This whole article is nothing more than sour grapes. So the author hates crosswords and sudoku. Big deal. I can't do sudoku, either. So what?

As far as reading goes, to be a superior crossword solver, you *MUST* be a superior reader. Where do you think all that information comes from in order to figure out the clues? In order to do the Times crossword, you must be literate in (dare I say it?) *literature*, and politics, and science, and a smattering of foreign languages (clue: "Nice good-bye" could easily be "Au revoir" as "Farewell"), and cultural references like films and music and theatre and sports. You have to be able to make connections. And considering the average crossword takes approximately 6 minutes, can be done anywhere, and the only special equipment needed is a pen - hardly a waste of time.

I find the author's disclaimer that he's not really "that harsh" pretty phony. You can't go on for three pages about how stupid people are for doing [activity] and not actually believe that those people really are pretty stupid. If the author was trying to be funny - well, FAIL.

If the author doesn't like doing crosswords himself - fine. There's no law saying he has to enjoy crosswords, sudoku, or 5,000 piece puzzles showing a giant red dot. But he has no place excoriating those people who do.

In high school, we had a word for people who couldn't perform a particular activity, but were derogatory of those who could:

Loser.