I disagree. The article quotes and links to three different articles (the first of which is the one you have pointed out) and ties them together. I agree that it is not the most substantial post, but I wouldn't call it blogspam.
I read the original and didn't get that there were more substance elsewhere. In the end I found it pretty contentless. The link that CoolGuySteve (and seibelj) pointed to is where the real article is.
Thanks for that link, much better and it answers some of the questions I had about the author that are covered at the source.