I think this series of posts captures the essence of this gentleman's comments pretty well. So many of you have taken this to a black and white, extreme issue of "no challenge" vs. "tough golf."
Jeff,
I think that's a reaction to the black and white statement "Those Days Are Over!", as if this type of bowling alley course is the only viable option in modern times.
It reflects a thinking that many of us find objectionable, quite obviously. 
Mike,
That's just it. A receptive course that allows a level of scoring comparable to a golfers normal score DOES NOT NEED TO BE A BOWLING ALLEY. That is a too black and white statement, seemingly saying that unless a design is tough, its crap.
In reality, most designs need to be somewhere in between. We can design little subtle strategies in courses, or tournament level challenges, sure, but most golfers don't realize them. Most golfers don't use them. They have more fun with the bombs away game. For that matter, their skill level is such that missing a green causes a bogey. Just how much higher a score does the architecture need to force?
And, for that matter is this anything different than what Mac said? Or is there any doubt that courses should be designed with an array of difficulties?
Its also related to the PGA Tour argument. Why do some of us want to keep their scores high? Why is the Tour stance that these guys are good and should make birdie so wrong to some? It also begs the question of "should there ever be a shot that cannot be played successfully?" (barring recovery shots from deep in the woods, etc.) What fun is it to be put in a spot where you have no shot at making a good shot?
I agree golf would be no fun with a condescending challenge, i.e., too easy a course. But, this gent is good enough to play in State Am tournaments and doesn't want roll overs. He just doesn't need to be embarrassed by shooting a 90. He doesn't think design should incorporate a shot that is beyond his capabilities to pull off perhaps 70% of the time. Nor does he like many (if any) real knuckle whiteners such as 200 yard carries over gulches or ponds. If he can't handle them, who can?
He has pretty strong, but typical views of what is the "right kind" of challenges and that includes challenge, but reasonable chance of success, and not overly severe penalty.
Again I ask, shouldn't design allow a reasonable chance of success with well played shots?
Shouldn't design avoid piling up high scores with poorly played shots? Who benefits from that?
Shouldn't design encourage bold play by making penalties something less than the death penalty?
What is wrong for designing for fun - i.e., allowing the golfer who is on to make plenty of birdies (or pars for lesser players) Is that so wrong for most courses, most holes?
And again, its a percentage thing - we all seem to talk in terms of tournament courses here, and they capture our attention. But does a course with tournament challenge work every day for the every day player? Bethpage, Bandon, etc. make their living on tourists looking for something different a few times a year, no? Not saying there is no room for those.