I agree with DW. Dr. Greening may be a crackerjack materials scientist, and he may have valid critiques about the tone of discussion in this section of JREF. But his manner of communicating those critiques is contemptible.
I believe that dogs are stupid animals. To prove my point (scientifically), whenever my neighbor is away I throw rocks at the two dogs in his backyard. I poke them with a long stick. I laugh at them and call them stupid. All they can do is bark. You should see those stupid dogs bark! Woohoo, what fun!
That's my proof that dogs are stupid using the Greening method.
The tone in this section of the forum is due to the fact that these posts are not being generated by automated scripts, or robots sitting at keyboards, or even Vulcans. They're being typed by human beings, human beings who:
1. Can become frustrated when tremendous expended effort begins to feel pointless; and
2. Have a certain emotional reaction to being accused of murder or complicity in murder.
It is extraordinarily difficult for even the most patient man to debate, with perfect manners, another man who uses grossly dishonest tactics. A man or in this case, a group, who constantly changes subjects when cornered, who starts hit-and-run threads of discussion with what I call "drive-by" accusations, accusing but refusing to stand by said accusations after they've been answered, their response to simply show up in another thread and fire out another empty accusation to start the process over. These people return endlessly to simple issues of fact that have long since been debunked, again and again, years ago. It's a form of purposeful obtuseness that makes the effort of debate feel ineffective and often maddening.
Secondly, it is extraordinarily difficult for even the most charitable, kind, well-balanced human being to discuss an issue in cold, generous, emotionless tones when the subject of discussion is a vicious, completely unfounded accusation by the other party.
So, yes, after about the 100th Truther came by using the word "shill" and saying controlled demolition is "laughably obvious" (implying that anyone who claims not to see it is "in on it"), the forums grew quite contentious and even snide in tone. New "Truthers" were often not given the benefit of the doubt, and have often been treated unfairly based on the behavior of other members of their group.
That Greening has somehow convinced himself that
this tone is the dragon that needs slain, as opposed to the unspeakably ugly
cause of the tone, is impossible for me to understand. If you see good people acting badly, you should take a moment to understand
what made them act that way.
He of all people should know.
Even a straight post titled, "The Truthers are Wrong, but Your Tone is Also Wrong," could have been a valuable wake-up call. Instead, he's apparently found the debunkers behavior so distasteful that he's essentially joined the Truthers, adopting their tone and tactics, and in some ways nullifying his own work. He's doing exactly what they do: amplifying minor discrepancies in order to muddy the waters and suggest that all investigation to date has been pointless and flawed.
In the end it just makes debunking the ridiculous conspiracy theory that much more difficult and makes it that much harder for someone new to the subject looking for the truth to find it.
It's like seeing a police officer insult someone, and being so offended that you decide to devote your life to helping the criminals instead.
? 
