My criticism was deliberately vague on the off chance that I got an answer and was just being opinionated, but I don't think you can justify it quite so easily. The article amounts to a search .... that's it. There was no expansion on the technology behind this and no real content. There are an abundance of topics available for discussion within this community that could stem from that article.

I had a quick look at the software, but couldn't be arsed to go beyond the "trial" limitations, but from what I saw the article is watered down and the author makes no attempt to range into the MANY areas open for debate. Like I said, language and etymology are interesting, but it's the theory that is interesting, I see little to no such thing here.

Not trying to call you out, gruseom - do a blog on it if it really interests you? I think it could make a very interesting topic, otherwise I wouldn't have made my comment in the first place.