This is a particularly good sentence from the Ken rant:

But let me get one thing extremely—and I mean extremely—clear. Any honest criticism that I find I take seriously, at least long enough to see if there are any important truths that I might be missing. There is an old saying, “You do not understand your opponent’s ideas until you can argue them better than he can”—and I take that seriously. Some critics are fantastic in the number of new truths you can learn from them

Great!

But talk is cheap. It is merely an assertion to say:

But in general, good criticism shows me new areas that I can include. I FUCKING LIVE FOR GREAT CRITICISM, IT MEANS MORE TRUTH FOR A MORE INTEGRAL MODEL. I have a Geiger counter that clicks like crazy when the good stuff gets near, and the good stuff is any stuff I haven’t been able to make room for, to include, to not marginalize, to not , to transcend-and-include

Unless you BACK IT UP. 

I hate to say it, but, maybe I am simply used to a quality of argument in the blogosphere, that Ken hasn't developed yet.  This particular fast, off-the-cuff ability to pull in facts, argument, seriousness, honest, and snark - all on the fly - it's a skill, and the people that are good at it have thousands of readers reading them religiously.

I guess Ken's just too old to ride the new wave!  Evolution has come, and left him behind!

Well, Stu and C4 have his back.  They both are damn good at this blogging stuff.