I agree, but the "summarised" version at "The noisy channel" was alright and I didn't feel it was "blogspam". It felt like it helped get me interested to read more, the original article has quite some more text than the summary - might have put me off. This got me interested.

Thanks. I'm sensitive about parasitic blogging--in fact, I've blogged about it: http://thenoisychannel.com/2008/12/20/fair-use-and-seo/

In this instance, my genuine hope was to get people to read Jeremy's post, and an unsolicited email from Jeremy about his spike in traffic--which is how I found out that HN had picked up my post--assures me that I accomplished that.

Your post is three sentences and a paste of the paraphrase. That people click through to Jeremy's post should be expected.

The submission is blogspam.