Unfortunately, the letter mentioned in the Dpreview thread was a little belligerent in its tone. The mag is wrong to exclude digital capture, in my view, but none of us will get them to change their minds by being rude or aggressive to them in correspondence with them.
Probably few really care about AH "changing their minds," excluding digital is neither "wrong" nor right but simply an issue which is a business decision and one which they have every right to make. Most have no qualms with their decision to exclude digital files. What is truly the issue here is the use of a very public forum to spread false information.
Some of us have taken our very valuable time (over five years in my case) in attempts to educate the public including AD's and other decision makers about issues concerning digital capabilities and limitations. We've made great strides and have overcome many objections based on wrong concepts and misinformation. A number of highly respected and prominent professional photographers such as Melvin Sokolsky, have demonstrated conclusively that digital works wonderfully for major quality publications and have joined public forums such as dPR to help inform people. Still, the film bias is strong but the world is learning. However, when the Director of Photography for a respected magazine such as AH goes public and knowingly spreads false information, for whatever purpose, it's time to be a little "belligerent." Being aggressive with comments gets their attention while being "nice" and attempting to use persuasion gets the brush off as was the case with numerous previous emails and correspondence to AH about their position by a host of protesters.
AH expressed the view that "we are experts and we know what works and what doesn't" - they used an argument from "authority" to knowingly spread false information and misinform their readers which constitute a sizable number of people. The email and public condemnation of AH's Director of Photography on a world-wide photography forum for publishing this misinformation served its purpose by drawing them into a public discussion that served to reveal their bias and demonstrate the flaws in their commentary.
Personally I have no interest in whether AH ever accepts digital files, but I do have an interest in seeing that people know the facts and that years of hard work to educate the public about digital photography is not undermined by their spreading false information. Sometimes persuasion and reason works well to get one's attention: sometimes it takes a stick between the ears. This was one of the latter cases.