I agree completely. Mason does a fair job of distilling, into one sentence, what the author was only barely able to do in 500. Not to mention that this idea - the importance of understanding probability - is hardly one that needs to be reiterated to 2+2ers.

Whether the tone was meant to be whimsical or sincere, earnestly technical or tongue-in-cheek, there is no excuse for the author's contempt for style. If this is a parody, it is only a parody of bad writing.

Ed and Mason's defense of this article strike me as suspect.