I have to agree with this...I'm a little surprised so many Canon shooters can't seem to publicly admit Canon sensors just aren't as good as Sony's or Nikon's. But you can be sure WHEN Canon finally come out with a new sensor with high DR, Canon shooters will finally understand what they've been missing and will be very, very happy. As a Nikon shooter that will also be the day I switch to Canon -- mainly for the superior lens selection. Until then, however, for me Nikon sensor performance trumps Canon glass by a wide margin.
We admit that Canon sensors don't have as much DR as Nikon's. What we don't need is a daily dose of it; what we find offensive is being hit over the head with it on nearly every camera thread. Do a search on this site, and you'll see it.
And the DR advantage matters to different extents to different people -- it is not the only factor that matters, which is point that is lost on the DR trolls (and that advantage is only there at low ISOs). For indoors sports, I'm at ISO 3200 and above. What advantage will the Nikon have? The D800 will give me worse AF performance, lower frame rate and it's lost its DR advantage. For architecture, I'm using 5 stop brackets. The Nikon might save me a couple shots, but then I lose the ability to use the TS-E 17 and 24, which is not worth the trade to me.
If I made enough money to be able to switch systems every few years or buy both systems, then I might consider it, but I don't and so I won't. But saying that I have cognitive dissonance because I do not switch is insulting. For now, the Canon SYSTEM works better for me. Canon's high end glass is better, and I've got enough of it that the DR advantage of the Nikon sensor is not going to trump Canon's advantages. What part of this is so hard to understand?