"But you and I have to admit (Joystiq has done it as well) that mistakes will be made. Freudian slip? Stutter at the wrong time? Who really knows."

That's the problem, Andir: Without a subscription to the Journal, it's a little difficult to read this quote in context, which leads to the ambiguity we have here. If Stringer actually plays PGR3 and Zuma as much as Gates and his family do, then we have some really interesting fuel being added to the fire; if this is a simple mistake, then all we're left with is a post with some entertainment value. We would like to have at least communicated some of that to some of the folks out there. (And hopefully Next-Gen and GameDaily provided the context as it appeared in the original story, but we certainly welcome comments from those who can claim otherwise.) It is an odd (even mysterious?) quote.

Chris, you'll have to quote my post a little more closely next time; I wrote: "the console that _would_ dethrone the PlayStation." Whole different connotation there, friend.

"Stringer's head... Stringer's mouth..."

Hilarious reenactment, jon. If you go all the way back to the original WSJ article (which is only available to subscribers apparently), Stringer is described as the following in the second paragraph:

"During the spirited session, in which he delivered a constant stream of wisecracks and jibes, Mr. Stringer discussed Sony's strengths and weaknesses, its competitors, and his efforts to shake up the giant company, which combines a major electronics business with a movie studio and a record label."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114955974505772215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"Lively"! =)

"So are you guys just 'average joe' bloggers or somewhat more professional 'editors' then?"

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with that, sabre, but I'm feeling quite a bit of resentment behind that sentiment. Please stay on-topic (while avoiding the oblique slights) and I think we'll all be better off. I can almost see where this discussion is leading, so please stop with the insults against the site "editors" and I won't have to delete any more of your comments. Seriously. I'm trying to be lenient, but fail to heed this warning, and more severe moderation will have to be enacted.

"I wish you guys would all be consistant b/c had it been the other way around (which I would never attack someone like he did) and another mod had delt with the situation...I would received negative stars."

It's certainly possible that different bloggers will apply a different hand to similar moderating circumstances. But, again, tread with respect and reason, and there shouldn't be a problem with any moderator.

"Now can you take off annoyances 3,4, and 14?"

Dunno if we can take 'em off, ForbidenMaster (it would probably be best to keep the original posts up, no?), but we certainly are happy that the issues they described are finally being addressed. Trust us, we're probably as happy about the updates for our 360s as you are. Now, about annoyances 1, 2, 5, 6, etc., etc.... =)

"Here's another bit of rhetoric:"

"I word...

pwned :-P"

As long as the rhetoric doesn't inflame other users unreasonably, I think I can live with it (in the sense of "using language effectively and persuasively"). Just be careful what you type, all right? =)

"Can playing an old title actually tarnish your memory of the game?"

Oh yeah, sure. They say you can never go home again, and that can be quite true for the games of our youth (though games from the 32/64-bit generation are certainly not exempt). For instance, I just played some old Coleco games via a 2-player plug-in set for the TV this past weekend. While I don't remember these games on the Colecovision so much (I mean, I can't actually remember whether I played them back in the day or not), they must have seemed pretty interesting at the time. In fact, after trying some of the titles for more than a few minutes, there were gameplay elements that were actually well thought-out and, more importantly, fun. I still wouldn't want to go and play the Atari 2600 games I do have some memories of, however; it would just be too painful. ;) What I'm trying to say is that old games can be fun, but "spoilage" certainly can occur.

"@Dan

I hear what you're saying, and you're absolutely correct. That is the main reason I still have some of the games I have. I love my memories and I know that if I ever wanted to play these games again, it would cost way too much to rebuy them."

It was the whole trading-in-every-game-you-own (that is, your nothing-shall-be-spared) comment that caused me to reply the way I did. If you are holding a few treasured possessions back, I'd feel a lot better about this whole situation.

"But, I'm getting old. I don't have much time for games anymore. What precious time I get during the week to play, I spend on the new titles I'm still trying to complete."

Totally understandable. We're all getting older after all -- I mean, none of us are getting any younger, right? -- so games can't (always) take top priority in our lives. I hope we can all enjoy the time we do get, however.

"[Censored by the management]"

I had to do a bit of moderation here, cringer8, as you made an uncalled for assumption about another poster (and commented accordingly). I'm not one to give out negative stars or take (positive) stars away lightly, however, so I'm just removing all the flame-like comments and responses for now. Let's be careful not to jump to conclusions regarding other posters here, okay? Respect is the foundation for a thriving community (online or off), so let's do our best to be quick to listen, slow to become angry, and (when necessary) slow to speak. Hopefully then we can keep misunderstandings to a minimum.