I read the editorial on sans serif type (http://www.dmnews.com/archive/2000-07-03/9214.html) and find it unfortunate that you had to descend to character assassination (Gen X slack brains) to make your point.
Being nearly 53 years old, I am not a Gen Xer. As far as I know, nobody has accused me of being a "slack brain" -- whatever that means. For printed literature, I am a proponent of serif faces for body text.
We part company when you claim (without evidence) that serif faces work better on computer monitors. Research is clear that serif faces are better on paper. Research is less than conclusive for text on a CRT. I prefer sans on monitors, but I don't call those who prefer serif faces "hidebound old-fart slack brains."
It seems you're confusing print with on-screen text. Even the worst printer has at least 300dpi resolution and professionally typeset work is at 1200dpi or higher. Screen resolution is 72 dpi for a Mac and 96 dpi for a PC. The lower resolution plays havoc with the serifs.
You suggest having a Web master create a site in both serif and sans and then printing it. Anyone who's been paying attention will know the serif version will be clearer -- if you print it. But the Web is intended to be read on screen.