Let's take a couple steps back here. This is getting confusing.
1. After looking at your article again, I think it looks more like a treatise that turns into an editoral. You start talking about different file options and end up with quite an anti-jpg slant. You should focus on it being one or the other.
2. This thread is straying from the origial request of a critique of your article. Do we still want to talk about the article, which has a great deal of good potential, by the way, or why you think jpg is bad?
As far as the links in response #6 I don't see anything shocking. JPG is a lossy compression scheme, no doubt about it. And manipulating and re-saving a jpg will cause more loss. That's why the best way to handle jpgs is to open the original and save it as a tiff or psd and THEN work on it, resaving as you go in a lossless format.
By the way, what exactly is your workflow and what software are you using for adjustments and printing? For the jpgs you were not happy with, how did you perform the sharpening. Photoshop's USM is not the ideal route. What are you using for a printer? I have shot plenty of jpgs on my D100, which with a little sharping in PS, and printed on an EPSON 1270 through QImage are absolutely gorgeous and sharp. You ARE shooting your jpgs in the Fine mode, right?