I don't think anyone was giving anyone else a hard time, just trying to get a better understanding of what was being said.
Look at the Droid X forums and you'll find a number of threads of people expressing how many there prefer the DX's display over the AMOLED or Super AMOLED displays. All of the various displays have pros and cons and opinions on them usually reflect an individual's personal preferences. Statements like "I like this" or "this is better" may mean a great deal to the person making the comment but don't really help others as much as they might. Knowing what specifically was liked or disliked seems much more likely to help others.
Here is a purely objective comparison of several displays,
http://www.gadgetsdna.com/iphone-4-retina-display-vs-motorola-droid-x-vs-droid-incredible-vs-evo-4g/4412/. Clearly, the AMOLED in the Incredible blows the others away in contrast, and the Super AMOLED in the Fascinate would probably be even better, but then look at the brightness and color accuracy numbers and one sees some of the tradeoffs. Which display is 'best' all depends on the test conditions and what is important to the individual making the assessment.
A single picture of a condition that makes the most of the advantages of one display is probably not a good basis for assessing the relative display quality. I've personally seen many examples of either intentionally or unintentionally controlling the environment, setup and images in display comparisons in order to control the outcome of video display comparisons. Any good comparison would include looking at different screens and pictures, under different lighting conditions, at different angles and so on. For example, in the picture in the link the black background used for the Fascinate screen really takes advantage of the contrast ratio of Fascinate, but what about a mostly white screen like a typical web page or different lighting conditions that would affect the perceived black level?
