TV.com

Here is my Super Smash Bros. Brawl code info:

My name's CaptN.
location: New Jersey, U.S.A.
I'm on wi-fi at least generally once, or twice daily between 4pm-11pm EST, among other times I'm on. Of course, now I'm on DST. I'm not too hot a player, but I am improving.
Brawl code:
3136-6357-8439 PM me when/if you add me. As I say in Brawl,
"Let's Have At It!".

Hope to See Ya Online!

GameSpot is own by Cnet
Gametrailers is owned by Spike, who is owned by MTV Networks{Viacom} IGN is owned by Fox Networks
1up is owned by Ziff Davis Holdings{ZDnet is connected to/owned by Cnet}

My point is, all these sites are connected to a network. Note that I didn't say the same network; I said a network. Thus, all these sites advertise in some various ways, shapes, & forms. So, bias is on almost every game site. As I've said in my blog, twice before, & as I'm saing now, it is a matter of Pick Your Poison. I'm not saying I'm convinced that Jeff getting canned wasn't a shaddy looking deal, but All games sites pull these tricks. It's just that Cnet got caught w/ dirty hands, if this is a dirty deal. It's almost always better to:

1. have accounts at multiple gaming sites, &
2.listen to other player reviews, mostly, as opposed to site editors reviews

Doing These nearly ensure that if you investigate a game clearly by researching it, you'll find it's easier to get a handle on the state of a game being good, or bad. You can't trust only one site. I'm staying at GS for the community. But, I also am at other game sites. I don't know about any of you other Cnet Entertainment users, but I'm staying.

All game sites are prone to this, & participate/take part in these types of activities. The only difference here, is that Cnet/GS got caught with their hands dirty. If they could've covered this up, it's a sure bet they would've. As I said, other game sites take part in these activities daily, we just don't know about it, cause they generally cover their tracks, pretty well. So like I said today in my short blog about this, I really don't know if I'll stay here, or not, because the situation's just as bad elsewhere. So, it's really a matter of, as I said in my blog, "Pick Your Poison". I never trusted the score system here anyway. I always only looked at the in depth portion of reviews here anyway. On top of that, I mostly only read the GS user reviews, & very rarely, more like occasionally, the actual staff reviews. I don't remember for how long, but Cnet has been moderatly waning in quality over some time. And they're a business. So, I'm kinda not really surprised. The various opinions of Jeff, & myself may not have always been in step w/ one another, but what's the point is that he gave his honest opinion. And that's part of what journalism is about; Giving the facts about something, then giving their own spin on any given issue, only after the facts have been given. Should this be true, The only thing that, from my point of view can redeem GS, is if they bring back Jeff, &/or give him an apology, or GS should give a legitimate reason why they fired a senior editor of 10 years. If he got canned for doing something he legitimately shouldn't have been doing, I can accept that. But if he got severed, for just giving his honest opinion, then that's just knocked both Cnet/GS down a few points w/me, as it concerns creditbility, & anti-censorship. This is unfortunetly, ... corporate America. I guess I'm just dissappointed in Cnet, & GS. but like I said, I'm not really surprised, since I've know for awhile about Cnet falling from grace at a moderate paceing for the past while. The sad thing is, this guy just lost his job, for doing his job. *sarcasim*->Maybe he didn't get the memo, ...Cnet, & GS are now making their editors' opinions for them. maybe he did, & choose to be the rebel, or maybe he did it to stand up for his pride, & integrity. Personally, I've noticed as of late GS is a little more internet-gustapo-ish, & strict on things. For instance, a month, or so ago I got a warning for "bumping a topic" w/ a "rant". What's interesting is, in the GS TOS, there is no exact definition, of what amount of time needs to pass that posting on an older topic constitutes a ban, or a warning. As a matter of fact, there is very little definitive rules in this "bumping" issue. I guess for most of the TOS, they{Cnet, & GS} expect me to use common sence, or be clarivorant to keep in check. I guess they do want people to do just that, so that people don't purposely come to the edge/threashold of TOS violation, w/o going over the edge so they technically can't get in trouble. Anyway, I'm posting this exact post on my blog.