What I see is an article that defends the hypothesis that CGI is far from perfect. It does so focussing on three important issues, and presenting arguments why CGI "suxs". IMO, the article is better written than most articles here - although it's not perfect. You may not agree with its conclusions, but all you say (as an anonymous person) is that the article is ignorant. But you don't actually refute the arguments given.

All I can say is that you are ignorant one here. And that's without even addressing whether or not CGI "sux" or not.

Abigail