Is it just me?

I really wanted to read this article. It grabbed my attention, it was about something I find interesting, and it started promisingly. However I stopped reading after the second paragraph because I don't think I can trust a writer who would commit to paper the following two sentences, one after the other.
"It all began when he found that sites on the Web form a network with unique mathematical properties. In itself, this may not seem very profound, but it soon emerged that these properties were not unique to the Web."
As I understand it, this means he was, initially, wrong and we are left with the insightless idea: 'that sites on the Web form a network with mathematical properties'. Furthermore, the author implies the bleeding obvious is somehow more profound than the original, albeit mistaken, uniqueness theory.

I have watched Once More With Feeling four times now, or is it five? I think this line is mostly filler.

On the job front I got another rejection today. That leaves only three applications outstanding so it's time for another scouring of the papers, the gazette and the web for a bunch of selection criteria to annoy my referees with.

I'd better go. Emily is trying to get my attention by standing on the keyboard.  ¶ 21:30