Hey folks, thanks for the replies. I'm definitely a Canon user and proponent, not a Nikon troll in disguise. That said, most companies you're a fan of probably still do things that annoy you. =)
Re: the conversation in the OP, it was meant to be facetious. I don't imagine for an instant that any official rep would say those things, but it's pretty much what their product lineup says for them.
From a more personal angle, I was recently on a harbor cruise down in NZ where it got a bit rough and we had some (like many gallons of) salt spray coming over the bow. I left my 70-200/4 on the body for most of the time even when the 17-55/2.8 would have been the better choice at times. The reason was because the 17-55 is infamous for being just slightly less porous than a sieve, whereas the 70-200 at least tries (based on the descriptions and reviews). They're comparable in price and quality, but one says L and the other isn't sealed.
I shoot with a 400Xt, which is definitely not sealed. It has survived that and other moist excursions, but I've never had it out in an actual downpour.
Lastly I know that a "sealed" product isn't meant for underwater use and a non-sealed product won't short out when touched by a sweaty hand. It's a continuum, but it's a strange and bumpy one. If neither the 60D nor the 7D even tried at all with sealing, at least I could see the consistency. As it is, it's a bit schizo.
tl;dr;deadhorse: Canon makes nice stuff for the EF-S crowd too, from bodies to lenses. Some better enviro-sealing on the glass would be nice.