Programmer Defined Overloading : Syntatic Heroin ?

An ACM Queue article : http://acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=315

Author's Arguments :

Things with different meanings are made to look the same, hampers readability, complicates compiler writing ( resolution of the function call to the right function definition), any inadvertant mistakes by the programmer in making a function call coupled with conversion rules lands us in soup.

Note that all these arguments are being made for programmer defined overloading and the author sees no problems with built-overloading ( for eg, of operators )

Can the same arguments be made for generics/templates ? Tradeoffs between developer( code writer) friendliness, maintainer ( debugger ) friendliness and compiler writer friendliness ? Are the lack of proper typing rules really to blame rather than overloading ?

Interestingly this article has a reference to the JLS :-) . Overloading & Java ?