I read somewhere that Kynesian theory was contradicted, and therefore worth to be abandoned, ...
—Dorigo G., in a comment on Paul Krugman's blog
My grammar book says that this sentence is wrong:
The car isn't worth to be repaired.
Whereas, this sentence is correct:
The car isn't worth repairing.
But in Dorigo G.'s sentence, the clause worth to be abandoned is used and this clause seems to have the same structure of worth to be repaired—e.g.,"worth to be verb-ed".
Is Dorigo G. wrong? Or are there differences between the grammar under his sentence and the grammar under the example sentences reported by my book?