Nor do I. The point of my post was to provoke someone to present objective evidence that the MF cameras are better for general use than other cameras, if such evidence exists. So far, my post seems to have failed in that aim.
Andrew, I think a lot of well qualified users might struggle with the phrase 'general use' part of that comment, and would probably reject MF as a better general use tool compared with FF or even crop in some form. If I HAD to have a true general use system then I would probably pick M43 for the advantages it brought with reach for sports and wildlife, low weight for travel, excellent image stabilisation etc, but I don't own a 'general use' system at all, but rather one that's tailored to what I like to photograph.
If I may, I'd like you to come on a journey with me. My first camera as an adult was a 'Cosmic Symbol' - Russian camera-like object that took sort of photographs. I graduated from there to a Pentax SLR, then to Minolta, but never found the results with 35mm satisfying. Even as 6X4 enprints images lacked depth, clarity etc, and when I started printing this became even more obvious. Eventually I acquired a Bronica ETR, and this was much better for taking pictures of places, people & similar, and although image quality wasn't perfect, it was quite acceptable. There are still pictures on my wall taken with this camera that I printed in the late 80's.
Then there was a gap full of children and poverty.
Photography restarted semi-seriously with a 8MP Samsung larger sensor compact (images were visibly better to me than other typical compacts at the time) with eventual acquisition of a 20MP APS-C DSLR. I remember being aware at the time of early ownership never really being happy with image quality, even when using Zeiss lenses, and many of my pictures using this are really hard-looking where I've fought to wring more detail and depth from images. That was eventually replaced with Nikon Fx which helped a bit, but probably due to poor optics, was never really satisfactory even though it was much better. In turn that was replaced with my sony A7, and for the first time since using digital I felt like image quality was fully acceptable - no more was I struggling for greater detail and better tonal gradation through the image, especially where I've started using prime lenses. It's given me a freedom to manage images in a way that's more expressive and less constrained by camera and lens limitations.
However.
There's something about the rendering from a yet larger format camera that I miss. I see it in images from Dan Cook, I sometimes see it in MF film images. There's a way a yet larger sensor renders that I would like: a depth, a smoothness, a sublety that is hard to create with even a full-frame camera. If I owned and used such a tool it wouldn't drastically transform my pictures, but it would make them somewhat better, and as important, they would be more pleasing to *me* than they are now, at least sometimes.
All this is, of course, subjective.
For objective evidence you should probably go look at DXO.