Kinda, sorta, but not really. To wit:
>"It lacks many of the features that serious camcorders these days come with such as a swivel EVF, power-zoom, audio-monitoring or manual control over audio recording and therefore is unlikely to be an adequate replacement for a serious videographer's equipment."
First, note that we've moved from comparing the GH1's video functionality to "consumer camcorders" to instead comparing it to "serious videographer's equipment". I completely agree that there are compromises in that regard.
Second, yes, the GH1 lacks "a swivel EVF, power-zoom, audio-monitoring or manual control over audio recording". But how many consumer camcorders have all of these functions?
(I'd also note that, while the GH1's built-in EVF doesn't swivel, the attached LCD does.)
>"Due to the GH1's smaller Four Thirds sensor you can't quite create the same shallow depth-of-field as on a full-frame DSLR such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II or even an APS-C sensor camera such as the Nikon D90"
While true, I don't see how this is relevant to a comparison of the GH1 to consumer camcorders.
>"While most dedicated camcorders use CCD imaging sensors the GH1, like the current crop of video enabled DSLRs, uses a CMOS sensor."
That's quite a few consumer camcorders that have CMOS sensors.
Second, note that CCDs aren't without image issues of their own. i.e. vertical smear. So I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a compromise in functionality. Personally, I would say it's a trade-off. Sort of "pick your poison": rolling shutter or vertical smear. (Unlike, say, audio monitoring functionality, which the GH1 does not do. Assuming there are several consumer camcorders that do offer audio monitoring.) But that's just me.
I would address the fourth quote (re: "jello") similarly since it's basically the same issue.