Yeah but it takes a really bad lens to have bokeh bad enough to ruin a picture. That's not what we're talking about here. Were' talking about a 1.2 vs a 1.4, both primes made by Canon. So we're not talking about horrendous bokeh vs incredible bokeh, we're just talking about more blur vs slightly less blur. And my point is that a slightly blurry-er background is not going to make a bad picture good. I could see it adding to an already fantastic image, but that image would also be fantastic with a 1.4. And it would likely also be good at f16. The only time when more background blur makes an image great in and of itself is when there is a composition problem and the blur helps lessen distractions like poles sticking out of someone's head. There's a limit to how much technology can make your pictures great. You only need good enough equipment that it doesn't get in your way of making great images on your own. If someone is not very experienced with photography, there would be no difference between a D90 and a D3X. Same with lenses.
I'd like to see one example of a fantastic picture that was ruined from not enough background blur (esp. 1.4 instead of 1.2). And I'd love to see a fantastic image ruined by horrible bokeh. I've seen people make really nice pictures with Holgas and iphones, and while the images do need to work with that aesthetic, it is certainly an example of crap gear making good images.