Well, elevating form over content is a hallmark of the superficial. Formalism dictates that the way something is said is more important than the meaning of the words.
But form is content in its own right; in a forum, the tone, diction and precision of someone's contribution contains a lot of metadata about their own emotional investment in the topic, relevant background knowledge, and willingness to participate in constructive discussion.
Bugsy's comment may have included some factually accurate content, but his form of expression is a signal of questionable credibility and a potential conversational rathole (such as this has become) should one choose to engage him further.
I wouldn't say we've elevated form over content. Only that we require form to meet certain minimal standards. This requirement allows us to keep discussions productive and evidence-focused -- in other words, our standards for form result in improved content.
Ignoring those requirements leads to low-content discussion like, for example, this one.
