Yea, but Shemmy, no offense meant, according to your many posts, you think 4e in general is an epic fail. So how can you objectively look at the 4e MM, which is well designed and awesome for 4e DMs, as a success, if you look at the purpose of the monster manual as something other than what it is.
It's not meant to be a generic system-neutral Monster book. That is what ecology articles and the DDI will be for.
Now, would I have liked a little more flavor text? Sure. But I can derive a the flavor text I need just from what I know about the monster, its lore and it's abilities.
Really, not meant to offend, but your opinions about the book don't carry the kind of weight as if you were reviewing a Planescape MM.
Of course, numerous people here who are strong 4e fans have also readily stated that the MM is very weak, so...?