I can understand why the man from the first post is worried and why he needs to advocate his film equipment. The onslaught of the digital is fierce; manufacturers use all their marketing tricks to push new products, while hordes of new digital enthusiast bash film as inferior technology, no longer suitable for anyone but benighted fools (dpreview again). What is even worse, prints from contemporary DSLR's can indeed look very good, if done well, no one can argue otherwise. A little insecurity about one's equipment choices, accompanied by the feeling of being pushed into replacing one's well tried workflow and habits quite suffice to provoke this urge to stand up and fight against the "intruders" who use this new technology, and for all the wrong reasons too.
My camera and lenses are rather inconspicuous, so I am never bothered by my fellow photographers, but I can see how annoying this can be. On the other hand, I reckon that photographs using digital equipment are sometimes too harsh when confronted by boasting analogue photogs, not being aware of the frustrations they undergo.
Personally, I am very glad for the existence of digital cameras, even though I only shoot on film. I believe that the general quality of photography has improved immensely with digital. I can see it on the example of my sister. Her photos taken with film P&S used to be terrible, but now when she is using a digital camera, she has suddenly begun thinking about composition and light, taking pictures that are incomparably better than in the past. I ascribe it to the large LCD on the back of the camera that she uses to compose and to the fact that now she deletes the bad pictures, learning in the process. Unfortunately she prints the pictures on office paper and has no means of archiving them, which means that in a couple of years she will have no record of those events she managed to capture. However, that is an issue for another thread altogether.
