You have to write judiciously. Sometimes the best answer is the shortest and most direct. Conspiracists love to mire down a losing argument in minutia, and often a lengthy answer provides them with the minutia they need.
For example, when Millen[n]ium argues that the lunar module plans were destroyed in order to keep later engineers from discovering that it wouldn't have worked as designed, the proper answer is simply to identify the Subverted Support fallacy: detailed information is available and engineers can use it to verify the operation of the lunar module. That's a complete and correct answer. No need to explain why something happened that didn't happen.
It's sometimes interesting and informative to discuss the composition of documentation in aerospace development, the prevailing retention policy for that industry, the nature of historical significance (one person's trash is another's treasure), and the responsibility to help preserve the national heritage. But since those are "soft" points, they can be argued subjectively until the cows come home (and have their lips ripped off by aliens).
It's not important whether Grumman followed prevailing policy. It's not important whether Grumman had (or should have had) an appropriate commitment to historical preservation. It's instead important that the supposed condition for which an explanation is demanded just isn't true.
It's impolite to be dismissive, but getting straight to the point isn't dismissive.
|