This whole shitty article is predicated on the idea that runners are in it just for the benefits of looking fit. If I wanted to look fit, there are a heck of a lot of ways to do so that don't require as much time or effort, or emotional and physical pain for that matter. It seems to me that most runners run because it is a very goal-oriented activity that allows them to see short and long-term improvement.
As far as the need for runners to be ridiculed by society, I can assure you that I've enjoyed my fair share of derogatory comments, and even trash flung out windows as I pounded myself into the pavement. Though I was a fairly accomplished high school runner, and am now running in college, society certainly hasn't heaped any accolades at my feet. So I ain't in it for the recognition.
Most of all, this fallacious heap of dung's argument obviously extends from the fact that he has absolutely no understanding of what it means to run. And no, I don't mean trying it a few times, just to report back on how much it sucks.
There just doesn't seem to be any explanation for such a vitriolic attack from Rouillard on running aside from an obvious insecurity about his own athletic abilities. And, ironically enough, spending some time running, setting some goals, and achieving them might actually remedy this.