It actually feels really closed-minded - like you've walked into a conceited professor's office and told him you have doubts about one of his ideas and he's looked down his glasses at you and talked about how most people prefer McDonalds to amuse-bouche at Pierre Gagnaire in Paris.
How about considering whether there are reasons other than 'it looks foreign so lesser programmers don't bother with it'? If you google around you find there are plenty of people who suggest practical reasons (too many fragmented implementations, hard to debug, etc.) as to why it's not caught on, and in fact a lisp like clojure seems like an attempt to learn lessons about what might work better or not. But no, we have these patronising proclamations and the article is over.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-lisp per se, but I've come to think as I've seen more of the programming world (and worked with good developers as well as bad) that language has less of an impact on a project than I previously thought.
What I hate is the smug attitude a lot of lispers have, as if it's some incredible magical secret that only smart people can understand and if only we'd all see the light this world of shit code would turn upside down. It's hard to prove anything in the complicated world of programming, and I just don't buy this idea that it's magically better.
We should admit the subjective nature of these things, admit that it's really hard to tell what kind of a difference a language makes and instead of smug patronising talk of how wonderful language X is, point out what is unique about the language and stay humble.
I much prefer PG's more practical detail-orientated explorations of lisp and what makes it powerful in the first place to this one.