No stones here, Albert. One minor quibble, though. The need for a longer lens on FX to achieve the same FOV is to some degree offset by the better noise performance. Adding a 1.4 TC loses you a stop of light, but for exposure purposes you can increase the ISO a stop and get about the same noise performance as the DX at one stop less ISO and sans TC. Adding glass is never ideal, of course, but the drop in lens performance is again offset by the lower pixel density (considering the current FX and DX 12-megapixel bodies). So it's pretty close to a wash, except for one factor: The AF systems are about equally sensitive, so that one stop of loss in the TC affects AF in low-light conditions.
The upshot though is that as a practical matter, you don't generally have to invest in a bigger lens when you go to FX unless you are maxed out with TCs already. And of course, if the point of going to FX is the high-ISO performance (which is why I got the D3), you don't really want to throw it away only to be back where you were. So it's a fairly complex issue. For me, the FX reality is that when shooting action sports, making the shutter speed twice as fast easily trumps having to crop a bit in post processing.
Ironically, it is at the wide end that I find myself adding glass to support FX. Coming to the Nikon party later than many, I stocked up on DX WA glass since that's what fit the bodies I had. I still shoot DX, too, and plan to do so for the indefinite future.
DX is not better than FX or vice versa. Both are good. Each is better suited to particular shooting situations. How those capabilities map onto an individual's shooting needs varies, as does how willing and able an individual is to bear the costs, which is why this debate won't die for a long time!