I agree almost completely with your article. However, I think you may have missed the point in your rebuttal to #1. You compared it to buying the same TV at two stores, except that one charges a sales commission. I believe the author of the original article was trying to say that Fund A should be compared to Fund B without regard to load. If Fund A is loaded and performs very well and Fund B is No Load and doesn't perform well, you "may" be better off buying Fund A. In your TV illustration. Its more like comparing two 42" Plazma TVs. One by Sony and one by Vizio. There may be no real difference in the TVs other than the quality of the TV. Or you could be just paying for the brand name. You really have to compare the funds themselves.
I agree almost completely with your article. However, I think you may have missed the point in your rebuttal to #1. You compared it to buying the same TV at two stores, except that one charges a sales commission. I believe the author of the original article was trying to say that Fund A should be compared to Fund B without regard to load. If Fund A is loaded and performs very well and Fund B is No Load and doesn't perform well, you "may" be better off buying Fund A. In your TV illustration. Its more like comparing two 42" Plazma TVs. One by Sony and one by Vizio. There may be no real difference in the TVs other than the quality of the TV. Or you could be just paying for the brand name. You really have to compare the funds themselves.