This is quite an interesting poll. I am shooting stills mostly, so I sympathize to some extend with the original poster, but I tend to surprise myself using video more and more often, so there is something I would miss in a stills-only body, even if the rest were the same. This alone was the reason I voted no.
What benefit would a still-only camera provide over a camera providing both stills and video? It is obvious (at least) to me that video features do not get into the way of shooting stills. It is even confusing for me to think that there would be an issue with the way Canon handles both areas as part of one product. So if video would be disabled and video-side-effect-features like live-view are still useable, where would be the point to disable video?
Maybe in the future given even more processing power we will even benefit from some advanced video autofocus features, so there may be more nice video-side-effect-features in store for us.
Add to this the arguments by TrumpetPower!, which I find to be quite valid, so here's my +1 on that post.