People with the aptitude to become community or project leaders often like a good debate (OK, sometimes it seems like an argument), and will often provoke it, if only to see how well the point can be defended. When the chips are down though, rational decisions based on facts is what wins.
I may not be as gruff as some of the more infamous names around, but I will often argue a point, as well as play devil's advocate, just to see how the debate plays out. I learn a lot that way, whether I'm correct or not.
[Edit] Re:Linus I agree that Linus' reply was a rude, and perhaps I've been desensitized to this over time, and let it slide too often. My comment however, was meant for the more general case to which I replied.
Calling someone's theory bullshit is rude and offensive. Telling someone they are full of shit is also. Abrupt and to the point as a general class of communication further is often rude. Making or attempting to make people feel worse than you need to to get your point across efficiently is offensive.
In this case, for example, Linus could have simply said, "That's a nice theory. If you can prove it, we'll consider it." That's more to-the-point, communicates the entirety of what Linus managed to in his email, and also is not rude.
There is also context and a dynamic that outsiders may not always aware of. A colleague of mine could say "you're full of shit - come back with something that works", and I would be more likely to take that as a challenge than an insult. Similarly, within the LKML, this response is somewhat expected, and you better have your defense ready for the ensuing battle.
"And you're just full of bullshit."
You can be "abrupt and to the point" without personal attacks. Linus personally attacked him, without knowing all the facts.
More to the point, Linus is known for that kind of comment. A lot of the time his point is as important as it is off-putting (see the git vs. C++ rant.)