JessFranco: From the specific article you mention, it sounds almost like you object to articles that consider the technical merits of common suggestions.
It also seems that you ignored the question I asked. But I'll overlook that just this one time.
I don't really understand the horror with regard to calling something a "dead tree". I can't even imagine someone who is centrally involved in a dead tree publication, seriously using that as an attack on the many such publications appearing every year. (Did you see it as that?)
To me, "dead tree" didn't really add anything to the article, but used less bytes than "printed paper". To you, it was an assault on something or other. Time to calm down, perhaps?