You can read the whole thing here: http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/email-mario-and-his-content/

I feel like he sidestepped a lot of my criticism, instead of addressing it directly.  He did seem to back off his position on Super Mario World a bit though.  He also more clearly stated that he is not trying to link new content to successful sales, but instead is linking content to a successful entertainment product.  In other words, a game with new, fresh content is a good game in his eyes.  To me, that makes his theory quite a bit more vague.

Upon initial reading, I only noticed one error.  Near the end, he claims that Zelda game sales kept increasing up to Ocarina of Time.  This is not true.  In chronological order:

I'm glad he at least took the time to respond though.

what position did he have on super mario world?

he better not insult one of the best games of all time ( & the best mario game of all time)

He said that it started the downward slide of Mario games.  After the sales information I presented, he seemed to back off his position somewhat.  He praised the game for new Yoshi content in his reply to me.

HOW DARE HE!

Super Mario World was such an amazing game.....for me it was the high point of mario!!

Getting yoshi, star levels, different colour yoshi;s, YELLOW CAPE, GHOST HOUSES, SKY LEVELS, FOREST LEVELS, CATERPILLARS THAT GO RED!!!!

its still the best 2D platformer (followed closely by DKC 1)

lol, TP is one of the high selling Zelda games, and it deserves it.

Also, SMW > SMB3.

Yeah, nostalgia can be difficult to overcome.

I agree.

I agree, SMW > SMB3

But i would wonder, from the commentary he made here, what his stance on new IPs vs franchises is. Also: if you make your own mythos, why can't you explore it? I agree that the Metroid mythos isn't all that well known, but the basics of Mario are more or less as widely recognized as Mario himself. To explore said mythos might be a tad self-indulgent, but there's no reason that it's necessarily worse than tapping some other well of the collective social psyche to make new content.

Actually, I think he said that new content will make a game sell forever. In other word superior content make a game a classic.
So his theory isn't all that vague.

Ah, I forgot he said that.

In the same piece he also said, "I am not linking content to pure sales."

How does it make sense to say that content is not linked to sales, but content makes a game sell forever?  This theory just seems disorganized to me.