Why the rancour??
I think Parker is sincere in stating "Diversity in wine is something that I have taken seriously… but it has to be good, not flawed, and not just different." I think he is pretty good at evaluating some very diverse wines. There is a general style that he prefers, as is the case with every wine critic, and once a consumer gets that, it's pretty easy to determine whether Parker's preference is similar to his own and whether Parker's ratings are useful to him.
Despite all the relatively recent controversy, Parker is still the single most influential wine critic. Like all the good ones, I find he's right more often than wrong. I agree with the basic premise of the article that what makes a wine "good" isn't someone's prescription of how a wine is supposed to be, but rather the final product judged on its own merit.