Well since we're just arguing semantics, indeed, a random shuffle of a known interval isn't the same thing as a set of random numbers. But I never said they were the same thing. I merely said that it is not any "less random", and indeed it isn't.
A random shuffle is really a random selection from a uniform distribution of the set of all possible permutations on that range of numbers (or N!).
And who said the numbers had to be used for cryptographic purposes? You're adopting a very narrow view of things to make your case, pilgrim.
Any time you impose a restriction on random, you've made it not random.
Well this is just plain false (eg. if I restrict myself to a set of random even numbers, the numbers I've chosen are still random, and indeed, no less random). I think what you meant to say is that for cryptographic purposes, random numbers should only be chosen from a uniform distribution. This is an arguable proposition, especially since many distributions can be translated into one another, and thus any cryptographic function can transform a non-uniform distribution into a uniform one.