I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.What's nonsense are your blanket statements.
I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.
Yes, I recommended the 24-105 because it's what I have. But I have also used the 24-70 quite extensively before purchasing my 5DII, and I spent a good amount of time trying to decide between the 5DII body + 24-70 and 5DII kit. I went with the kit because, for my purposes, that difference between 70 and 105 would actually make a difference, despite it not being "too much." And the IS noticably reduces my camera shake, especially from about 50mm or so out. I also really enjoy having the IS for video - even if I don't use video that often.
Also, I can't speak for others, but I don't see myself ever owning the 24-70. It would be a redundant lens in my kit considering everything else I have or will purchase. Though I wouldn't be surprised to find many others out there who don't buy both lenses just because of Canon's "clever marketing strategy."
People most definitely are likely to recommend what they have. But usually - not always, but usually - people have what they have for a reason.