Eeyore:
I judge Thompson by his photos which IMO are first rate, in part because he has the entomological knowledge. MF film versus 35mm film is a question of taste and I can see where he is coming from. His comment about digital might have been made when digital was in its infancy, and hence it makes sense. If not, then I agree it is a daft statement to make. Still, absurd beliefs or not, his photos are good.
I am told that getting published is not about quality per se, but providing what is wanted when it is wanted i.e. business skills. I see some real stinkers in print. (Or at least I in my position of aloof arrogant self appointed expert consider them stinkers.
) That said, this is all so subjective, and each person is entitled to an opinion. An argument is pointless, and disagreement is normal.
As an aside, so many pictures in print these days are supplied by amateurs without payment that it must be hard for (some) professional nature photographers to make a decent living. And I almost feel that picture editors are choosing pictures because they are free/cheap rather than good.