It doesn't. Content doesn't load here on a FF with js disabled (not that i do this normally, disable JS, just tested it because of your comment).
I think it kind of matters in this case. The "mail has to be repaired" is such an overused term, and seldom the people claiming that even try to give reasons for this ruling. Mail is an asynchronic system for letting people send messages (with attachments) and it works really well. If someone fails to see that, claiming something is broken which most probably isn't and is doing that from a technically broken site, it weakens his point even further.
So mentioning the observation isn't totally out of place.
I had to switch browsers and start doing NoScript Bingo until the damned page rendered.
I want those 60 seconds of my life back. It wasn't worth it.
I'm not defending the site, I'm saying there is nothing wrong with a JavaScript intensive site, if properly done (this one isn't).
As pointed by others, the site just is a bunch of JPEGs, which is a very bad choice indeed (accessibility, search engine access, speed, etc).
But aesthetics do matter. If done properly, you could just grab the content and use your favority reader with a click of a button in case you desagree with the author's taste.