Yes, for bringing us New Times, Steve Moss deserves our thanks and his due credit for contributing to our community. But the extended and personal nature of what you printed about him could serve only those who knew the man personally, or felt a craving to know him personally.
This suggests that the New Times editorial staff: (1) believes that everybody knew Steve Moss; or (2) believes that New Times people are naturally objects of fascination to its readers; or (3) doesn't believe either of these things, but writes for itself first, and for the public second; or (4) shows gross favoritism toward its own people in assessing who is newsworthy and how much so.
Thus, in the way you reported on Steve Moss, you came across as self-important or self-centered or self-serving or self-indulgent, respectively. That - not Steve Moss himself - is what this reader found objectionable in your coverage. But if it so happens that many New Times readers did indeed know Mr. Moss, or wanted to, then I retract my criticism.