In reply to:
we're talking about communication here - not the real source of the problem.
it takes two people to communicate and it's up to the receiver to determine how he wants to take it. If he's offended, it's his choice - this has absolutely no bearing on who's fault it is.
Good points, wholly, and they evidence excellent perception. I agree with you as far as it goes, but I think there *are* cases where some folks are "offended" for no valid reason. 
In reply to:
BUT - knowing that DH has got to be a bit frustrated after hunting the cause of issues, the first communication HAS to be seen as convincing the customer that it's his problem.
I'm not so sure I buy that, as I have had a *lot* of experience dealing with people who are "uber-sensitive" and *far* too quick to take umbrage at the slightest suggestion that they might have *any* degree of fresponsibility for why something is "borken". It's a little like when you remind your teenager to turn out the lights and they respond, "I DO NOT* always leave the lights on! How dare you accuse me of that? Who said I left the lights on! That's not true! Why are you picking on me?" Shakespeare, wasn't it?: "Methinks thou dost protest too much"
In reply to:
Maybe we can convince DH support that they need to pretend that they're trying to get into someone's pants. That'd change the tone of those first messages. They'd include a couple drinks and maybe dinner and by the end everyone will believe that it really is their problem and take care of it.
Hey! That's a good plan, just as long as they don't spend any money or resources that could be better used to provide services or hardware for other customers for that level of "coddling". That is the "customer service" model for far too many American business these days, and those costs have to come from somewhere. I actually *like* a host that is "frugal" that way,. even to the point of aggressively managing clients that demand more attention than is reasonable for problems that are *not* really part of the hosting company's support responsibility (such as third party scripts - as mentioned in the TOS). That makes for a better value for the rest of us.
In reply to:
I'm not saying that DH staff aren't right that it's the customer's fault, just that it might need to be a bit less accusatory in tone (in some email) if they want a better and cooperative response.
That is another excellent point and I think *everyone* should try to be "less accusatory" in most circumstances; I'd also like to point out that neither you nor I even saw the email in question (the OP elected not to share it), so neither of us are really qualified to characterize the "tone" of the email. As you point out, it really doesn't matter- the receiver of the communication will generally characterize it in whatever way he chooses irrespective of what was actually said. In my experience, clearly "bad" tech support responses are usually shared by the recipient; I'm also dubious of claims that someone's communication was "condescending" or "accusatory" when they can't be bothered to actually report *what was said or written*.
In reply to:
This is *not* a logical argument and no amount of debate training is going to change anything. These are human communication issues - despite DH staff being ninjas.
That *does* nicely sum it up in my view, and I think you are "right on the money" with that assessment. 
That said, the obvious question is, "Why even respond to these types of posts?", and there is a strong and somewhat convincing argument to be made that there *is* no worthwhile reason to respond at all. The counterpoint to that argument is that, in public forums such as these, it is so easy for a poster to unfairly and/or unreasonably vilify another (person or company), making no effort to substantiate or provide support for their statements (I call these types of posts "a drive-by bashing", that some balance is added to what others reading the thread see by taking the time to challenge, or comment on, the reasonableness, or voracity, of the post.
Meh...I'm not sure it makes any difference anyway to this poster (his mind is made up), and your post artfully points that out. It *might*, however, give a subsequent reader some pause before assuming that what was reported was completely accurate and fair.
So, not knowing *what* DreamHost's initial response to this poster actually was, or the ultimate source of the problem, I can only trust my own experience. My experience with DH Tech Support's demeanor and "tone" is that they have been unfailingly personable, friendly, solicitous, and proffesional. My experience in tracking down problems with third-party scripts is that is almost always the script itself, its installation, or its operation that is the problem (though, as you point out, *that* is not so much the relevant issue with this poster).
Caveat Emptor, YMMV, etc. - all the standard disclaimers apply. PAX
--rlparker
