In my opinion the article is entertaining for the sole reason that it depicts how fervently these singular and (slightly un·?)fortunately influential individuals hewed to their beliefs about language, regardless of how wrong they were (I suppose, subjectively, they weren't wrong – you can't be wrong in saying someone/something is (not) pretty to you, for instance – but their subsequent claims about language itself definitely were). Cool, they were humans too.
Fitting 30 into 29 is like, some sort of caricature of some things.
OK, I'm done.
I got my old shows to rewatch, analyze some fugly SQL (imagine a blogpost of a.CLOC <> b.LOC and a.MLD <> b.CLOC and...-like statements), and then do some actual studying.