I think it is kind of strange if anyone claims that "camera A produce better images than camera B because it has sensor technology X", then proudly proclaim that they could care less about technology? Is inconsequential the right word (English not being my native language).
I mean, it is perfectly kosher to say that I prefer the images that I have been able to get out of camera A to those I have been able to get out of camera B (for whatever reason). Without getting into a technology debate about the hows and whys.
When you start claiming that CCD has inherent technology advantages/disadvantages vs CMOS, then you are making a theoretic, technical statement (possibly based on sensible observations, but seemingly not a scientific systematic approach to observing differences). That is leaving the subjective/artistic world and moving into the objective/scientific world, and you should not be surprised to see counter-arguments based on (ones understanding of) physics or science.
An obvious critique is that of correlation vs causality. Perhaps images that was produced on CCD cameras and presented on this forum are deemed, on average, "1 subjective point" better vs images that was produced on CMOS cameras and presented on this forum. Possible reasons for this (if true):
1. CCD has inherent benefits
2. Cameras using CCDs tends to have advantages over cameras using CMOS (that is not directly caused by sensor choice)
3. People using CCD cameras tends to post only their best images to this forum, while CMOS users posts some moderately good ones as well.
4. CCD cameras have existed for a longer time than CMOS cameras, thus, the accumulated number of amazing images might be expected to be higher for CCD
5. People using CCD cameras are better photographers than people using CMOS cameras
6. People judging images tends to be more positive towards images that they know to be produced by certain camera (technology)
I would suggest that it is impossible to be certain if any of the above are the most important factors (or if the most important factor was left out). We can certainly speculate.
I am frequently frustrated by side-by-sides where someone obviously tried to make each camera shine on its own terms, using whatever development/photoshop trick he/she knew. While this may seem like a good idea, what you get is two subjectively different images and (for my part) none the wiser. I'd rather see one (or several) interpretations where a skilled photoshop user tried to make one of the files look as good as possible/as realistic as possible/as close as possible to the photographers intention, then "force" the other file to be as similar as possible (including noise/loss of details in shadows, posterization, if applicable). An estimate of the time spent and number/complexity of operations would be enlightening.
An other alternative would be to use testcharts in the scene for recording color/blur/... and use something like RawTherapee to make matching "sort-of-objective but still pleasing" output using documented algorithms. The necessary difference in sharpening, noise reduction, color correction matrix etc would be interesting to correlate with the visual output.
-h