I think the only thing I can say is that I don't necessarily question your logic. It seems sound. And I personally have no problem with the meta-discussion (though who am I to say either way).
My only counter point is that your opinion is worth your one up vote which you most certainly shouldn't give to this post.
Put another way I don't see any paticular problem with you posting a link to the original submission. My only issue was the indication that the person who submitted this story was guilty of wrong doing (again I think the brevity of the article does add value so I don't think it would count as blog spam even under your definition).
Furthermore, I think that this blog is unfairly omitting details from the source material. The official blog post includes significant details about the editing experience of Microsoft Word. The quote in the intermediate blog post does not capture the nature of the Outlook team's argument.
Even if the intermediate post did represent the argument accurately, it includes editorialization which I'd rather see in comments.
Both HN submissions used the official title, as they are supposed to. I posit that this secondary source was upvoted more because of the more dramatic title. The posters are to blame for the discrepancy, not the HN submitters. My apologies for the meta-discussion, but I don't think I'm the only person who doesn't like intermediate, no-value-added blog posts.