Lol..very interesting indeed!
I think Chase Jarvis made that case with his "thebestphotos.com" website some time ago.
If the same images were taken with a Hasselblad, the images printed @ 18X12 inches and compared side-by-side, massive difference would be easy to spot. And it's probably fairly easy to predict which set of images the magazines and bill-board advertising agencies would pick.
The bottom line is that an image can't be fully appreciated on a computer monitor. We are all looking at thumbnails that are approximately 1/12th or less of the full image information.
If we look at a 100% segment of the image, we are also not appreciating the image the way it's intended. Nobody go to a gallery and look at a painting or photo in 1/12th increments...
What I'd really like to see are great cameras optimized for screen-viewing and most-people print-sizes (say up to 20X30 inches). A compromise could be the relatively "perfect" 6MP. Imagine the last couple of years' worth of technological advancement applied to 6MP sensors? What kind of crazy dynamic range and low-ISO handling could a D3S with 6MP accomplish? Monstrously large photo-sites perhaps capable of rendering the 12 F-stops worth of range our eyes can handle?
Imagine the speed of such cameras?
....ok I'm rambling and drooling on my shirt..