This blog post is painfully stupid. His point #1 is that posting answers to trivial questions one could easily answer themselves with a Google search is detrimental to good pedagogy. He then goes on to claim that most of his points came from doing this very thing. What's the logic here? Behaviour x is bad, I do x on StackOverflow, therefore StackOverflow is bad? No, SO in itself is not the problem, the author of that post is the problem, and judging by his score, one of the biggest contributors to said problem.

His second point is on the poor reward system. There is no reward system, there are only fake Internet points (and maybe a few things like additional posting or moderation privileges, but nothing of any consequence). Any "reward" system you feel there to be is what your imagination makes of the fake Internet points. The gripe about the "cool kids table" just demonstrates a basic ignorance of supply and demand. The complaint that he's scored many points after being inactive on the site is just as inane; if your "work" has value to people even years after producing it, why should you not be "rewarded" for it?

Last is his prediction that his 14k reputation would be diminished by the "petty children" who make up the SO community, presumably after they read and became angry with his blog post. Well, his reputation is now over 19k, so... I suppose it's possible that his current score is actually the work of petty children up-voting his questions and answers out of spite for him and his prediction.