And who is the most prominent poster in all of those unproductive threads?
Someone needs to provide a counterpoint and Chad and Hal have better things to do that run around trying to quell arguments that probably won't fully go away for at least another 20 or so years and only then through simple attrition.

Those of us who take issue with EAA's direction are not going to take our ball and go home, we are going to work to try to change things.
I don't want that. But lambasting the organization for adapting to change (such as following the transition of a large swath of the builders from rag and tube to metal and composite) or featuring expensive aircraft in their magazines (unless they are warbirds....that's an exception that I don't understand precisely since few if any of us will ever own a warbird such as a P-51). However, I do think that the blaming Mac for all that ills Sport Aviation (when the real problem is a lack of contributions from builders and designers) or misguided attempts to slam a significant part of the homebuilding community are not getting us anywhere. How about hearing some actual suggestions that might be productive and supportive to the folks who are feeling left out but aren't destructive or offensive to those of us who aren't seeing why people are getting so irritated?

Feel free to do the same, but kindly refrain from referring to our opinions as "crap."
The "crap" is just this attitude that if you're building something high performance or expensive, that it's counter to the "spirit of experimental aviation" as though it is synonymous with "slow" and "cheap". That's what I cite as crap and warn about as being divisive.