A misconception suffered by inexperienced publishers is that copyright is a matter of opinion. It is not.
The copyright holder gets to determine the conditions under which his material may be used by others. Autodesk, for example, enforces an onerous 60,000-character license along with charging high prices for its software; OpenOffice gives away its software free, but it also attaches a license that guides the conduct of users.
Written articles, such as on my blog, contain unwritten restrictions on use by others. The reason it is unwritten is that it is governed by law.
All it takes to reprint one of my articles is an email to request permission; I almost always agree. The reprint must be accompanied by a statement of permission. I have no pity on those too lazy to fire off even an email. (Reprints by commercial entities are priced at $250 each.)
There is just one exception: short extracts of text may be used without permission to prove a point in an original article, although credit must be given.
My tone of voice in the comments section of your blog was intentional, since too many others have an attitude similar to yours: the hard work of others is free for the copying'n pasting. It takes me up to an hour to write a single entry for my blog, combing research and rewrites. In the case of Owen Wengerd's article, it was he who first alerted me to your plagiarism, and requested my help in combating it.
Plagiarism is serious. Just last month, Germany's Minister of Defense (and touted next Chancellor of Germany) was forced to resign after someone determined his PhD thesis was nearly 100% plagiarized.
Erasing the offending articles from your blog was a good first move.