I know about readability. I just don't understand why people that take the time to write a piece like that don't take the time to make their site readable. It is really totally counterproductive. It should not normally require a browser add-on in order to unlock the content of a webpage for someone with normal (or better than normal) eyesight.
That's mostly a subjective determination though. I found the text to be very readable and easy on the eyes.
I get and agree with what you are saying though the design has stayed the same since 2000. I am sure people have complained in the past but others (maybe even the majority who read 2600 on the regular not just the occasional view from a news aggregation site) have grown accustomed to it. Just a different way to look at the issue.
Printer friendly format at the bottom. 2600 doesn't care about readability or design really, it's not their MO and they're cool with it. The site has looked like that for at least 10 years now. I think if a lot of them had their way, you'd still be reading their press stuff on Usenet and only Usenet.