So a post, like this one, starts. It gets read, someone replies, then someone else and so on. So if the post tickles your interest such that you reply, how many of the previous replies will you read before entering your own?
Here's my point. While it's good that folks reply, once a post is in to say it's second page of responses, does anyone bother to read all that has gone before prior to adding their own 2 d's worth? Does adding yours become akin to scribbling it on a wall somewhere. Perhaps the only persons who'll read it are the next poster and the postie. Add to this that so many posts go off track diverting in all sorts of directions, once that happens is it time to draw the line and start afresh?
In truth it doesn't really matter for the bulk of what's posted. They're not of earth shattering importance, interesting and informative perhaps but not needing deep thought. Once in a while however someone posts a question of a nature that requires real consideration. If folks aren't going to read all the replies then firstly we get repetition but more importantly the nuances of the discussion are lost. Things that may have been written that could sway your thinking go unread and that seems to devalue the point of the post.
So, in all honesty, how much of a post do you read? Is there a case for limiting replies if what's happening is we're guilty of little more than spouting off our own opinions in isolation?