True...the author was getting close to making a couple of decent points, but couldn't pull it together coherently.

Generally, if I stumble across an article in a mainstream paper or magazine about a niche topic in which I have a specialized interest, I'm willing to cut the author a little slack if he/she keeps the article at a level designed for mass consumption. I don't expect the sportswriter in the KC Star that does one distance-running article a year to be as good as the guy who does race reports every month in a magazine devoted to marathons. Likewise, I don't expect this NYT writer to be as good as Randy when it comes to analyzing the details of an FF program.

But still...is it too much to expect a little factuality? It just makes me cringe when the writer makes a broad fundamental claim - that FF loyalty is "loony" - based on a flawed experiment and other supporting evidence that is unrelated to FF programs.