No. The article is pointing out that Flame isn't lame in lots of different ways, and saying that the naysayers kept calling it lame until one single spectacular bit of non-lameness came to light. It's suggesting that they should have cottoned on sooner. At least, that's my reading of it.

I suggest it's because it's not commonly used today for its actual definition.

People don't normally refer to themselves or people they love as "lame." Not so for "gay" or "retarded."

A modern equivalent of "lame" might be "handicapped," even though it is not as specific.