I think to say that it doesnt matter whether you use an SLR or not because its the photographer that takes the picture is oversimplifying photography.
The photographer's eye is fully responsible for the composition of the image, this is true and the composition is the single most important factor affecting impact, originality, etc.
But technical considerations are also important, and posting examples of images where the smaller camera could cope is not the best way to see the full picture (pun intended). Yes, in situations where a compact can cope, theres no problem and you will get the images, but if its simply too dark for your f3.5 or f2.8 lens and the subject is moving then you simply will not get the shot, no matter what your abilities are.
Yes you can turn around and take other images of other things your camera can cope with, you can use a little flash and somehow get a decent shot, you can definitely still enjoy photography, photography is not just about SLRs, but the point is an SLR with a fast lens would have allowed the shot you wanted to take.
But I agree, horses for courses and a compact camera can be very good for many situations, and in fact even better than an SLR in some thanks to size. Just dont tell me it doesnt matter!
PS: Also some of the sayings being brought up about cameras being 'just light tight boxes' are dated concepts now. With film, any 35mm SLR could produce pretty much the same image quality. The factors were the lens and the film and the body just held both.
The digital SLR is different. The lens still has the same place, but you are pretty much stuck with the same 'film'/sensor on a body. (albeit a special 'film' with variable ratings).
That means some bodies are substantially better in image quality than others. You cant call them light tight boxes any more, because the job of the film has become part of the body.