I said that it is worth remembering when you choose your tone of approach... That is all...
In my experiences on here, the single most important factor in any sort of exchange on here is the attitude of the recipient of any criticism. One can temper one's words to the maximum extent, but if the individual being criticised chooses to overreact, it will all be for naught.
Look at the threads on Pennard for an example of how it should work.
The Pennard thread has been highlighted as an example of a healthy debate with plenty of good points being made from both sides. Sean isn't the architect responsible for Pennard. He doesn't own Pennard and he has not spent the last 20+ years tweaking it here and there, constantly trying to make it a better course. There is a slight difference.
I am not making excuses for anyone. All discussions on this website should be conducted in a manner where the participants show respect to each other and refrain from personal or nasty comments.
Donal nails it.
First of all, frank commentary is often a thin cover for rudeness.
A course can be subtly panned or not recomended quite easily by what's not said or prefaced by explaiining a certain style is not one's preference.
I think of the best reviews and recomendations I've read from our own Mark Rowlinson, and I can't think of a diirectly negative or insulting comment about any of the courses he's reviewed, yet you can see which courses he prefers(and I've NEVER gone wrong with his recomendations).
When reading Scott's review of TEC, it was pretty clear it did not have the subtlety (or sensitivity) of Mark's reviews.
I'm not saying it didn't have positives, but it had some pretty harsh negatives which in my opinion could've been reworded to avoid insult to a man who has put his heart and soul into not only designing, but building, operating, and yes even bartending to make a dream work for him and his family.
That's not exactly the same as criticizing a Jack Nicklaus design that he's made 4 helicopter visits to.
Put another way, if I were the owner architect of TEC, I would've taken offense.
If frank commentary is fair game (and I actually don't agree that it is) ,why is a frank defense not?