Maybe this is just my innate pedantry talking, but I think the opposite pathology is common too: some people are great at writing convincing but illogical/weakly-supported arguments that only fail when broken down and looked at in a granular, nitpicky way. Strong norms against that sort of response might make discussion threads less annoying on average, but they are also a boon to sophists, charismatic charlatans and sincere but overconfident bullshitters.

A nice thing about bottom-posting, and even more so inline-posting, is that is a weak certificate that the person replying has actually read the whole message.

>Whenever you start to see multiple quote snippets appear in an HN (or any forum) comment thread, it's basically guaranteed to have died and splintered into a bunch of uncharitable nit picks

Citation needed.

>It encourages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

[Insert smarmy HN-stlye dismissal here]

</sarcasm>

You could argue though, that the post that gets a reply like that was itself Gish galloping. Somebody just took the time to try to address all the points.

As an aside, Gush galloping is eerily similar to amplification attacks.