If you think about it, it's sort of silly to think that we are biased against any particular architect(s), much less contractors.
We like what we like, we don't like what we don't like, and we all use our individual and collective experiences in doing so.
For instance, why the heck would anyone be "biased" against Rees Jones, or Jack Nicklaus, or Tom Fazio, or Tom Doak, or Stephen Kay, or Brian Ault, or Arthur Hills, or anyone else? It defies logic and common sense.
If any architect anywhere designed a course that appealed to our senses, to our feel for the game, to our understanding and intellect, why wouldn't we hail that work and want to tell others here about it?
I know when I play a cool course that I wasn't familiar with previously, my first inclination is to share that info with others who I know appreciate the same thing.
Similarly, when I play a course that fails to inspire, or when I see one where I feel that a real opportunity has been lost, I try to point out here the shortcomings in the hope that we might all share in a common understanding, or conversely, hear from others as to how my experience and opinion might be incomplete or otherwise lacking.
However, accusing someone of "bias" does neither. It's a classic example of the inarguable argument. It turns into a "yes you are", "no I'm not" argument that is both interminable and contributes absolutely nothing to educational debate.
I know that others here have made the same plea, but for Heaven's sake, can't we bury this "bias" bullshit once and for all?