I totally agree that a respectful approach is needed. After all, it is ALL photography, and no approach is better than the other. Just different.
I will say, however, that it took me about five years to become a decent darkroom printer, and it took me about two weeks to become a decent inkjet printer.
The difference, I think (and this is my opinion), is that when you're shooting film you are almost 100% responsible for the results. You use tools that are rudimentary and tangible, hand tools, basically, AND it's a process that takes a long time whether you get a good print or not.
Digital can take time too, and for some it might require as much time as the darkroom, but once you learn a work flow it still baffles me that anybody would find it difficult to get an inkjet print right - especially from a nicely exposed digital capture. No joke or ill meant comment, but I honestly think it's almost too easy as long as you have the right materials in a good printer and good software.
I mean absolutely no disrespect to digital shooters and printers, this is my experience; but my opinion is that darkroom work is much more difficult than a digital work flow.
With multiple toning techniques, lith printing, selective bleach back and re-development, re-development in lith developer, various stages of using several contrast filters within the same print, getting the exposure and development of film *just* right to eke the maximum possible out of a frame of film, the list goes on and on. It is my feeling that it takes a lot more to arrive at the maximum possible from the darkroom than it does from the computer.
The results can be blindingly good from digital. I know this. It's how the world spins these days. But I just can't get along with the fact that it takes as much work with digital as it does with film and darkroom. I just will not agree with it.