Since it seems I hurt your feeling by not reading an replying to your encyclopedia britannica length post.. lets see if I can beat it..
Here comes the search for the great number of factual errors..
>> Things are not handed to us on a silver platter
>I've seen a significant number of their 'news' come
>straight from other websites. If that isn't handed on a
>silver platter, nothing is.
Read the context, the line for that said "This also affords us the ability to tell you about things first if we can find out about them.". That sort of news does not come on silver platters.. the INQ does more just than post links or rants, but since you don't read how would you know ? No factual error here (1), to get inside sources like the INQ clearly does, you need groundwork.
>>Additionally, the things we find tend not to be spun so
>>hard they warp space around them.
> While this is always a subjective determination, this is
>one of the reasons I don't read the inq, because they do
>spin a lot of things with very biased 'reporting'. (And I
>use that term very loosly.)
Again no factual error (2), you simply disagree that the INQ wouldn't spin things around "so hard space warps around it". Can you prove the opposite, and in such manner that it clearly constitues a pattern ?
>> Net result, you win, and tend to get the truth, or at
>>least not a slightly reworded press release from us.
> Again, see my first point.
And see mine. Again no factual error (3). Blame the INQ for all you want, but not for publishing reworded press releases.
>I don't think he has a clue what the word 'docile' means. I
>mean this covers a lot of tech sites like AMDmb to a T ...
>except for that they're pretty much the exact opposite of
>docile.
I don't think you have a clue what he meant, even though it is blatantly obvious. He was referring to sites that are "docile" towards their advertisers, in other words, spin stories for money. Again, no factual error (4), just a serious reading comprehension problem on your side.
>> Some are too stupid to do more than reword press releases
>> and swipe slides from PDFs
>As opposed to the inq, which just rewords releases and
>swipes slides from other sites.
I'm sorry, where is the error again (5) ? Or are you just venting your opinion on the INQ ?
>So we're meant to believe that sites that design a
>comprehensive test that goes away from what the PR folks
>that just handed you a new product to test so that they can
>unveil any shortcomings that the PR folks don't want you to
>notice are in fact the bought out sites? Ha! Yeah, that
>makes a world of sense
This reading comprehension problem of yours is getting serious. I mean *very* serious. how on earth can you not understand what he is saying ? I can't rephrase it any more clear or obvious than he has, so really.. read it again, or get help. Let me quote it again:
90% of the sites will have a similar result, part A beats part B in commonly used apps, with A winning 80%, B winning 20%.
One site will have the opposite result, and come up with a bunch of new benches, most of which tend to be very curious. Some are games that you wonder why they are included, some are just odd. End result, product B wins by a lot, and goes against the grain, common sense, and good taste. If you are wondering, someone really did just make a lot of mone
Which site do you think he means is bribed ? And where do you think the strange benchmark selection comes from ? Hello ? Factual non-error number 6.
>> The bribery takes several forms, the first is pretty
>> basic, you send a check in with a review.
>I'm sorry, but I find it pretty hard to believe that PR
>folks bribing review sites is ever this blatant.
Again, not a factual error (7), but just an assumption of yours. Charlie claims to <i>know</i>, and like I said, is in a far better position to know than any of us. Either you call him a liar, prove him a liar, or just stick to making assumptions.
>> If you want your product in the next roundup, you better
>> have an ad campaign already paid for.
>I don't think I've seen more made up gibberish than this.
>This is going beyond bribery to say that sites are running
>an extortion ring on the manufacturers. How ludicrous can
>you get?
Yet another reading comprehension problem ? He claims that a paid for ad campaign may influence the editorial/review and the timing of an add campaign that appears on the editorial/review is anything but coincidental. Again, no factual error (lost count.. 8?), just your different assumptions and/or misreading.
>> The industry basically comes down to three things, the
>> stupid, the for sale, and the meek, and combinations
>> thereof.
>Funny how there's not even a small space left for the
>hardwar review industry to have any honest, bold, and
>intelligent sites. Not even the inq? I do believe this
>generalization is rather a gross factual error.
