NL players hold greater edge over lesser opponents than Limit players

[Former Spank E]

I have long felt that something Bob Ciaffone wrote years ago should be written in stone letters, 10 feet tall (or more): "A good player's overlay (i.e., advantage, edge) at pot-limit and no-limit is much greater than at limit play because he has far more tools available" (Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker, p. 74).

Now, I don't care to bother to compare and contrast the skills required for either game (please no!), but is there any compelling reason to believe that nl does not get one as far away as is possible from a hand-holding contest? I started out by learning limit both because there were far more games available and many more well-written books detailing how to play better than the competition, but since learning nl some time back cannot imagine ever again sitting around, waiting to be outdrawn by players to whom the limit betting structure allows five full rounds for luck (multiplied by however many opponents in a given hand) to shine on their miserable posteriors.

If nl maximizes the good player's edge, why hasn't limit dried up and blown away in the three years since televised nl tournaments--coupled with the policy of the maximum buy-in in nl cash games--brought the nl cash game back back from the dead?

I would love to know whether my intution and Ciaffone's confirmation are not entirely correct. Discuss!