It has always seemed strange to me that so many people - even readers - sneer at reading as escaping from reality. People don't look at watching TV or movies that way. People use "reality TV" with a straight face, and actually think it has something to do with reality.
This person likes paper books, which is just fine. But he complains of people "foisting an unsolicited values system on another person," and then goes on to do the same, with what books and what formats are worthwhile.
He writes "Some people may find this attitude baffling, arguing that books are merely objects that take up space. This is true, but so are Prague and your kids and the Sistine Chapel. Think it through, bozos." That bozo couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.
His analogies are laughable. Prague is a city, and a city is inherently physical. It is impossible to live in a digital house. You can, however, read a e-book. Likewise, children are inherently physical. A digital child isn't a child.
The Sistine Chapel analogy is especially flawed. Most of us have never seen the Sistine Chapel in person, and never will. But we have seen pictures and video of it. If I were to follow his reasoning, I should reject such pictures as unacceptable.
People aren't baffled by his attitude. Rather, he's projecting, he's baffled by people who read e-books. We find a picture of the Sistine Chapel acceptable, even though it is a pale imitation, so why should an e-book be any different. It's the same words.
He said "I've never squandered an opportunity to read," but that's one of the big reasons people read e-books, having an entire library at your fingertips. I have about 1,000 paper books in my house. I have over 20,000 public domain books on my computer. I could never obtain or store those 20,000 books if I had to get them on paper.
So, to this Bozo, I can only say read all the paper books that you want. But understand that not everyone thinks like you.