The interview is a fake. Richard had nothing to do with it.

It's not too bad though, meaning the writer seems to know a lot about Hell, and a lot of it is plausible. That's strange -- why would someone fake an interview that's just an inferior, untrue, version of a real Hell interview? It doesn't seem extreme enough to be meant as a parody. And there's only one really funny part.

I kind of like the guy's style from his blog. I can't figure out what his point is with the fake interview though.