Rrhain, I think that DNA has a more restricted definition of "self replicator" than you do.
I see some value in both sides.
Your's is saying that there are things which can catalyze their own production given the right initial environment. That is a resonable step in unraveling the complex questions at the origin of life.
However, I think DNA is going the whole way and saying that something isn't a useful sort of self replicator if it can't build itself out of rather simple building blocks that we can demonstrate are reasonably likely in a pre-biotic earth. The partial polymers of the GL don't count with that view.
I think there are still two definitions of what it means to be self-replicating floating around here.
Until we get them separated and new terms in place to describe them the arguement is basically "IS!", "IS NOT!", "IS" and that isnt' helpful.
How about: 1)self-construction -- when a molecule speeds up or causes the construction of duplicates of itself from anything which is not fully itself. 2)deep self-replication -- when a molecule causes the construction of itself from "simple" components which can be explained by natural mechanisms separated from the molecule in question.
Then we have to argue about what the meaning of "simple" is.
I don't think the term "self replicate" says anything about what the basic materials must be.
I tried to point that out a bunch of posts ago. Self replication can perfectly well mean what GL can do with an environment of the 2 parts. However, it is still a good point to note that there are then still a lot of steps left to explain.
If you'd all stop for a minute and define what you mean by self replication you'll note that you are using different meanings. Sort that out!