I've done the same. It's more so because he seems very passive -aggressive and often offers no support for his views. It's not that his views are necessarily wrong, but most everything he writes is an assertion with no evidence or something that he has determined intuitively. I care about people who are able to give insights through logic and data. That's why I read Asymco and listen to Hypercritical with John Siracusa. Those are both very logical, very objective people. Marco usually just throws out opinions and rarely offers real insight. There's just no reason for me to respect his writing when he offers nothing but his own thoughts and no support. This is especially true because the things he writes are often pseudo-correct or highly debatable.

But my real problem is how he responds to his criticism. On several occasions I've challenged his arguments or asked him to elaborate via Twitter. His response is usually to get angry, make some kind of sarcastic remark at me, and treat me as if I were antagonizing him. It's an incredibly childish response. It's as if anyone who tries to debate his points is not only wrong, but a dick as well. Frankly, if his is unwilling to accept critiques and entertain a discussion, why does he even blog? More importantly, why should I read him?