Actually no it isn't.  It's what you want to believe which is how you view the situation.  With every interview Phil does, every statement he makes, he put his reputation on the line.  Its way more different from some PR person telling you something, then the head of the entire gaming division at MS telling you something.  No, Phil will not answer every question nor would the expectation should even be there as it would be silly to give up to much information on your current and future plans.  What Phil has done is position MS to compete on multiple fronts.  From having a device to deliver games, to having a service to deliver games, to compete and not get left behind in the cloud race.  You name it, MS has been making a lot of smart moves since he took over.

Tell me what wrong stuff has Phil stated.  I also remember those conversations but they mostly involved not seeing things he stated as fast a gamer believe they could come into reality.  As always, gamers believe a company has infinite resource, time, money etc.  They have not clue what it takes to make anything happen.

I neither love or hate Phil but what I do see is someone who has changed the direction of where the Xbox and gaming in general within MS was going.  I actually believe if Phil did not get promoted, MS probably would have moved out of gaming. which is a strong point for Phil.  

So you want MS to move out of gaming.  Why would that be.  I have no allegiance to any gaming system or company.  My allegiance is to games and which ever system has the games I want to play, I purchase it.  Its the sole reason I always purchase a PS system because Sony always have want I want.  MS sooner or later has what I want and sometimes Nintendo.  I personally see MS in the space being a positive because it keeps Sony also being positive.  To each their own.

I admit that I do love the Xbox brand but I'm gonna defend Phil anyway. There were times I think he was TOO transparent and it hurt the company. One example was when they got Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusive for a year. People asked if it would be coming to PS4 and he was like "Yeah, we have it exclusive for a year.".

People just waited for the PS4 version. Nobody won. He could have and SHOULD have spun it but he didn't.

We know that isn't how it happened. It was due to a very odd exclusivity claim made on E3 that people were questioning and even then they took a long time to confirm it was timed exclusivity.

Plus couple months or so after he said how much he hated timed exclusivity and the like.

Context is key when reading text from someone especially during interviews.  Here is the text from Phil I believe you are referencing but I believe it doesn't mean what you believe it does.  Its contextualized to a specific point and doesn't cover timed exclusivity the way you think it does.

“I don’t know what deals get written. I’ve been pretty open about, I’m not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don’t see that in the deals we’ve done with Assassin’s and Shadow. We’ll have a marketing deal on those, but I don’t say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can’t play.

“I don’t think it’s good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal. I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals.

That's exactly how it went. First it was spun at E3. When questioned he says it was timed exclusive. Unless there was a time he lied and I missed it, he came clean immediately when asked. I think was on Twitter as well but we can dig up the exact date it was announced and the exact date he said it wasn't exclusive, this being the internet and all. 

*Edit* did some googling. E3 was June 10-12 2014. 

This article was August 13, 2014

https://www.polygon.com/2014/8/13/5998285/microsoft-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusive-limited-time

Can't find the tweet where some guy asked if it was exclusive and Phil replied that it wasn't--mainly because there were so many people asking the same thing.

In any case, if you can show me an example between announcement date and the date of this article where Phil lied, I will concede that you F'd me in the A. If not, YOU  just got F'd in the A!!

Sure context is key. And the important part is that MS have been doing, actually invented, what he says he isn't a big fun. And it is fun that he think a 30 day partial content timed exclusivity is worse than a full year of full exclusivity.

As I said he didn't lie in tweet. The presentation of MS at E3 used the strange wording that got people discussing. Then SE couldn't clarify (due to contract). And later when pressed Phill said it was timed. You see that the link you gave is roughly 1 month after E3, which basically shows it wasn't immediately clear that it was timed.

So... You're saying no one gets "F'd in the A". 😢

Do we need someone to be right or wrong so we can each other F'd in the A? Why?

You are not reading the quote correctly.  He is stating that Yes, MS make marketing deals with developers/publishers but they never hold back any content in those deals or make such deals.  Yes, they will make time exclusive deals where they pay for a period of time where the game is exclusive to their system but never will they make a time exclusive where the developer/publisher will lock features or content from another system permanently.

My point is that people will take a statement like this and generalize it to fit their opinion but that is wrong.  That is a way for people to twist the context of a statement to make it fit an opinion instead of taking it exactly as it was phrased.  Even in your statement you appear to take that statement and conform it to your opinion instead of taking it as phrased and its only from a part of the interview which doesn't cover the complete context of the question asked.  This is the problem with the internet where people take pieces and parts of an answer and conform it to an opinion which most times isn't correct.

When you take a statement and try to conform it to your opinion, you first need to ask yourself are you really reading the statement or are you trying to make it conform to what you want to believe.  In order to make that statement conform to your opinion, you would need to make follow up questions to clarify your additional assessments.  Without doing that, you are just making an assumption on what you believe Phil is saying which isn't correct.