Originally Posted by Lowell Goudge 
perhaps
but if I don't need to use PS why should I. I think that is the point here. I appreciate that you can do a lot with a photo editor, but if you take the time to know your camera, (at least as much time as you spent learning PS for example) you can adjust it to do everything you need.
In a very narrow world this may be true. Let's go back to the analogy of RAW and JPG being similar to Negative film and print. Using JPG only is like telling the local Costco girl just give me the prints and throw away those pesky negatives.
You say that you hardly ever post process, That is great if your intended output is one device and only one device. What if one of your precious relatives says "remember that picture you took of
you-know-who, I would love to have that as an 8x10." So now you go back to your JPG and for a print you need to enlarge then sharpen your image. In every world I live in (and some think it's more than one, or maybe that's just in my head
) using a RAW file would be much better than any JPG.
I think the real point here is, not that your workflow is more or less, or even knowing your camera, it is the ability to smartly archive and preserve the moment you are trying to capture with the most fidelity possible. This is the only way you can then manipulate the image properly to adjust it to any version of the reality your memory allows, at any point in the future.