I've actually read this guy's post after someone sent me a link to this site. I don't think he's half the idiot you make him out to be. Sure, he doesn't like Microsoft, but it's a very hard company to like when you care about standardization and interoperability.
It was an interesting read with all the links to articles about OOXML studies and how for instance public administrations struggle with longterm data storage and collaboration. The whole OOXML thing was a fiasco with a very doubtable ISO voting process. Acting as if Microsoft has nothing to gain by pushing a document format that's not really open and making them out to be some great company that would not even think about abusing their monopoly hardly makes you any less biased than the blogger you insult.
If Microsoft really cared about interoperability so much, then why didn't they help improve ODF back in 2007 so it would support the billions of features that their Office apparently offers while Libre/OpenOffice doesn't - and according to you never will? Why did they invent OOXML when ODF was already there, ready to be extended to anyone's needs - including Microsoft's? Now we have two standards, neither of which are supported universally. How does that benefit anyone?
Do you really believe it's not a problem at all for users to be forced to buy Windows+Office just to collaborate on a document or spreadsheet? Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose for themselves? Because you think running Windows+Office is better, so should they? A better example would be to force-feed a pig to a vegetarian because you think vegetarianism is stupid because most people aren't vegetarians.
Avoiding this need for a monoculture forcing users to buy product X and only product X is what standards are for, and I think that's all this guy was really trying to say. I didn't read anything like 'everyone should use Linux and Windows users are stupid'. He's just annoyed because other people expect him to buy Windows+Office because they refuse to save their documents as odt / pdf. If I were in his shoes I'd probably feel the same.
It's like the other guy said: how would you feel if somebody didn't just send a picture as jpeg - a format that everyone can open regardless of their platform - but expect you to buy some obscure proprietary Abobe program costing you 500 bucks? And add to that that it also doesn't run on the OS you use, that the only OS it does run on is an OS you don't want to use / don't trust, and that you have to accept EULAs you don't agree with to use it.
Even though you think not accepting them is stupid, why should everyone else feel the same?
Some people feel that Microsoft (or any proprietary software vendor) stagnates innovation and freedom by locking down user rights and that not having access to the source code of your computers increases the risk of back doors. It's not like either of those arguments make no sense at all. I'm not saying I agree with them, but I don't think that people who have these plausible concerns should be locked up in an institution either.
However you feel about licenses and source code, why should a Linux user be forced to use Windows against their will because someone else thinks that's easier for them? Open standards exist exactly to avoid that so co-existence will be possible like you said. If Microsoft had full ODF support and implemented/documented OOXML in a non-obscure way, nobody would write blogs like this. Merely because they would have no reason to.
There's a difference between hating Microsoft and calling them out for their anti-competitive tactics you know.