He did say "basically", which really implies the small space you are missing, but in his opinion, it indeed is a small place. And frankly, just looking at the number of sites that qualify as "intelligent" pretty much proves his point regardless of any payola. But that is only my opinion, yours may differ, but that still doesn't constitute any factual error. Quite on the contrary, I'm sure you have read this paragraph too:
Several sites are shining beacons of abjectly not selling out, and not regurgitating spun information in frankly demeaning ways.
. Hey guess what, he agrees with you ! Or you just made a factual error yourself (9).
>>They tend to have the hardest time of it, ending up not
>>getting comments from the companies, having to buy their
>>own hardware to review, and worse yet, not getting ad
>>dollars.
>I'm sorry, but sites that are any good at what they do and
>are willing to sign an NDA, just like everyone else, don't
>have significant problems. Nor for that matter do that have
>any problem earning advertising money if their site is any
>good.
That is <b>again</b>, your assumption, not a factual error (10). BTW, Can you back it up ? How many sites can you name that flourish financially, in spite of having to buy their equipment because they don't get if from the manufacturers ? Do you think its coincidental that Aces is slowly bleeding to death, the RWT has trouble finding funding and advertising while THG flourishes ?
>> The sites and people in the industry that stand up sadly
>> don't tend to last.
>No, the sites that work against the industry don't tend to
>last. You can work with the industry, still be honest, and
>not sell out
I'm getting tired.. where is the factual error number 11 ? Oh wait, there is none, you just have a different opinion.
>> Well yes, it is, and I have witnessed most of it
>> personally, and the rest I have heard from to many trusted
>> sources to disbelieve.
>Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that it isn't the
>other way around, that he's heard most of it from many
>'trusted' sources and witnessed some of it personally.
OMG.. is that supposed to be factual error number 12 ?? You THINK he got the quantities of his sources mixed up ? ROFL..
>> If I had anyone who was willing to go on the record, I
>> would dearly love to publish names
>Yeah right. Out of all of those 'trusted' sources, not a
>single person will go on record? And out of all of his
>supposed personal experiences, we're meant to believe that
>he couldn't possibly record a conversation or otherwise come
>up with his own evidence to "go on the record"?
Not only is that credible, its quite logical, if not most evident.Just who exactly would you think would be compelled to stand up, and publically produce such evidence ? Who would be willing to face a lawsuit for libel and lose his job just to please you or the INQ ? Even if you personally don't think its likely, it certainly doesn't make this factual non error n°13.
>> It was stated that it was given as a special preview to
>>the site, which set off warning bells number 1-3 in my
>> head.
> How is that not just your typical NDA situation?
Here comes reading comprehension problem number.. what. 4 ?
No <b>of course</b> this is not your typical NDA situation, typical NDA's expire at the same date for all.
>> the current dual core chips are all going to suck on games
>> regardless of whether they come from Intel or AMD. Both
>> are heat limited and will debut several clock bins below
>>their single core counterparts.
>How is being a few hundred MHz lower going to 'suck' on >games?
Hu ? How is being more expensive, hotter and slower, NOT anything else than sucky compared to single cored alternatives ?
>God forbid! However, some games are already multi-threaded.
Not a single current "multithreaded" game will run faster on upcoming DC chips than on existing, higher clocking SC chips. Wanna take bets ?
>And future games based on these engines are also going to be
> multi-threaded. So dual core will rock those games
FFS, try reading the article, and not line per line. Did you miss this:
It does mean however that until software catches up, most likely not this year, that gaming is going to suck on them
Again, no factual error number ~15 or so. in fact, its so evident, I can't believe having to rebut this.
>The literal impossability of blowing dead goats aside.
I think I'm gonna call it day right here. I asked you to backup your claim of "a great number of factual errors in that rant", and so far, 15+ of your statements have not contained anything resembling a factual error. you disagree with his opinion, fine, but factual errors ? Not so far, let alone "a great number" that would be sufficient reason to ignore the editorial. But hey, there are some spelling errors in there, I'm surprised you haven't pointed these out.
<b>BTW, don't bother replying, unless you can keep it concise and to the point as well logical. I have better things to do than argue wether or not you can blow dead goates, and if you can't, if that proves the article is meritless.</b>
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =