Woah, quite an onslaught here. I'll try my best to address your points one by one.
1: The KR link. Yes, I think old Ken was being a little sensationalist here. Let's remind ourselves of what he was comparing: a 1950s era 'people's camera' with the creme de la creme of modern digital SLRs, just 3 years old and the top of the Nikon range when it was released. Surely there shouldn't be any comparison in any situation? The lighting doesn't look that different to me. While the Nikon image may have been tampered with a little, the cameras are so different in price that the result still astounds me.
2: Manual focus lenses: yes, for moving subject's they're not brilliant. However, you can still pick up an AF SLR with AF lens for very little money. I keep an EOS 30 for this purpose, total setup could be had for less than 150 pounds, it has an AF that is plenty fast enough for children and animals.
3: Cost. This issue may differ for many, but when I use a digital camera on a shoot I find myself making, say, 120 images. That's about 3-4 times more than I would make with a 35mm film camera. However, the number of photos I really like and put in an album is about the same (3 or 4 at the very very best). So, with digital I end up with more junk. However, taking all these picture is great for learning, but as for the end result, more isn't necessarily merrier.
4: Printing and developing at home as opposed to a lab. Yes, I agree that if I did the pics myself I would learn more and get a result I like more. However, issues of time and space prevent this from happening
. Due to the fact all my cameras have meters that produce accurate, pleasing exposures pretty much every time, I'm content with giving the negs to a lab and specifying 'NO MODS' so it isn't tampered with.
By contrast, waiting for 100 pictures to transfer over USB to the computer, getting rid of the really crap ones, then going through fiddling with sharpness, saturation, contrast etc. I guess I'm just quite simple when it comes to these things, matter of personal preference.
As Don says, personal preference and budget prompts a final decision. I love the fact I can get a well-built, quality SLR with 3 sharp, fast lenses for under £200 (that's before we get to the even bigger bargains to be had in the compacts and rangefinder categories!) when a dSLR with one zoom lens starts at about 300 pounds and to me is a photographic tool that is far more annoying, complex and unpleasant to use. I crave simplicity and value for money, and I get more simplicity with shooting film and getting a lab to develop it for me. Of course, others will have other requirements, which is why no format can be declared 'better' than the other, since they are totally different.