That makes sense. If you view Haskell as a research platform, pointing out ugly corners of the type system is entirely appropriate and even helpful for people working on GHC. From the outside, for those of us that would like to see these ideas gain greater adoption, it can be frustrating or even seem petty to focus on them.
It is helpful and appropriate to point out bugs, and his comments did help fix the Typeable exception problem in GHC 7.8. But he doesn't go through the usual tracker and mailing list to report these things. He goes off and writes these angry blog posts and extrapolates small defects to justify sensationalist claims about the whole language. On one hand you have a respected PL researcher, on another you have a guy who is like the axe-grinding "Zed Shaw" of functional languages.
Yes, this is what compelled me to comment in the first place: based on what I've read of his blog, that comparison (and his reputation in general) seems completely unjustified. There's a world of difference between this kind of spirited but productive debate and content-free holy wars between roughly identical languages that get the spotlight in the "mainstream" tech blog circuit.
In fact, his post on exceptions in Haskell and his criticism of monadic IO led me to work on some alternatives (algebraic effects) which, oddly enough, helped me understand Haskell's approach at a deeper level. I wouldn't have known about the issue if it was only on the bug tracker.
