The Article IS about Advocacy
Wow! The author of this article may have something to say about Rush Limbaugh and his credibility and certainly made statements about Rush's fabled truth telling, but more interesting is the attack on the author's credibility with ad hominem remarks about his age, and political bent.
First point: The author was using Limbaugh as a device to show what advocacy is not: It is not preaching to the choir, and Limbaugh is the last Conservative (Windows Advocate) thinker who is going to win over a Marxist thinker (Linux Advocate). So IMHO the device of using Limbaugh to represent Bad Advocacy was a good one, and not necessarily an attack on the man.
Second Point: It seems to me that what incensed our friend Eric Laffoon about this article was the implied attack on Rush Limbaugh's credibility. It disturbed him so much that he characterized the article a diatribe!?! The meat of this article barely even references Limbaugh except for the first and last paragraphs. And the kicker --are you ready-- Limbaugh is not a reliable or credible source (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html) and is therefore not a good advocate for anything. Ahh, I can feel the label being applied to me right now, Liberal; its ok i can take it. In addition to the above link you can also reference this page at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html) for more links to researched credibility gaps in Limbaugh's statements.
Please take your own advice, Eric and listen to what the people who dislike Rush and his brand of advocacy have to say.