It's not that you are anonymous (to some degree or another most everyone here is anonymous) but that your postings are "functionally anonymous" (I don't know if it's a language thing or not but I suspect you're not reading, you're skimming).
Functionally anonymous--at the very least, the point is that no one...especially not you...is taking responsibility or can be held accountable for the information you're posting. And the people you're quoting aren't here to explain or discuss. Because of that, the excerpts threaten to become nothing more than a tool to bludgeon people. And no one gets their hands dirty.
I read "functional", but it was too abstract for me to understand. Now I understand discussion here with the author is essential for you.
My view is this: When I read your opinion quoted by someone on another forum, if its source is given, its credibility isn't lost. I think non-experts may have a conversation with experts but that non-experts cannot have a discussion with experts, so I accept inconsistent experts' opinions as they are. You may think I denied your opinion, but I didn't mean to do.
As for "gospel", if I remember correctly, I have never written you are wrong (I am right).
What I think is most irresponsible is there is no consensus on mineral oil among experts (leather care manufacturers, tanneries, and leather goods manufacturers & suppliers). As I implied, I suspect Vaseline is guilty and that mineral oil is falsely charged, though this is just a lay opinion.
At least, scientific research is based on promise to write papers honestly, so there is little or no reason to doubt the experimental result by Dow Corning. Is this explanation unacceptable?