I've had many discussions with Melvyn as well via Facebook, and I respect his passion for the "purest" form of the game. And on mist counts, his ideals lean towards what many of us would also hold up as ideals. Where I part ways from Melvyn is in his rigidity in accepting anything less than ideal. Unfortunately, in some cases, the fight for ideal simply isn't conducive to the reality for where people live (e.g. if you live in Upstate New York, you can't have firm and fast year round given the spring/fall and lack of pure sandy ground, so you accept the inherent limitations and embrace what you can).
But looking at Melvyn's points, many do have merit from an architectural standpoint, but it's never as black & white as portrayed:
Hazards to Defeat the Aerial Game - I imagine Melvyn meant firm and fast greens with appropriate slopes to eliminate a sloppily planned approach, where you could come in from any angle. Of course that's a reasonable thought and I don't like it when I "get away with" some poor tee shots via today's technology. Firm & fast goes a long way towards demanding more thought.
But at the same time, I accept that trees (or "aerial bunkers" if I remember VKmetz's name for them), can achieve the same purpose, especially in areas where it's not possible to maintain F&F year round. A well-positioned specimen tree can provide plenty of interest and fun (and potential for creative shotmaking). But like everything else in life, people need to find a balance between the extreme positions held. Sometimes trees work, sometimes they are hideous blights. Sometimes a treeless landscape works, sometimes it eliminates the importance of control of the tee.
Distance Devices - I'm fine with the thought and sometimes wish I hadn't grown up thinking you needed a number. After learning some of the visual tricks architects use to deceive players, it's a shame to see that art negated by an "answer key" in your hand. I guess that's part of the reason I enjoy blind shots and extreme elevation change, since they go a long way towards making the game more multi-dimensional than simply dialing up a number. But if others want to use them, more power to them. They can speed up play for some, and I've never felt like someone else having an exact number has given them an extreme advantage over me.
Pre-1900 Penal Hazards - Have their place at times, but I think there's so many creative ways of imposing penalties, that focusing on only the most severe hazards misses out. Awkward stances, elevation changes, short grass as a hazard, visual uncertainty, etc. all can negate the advances of technology without the "all or nothing" types of hazards. I'll always want recovery possibilities to be part of the game, rather than an steady dose of "take your medicine" every time.
Ultimately, the game we love can take on so many forms, all reflecting some mythical "pure form" to some extent. I get the sense that Melvyn takes on the pre-existential approach, appealing to the perfect and focusing so much attention on what is missing or less than perfect. I'm more satisfied to embrace the elements that do reflect the form, but not worry so much about purity.