Just for starters, I think that his overarching "philosophy", that of emotional response, reduces punctuation rules to a set of purely personal prejudices with a thin veneer of ex cathedra pronouncement.

In particular, his example of the comma rule quoted from Strunk and White, violates, in my eye, the rule of clarity and invisibility. That comma before the and is anything but invisible to me. In the rare cases that its absence introduces ambiguity the ambiguity can be resolved by a simple recasting of the list.

Finally, I'd like to thank him for actually quoting the rules about punctuation and quotation marks. Without the statement of those rules we would have had to guess at just what they were.