1. Perhaps so.  As I said, I may be entirely mistaken about the intent of the post.  I merely thought his add-on, about the apocrypha, was the most telling part of the post.  Regardless, time to move on.
2. NatGeo had a great cover story celebrating the KJV a few years ago (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/12/king-james-bible/nicolson-text).  
Your point about elegant English is well-taken.  We are so caught up now with "political" English that we are losing the power inherent in the language as it currently exists.  In this, we risk translating scripture and liturgy into a stilted and timid shadow of what it might be.
Your last point is well-made.  The KJV "answer" reflects the view that "if the King James was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" whereas the principle seeks to make the Truth accessible to all - not merely the learned - even if it got a bit off-the-rails with the whole sola scriptura-thing.