I think you would do well to answer that question first, as your question presupposes this question has already been answered, when it fact it has not.

Asking why X is superior to Y is nothing more than an attempt to place the burden on someone else rather than yourself. You presupposed that Y is superior to X without any proof being offered.

It's akin to me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife," or other questions like that.

> Have I? What's easy to misinterpret?

So, specifically, with your statements, you make it seem like you've already proven your side, when in fact, you've done no such thing. It's disingenuous and manipulative. So, either you meant to be that way (dishonest), or you simply made a mistake of not backing up your opinion (What you are arguing against).

So, considering the later is what you are arguing against, it's very easy to assume you are simply trying to be dishonest. I'd like to think better of HN, and assume that people generally speak their opinion, and only assume they are speaking fact when they are providing sources or it's something I also know about.

> Well, I prefer the latter because it leads to a community where I can take more posts at face value and thus learn quicker.

Their is asking for clarification, and asking for clarification rudely, which is what I saw happening, as did others, I imagine. Their is value in asking for citations, no one questions that. The GP was clearly stating an opinion based on his own observations. The question in response was of little value because it was merely being antagonistic.

> I don't think it's unreasonable to encourage this kind of behaviour.

Peppering phrases with weasel words? People should just say what they think, rather than qualify every statement with qualifying statements. Case in point:

> It seems to have very little cost.

Citation needed.