I also do not agree that the post is "unforgivably bad", however it simply doesn't make the grade. It's alright, just probably not appropriate to post as is. A few grammatical and spelling mistakes are alright too, as many accidentally make their evil little ways into posts via human error.
It is different with this post though. You are not taking into account how many times this has been submitted, and how many times the editors have asked for revisions on it. Sometimes mistakes cannot be helped, because if a person makes a writing error, they probably won't pick up on it. There is a solution that wasn't taken into action in this case: have another well read, well spoken person read it and edit it. That would have solved most of the problems.
But after that, would it still be worth posting? That's up to the editors to decide. They may see it as non-sequitr, or just a bad story- errors aside. That problem can only be fixed by the individuals creative ideas, research, and efforts. No amount of editing can fix problems in that area.
Notice how the story was simply clarified, not rewritten. The story still lacks sufficient plot development, character development, attention to the audience who will do the reading and meaning behind writing it. Vapid documentation of fictional events is not a short story. Edited or not, I believe it's a bad story.
As for the use of archaic language, I think of it like this- No one today speaks Olde English. It's never used in modern/general conversation. Therefore, it is imperative that one do research before they use such language. She obviously doesn't grasp how to formulate sentences or speech of the time (nor does she know the culture judging from the behavior of the characters). If she loved Jane Austin novels (they give me migraines personally) or she loves reading Beowulf and understands them in their entirety, then by all means she could adapt the language as to add a sense of realism to the story that takes place in the Victorian era, or anytime before. Otherwise I find it obvious that she just doesn’t have the knowledge base for such a story. This makes readers stop and question the authenticity or intelligence of the writing- rather than pay attention to the ideas and the story that is trying to be told (that may or may not exist in the first place). In the end depending on your research, you could end up with an attentive, thinking audience, or a confused and bored one.
Also no one is suggesting that a uniform and strict writing style be adopted. There are rules to be obeyed in any language. They are not to limit people, but to allow clear communication. Through years of experience as an visual artist, I learned that experimentation comes after the understanding of all of the facts. In other words, I would do figure drawing and learn modern art history before I move into non objective art.
In the instance of writing, I like to think of Virginia Woolf. She had a firm grasp on writing, she knew her facts and the all of the rules. Therefore it was a very natural move, in the era of change she was in, to experiment. Today her stream of consciousness writing is well respected, and thought of as classic modern English literature. It breaks the rules, but it also feels natural to read, and is a new and inventive way of writing a story. Even though it isn’t a traditional writing style, I would imagine that if she were alive today, that any of her writing would make it through this simple editing process without question. Keep in mind she managed her skills while being totally fucking insane at the same time too.
The author of the above article has none of these characteristics put to use, as this is illuminated in the writing. It isn’t special, it isn’t interesting, and it’s not worth it. But that’s not to say that can’t change in an afternoon of thought and writing.