And the bottom line is that once a poster is made aware that he is engaging with a family member of the player he is criticizing, he should back off, even if he feels his criticism is warranted. Continuing the argument falls under the classification of douchery...
...and I like Carl, too...
That is 100% a fair point of view. I saw the exchange and I didn't feel that Carl was impolite. In fact, he was far more polite to Lyle Sr. than he was in writing what he initially did regarding Lyle. I'm just not so sure that I agree with most of you with regards to the distinction between:
1) Writing a bunch of things about players, when we "know" that parents/friends of said players are on the board (lurking if not posting).
2) Having an on-board disagreement directly with parents/friends of players.
Most here are arguing that #1 is ok, but #2 turns you into a .
I would argue that #2 is ok as long as you are being civil about it.
As to #1, I personally try to temper my comments re: individual players because I think the fact that there isn't a family member there to argue with doesn't mean that they aren't reading what is written.
So, if Carl is a , he is a for going overboard with #1. Getting on him for his banter with Lyle Sr. makes people feel better, but let's not act like the lack of "face-to-face" arguments with players' families on the board makes this a welcome environment for players' families. There is a reason that most of them don't post here. I would imagine that most of them are smart enough to see through the "Good luck to your son" in one thread by poster X, while poster X is ripping the same player in another thread (which presumably is ok because the parent didn't post in that particular thread).
BTW - I'm not saying this is a solvable issue on a public board. I just find some of the logic strained.
