In general, I agree with what you have been saying these last days, but try to refrain from mee-too-isms. But ...
While BGP is a fine way to route packets, it's a horrid way to select paths for connections.
Either this statement is confused, I am, or both. BGP is one way to get data into forwarding tables so that forwarding engines can route packets. As you go on to knock BGP for how it makes path decisions, the above sentence becomes indigestible. But anyway, the underlying problem is that BGP concentrates on policy, while good IGPs concentrate on efficient use of paths. An underlying assumption may have been that ASx can/should not know the internals of ASy. There have been proposals for BGP modifications and for other EGPs which address the need for more path optimization in EGPs. But this is NANOG, not IDR.
That's two folks who have come out today and said "well that's no damn good" without trying it. I'm surprised, NANOG members usually have a more positive attitude.
Do you subscribe to a different NANOG list than I? randy