The bits of NSA's post I don't agree with aren't worth me flailing about, it's more like "Eh, I don't think that's right, but I haven't been in that scenario so maybe I'm naive".

What breaks it and makes people angry with it is a failure to recognize dogma. Statements like "It's not agile if you don't do daily standups" are dogma. They make as little sense as "VB .NET is not VB because it's a strongly-typed object-oriented language" or "You can't be a Baptist if you've had a divorce." There are valuable discussions to be had about project management, and they don't start with "Every process but this one is universally wrong."

The whole "Agile" movement isn't really anything new: it's a formal statement of "Whoa, a lot of successful projects share management characteristics, what if we glom all of those together?" The practices are things to consult if your opinion is more like, "I don't think it's possible to deliver software on time or on budget in any circumstances."

But if what you are saying is, "I deliver my software on-budget and on-schedule."? Well, I understand why you're not very interested in changing your methodology. It ain't broke. If someone tries to sell you on a new dream, feel free to ask them to print their certificates on softer paper so it feels better when you wipe yourself!