Ok, so this guy posts a list of VCs, some of which are very prominent and credible, and says they may or may not have done one or more of the following things, one of which includes "not investing enough". No proof, no evidence, not even the criteria for inclusion in the list.

Seems like a cowardly way to try and stir up the blogosphere and get traffic and mindshare.

Your summary is misleading. "Not investing enough" is based on an actual analysis of firms that haven't raised new funds and haven't made new investments, many of which have apparently conceded the point that they're no longer active. It wasn't subjective.

Which VC would you like to flame?

Those on the list can go on to start theflamed.com.