Thanks for finding that. The Grand Inquisitor Dhammanando has a great sense of humour, which he has put to good effect in expounding what it objectionable about Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comments from a Mahavihara perspective.
Of course, "failure to incorporate the Abhidhammic conception of dhammas into his exposition of wisdom-related teachings (elements, aggregates, sense-bases etc.)" would in fact be seen as a positive advantage by most Buddhist schools (past and present) as well as those who give primacy to those materials accepted by Buddhist scholars as most likely representing Buddhavacana (namely, the first four nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka, with a nod-and-a-wink to the Chinese Agamas too). Again, more from Bhikkhu Bodhi... "I take as the sole ultimate authority for interpretation of the Dhamma the Buddha's discourses as found in the four main Nikaayas and in the older strata of the Khuddaka Nikaaya. I share with Ven. ~Naa.naviira the view that these books can be considered the most trustworthy record of the Buddha's teachings, and hence should be turned to as the final court of appeal for resolving questions about the correct interpretation of the Dhamma.". I agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi.
"Eel-wriggling interpretation of anattā as a strategy" would probably require a bit more detail if we were to take it any more seriously than Grand Inquisitor Dhammanando himself did. Does anattā as a "strategy" deny it as a "truth"? I don't think it does. The main point of difference vis-a-vis the Thanissaro and Sutta perspectives, in relation to the Mahavihara perspective is that the Mahavihara supposedly went as far as to extend "not-self" to a metaphysical assertion of "no self". From what I've picked up in my readings, this is probably in response to Puggalavada type views... so through opposing and discrediting one view, they went further in the other direction than the Buddha himself did. Despite accurately representing the Buddha's approach to anatta, Thanissaro Bhikkhu gets caught up in this historical sectarian cross-fire by refusing to put his stamp of approval on the metaphysical "no self" proposition. I believe he successfully draws upon Buddhavacana to explain and justify his position.
Back specifically to "pseudo-selves" for a moment, there's also concerns oftened levelled against the early Thai Forest tradition and their use of "citta" as "the one who knows".