Gene,
For the sake of argument, let's say that you're a photography god. That you know all that there is to know about photography and you're right about everything. Just for fun.
Most modern DSLRs have a setting that takes both RAW and processed .jpgs. Cards are cheap. Storage space is amazingly inexpensive.
Now, if you're the god of photography, I'll make a counterpoint using a little of my experience as an archivist: you can never go wrong in saving more data than less.
Now, putting my photography hat back on, I will say this: there are a LOT of shoots that I have done in only .jpg that I'd give just about anything for RAW files of, too.
In other words, all things equal, you're better off with more data if you can store it. And, today, most of us can.
Further, your argument kind of goes off the rails in that maybe you could shoot a better shot in straight .jpg than I could produce from a RAW file. But you're not here shooting what I see. I couldn't afford that on a lot of levels. But for me...for me here...I can get better results from a RAW file than I can from its accompanying .jpg right out of the camera. Which was part of the point of this thread.
The best counterargument (assuming storage isn't an issue) for not shooting/saving raw is the speed at which the camera writes to the card. If you're shooting quickly (the bees in flight I try to get), RAW is just impossibly slow.
Otherwise, there's no reason not to do both.
