I assume a lot of the wide variety of opinions here on stainless, is because stainless steel alloys for bikes has not been around long.
And also b/c the 3 main stainless steel alloy for bikes have distinctly different make-ups and pricing.

While "convenience (low maintenance)" and "cosmetics" are big benefits of stainless steel, they are not the only benefits.
(An added cosmetic benefit is if you like the fillet brazed look you can do that in SS, but not titanium)

You can't overlook superior strength and hardness over CrMo: These steels are not the stuff we use for spoons and knives.
If you look at strength to weight ratio Reynolds 953 (the priciest SS) is higher than 6/4 titanium and 2.5x higher than Reynolds 525 (regular Chromoly steel). ( http://reynoldstechnology.biz/assets...ys_extract.pdf )

The newer martensitic, air hardenable KVA MS2 is not as strong as Reynolds (but less of a pain for builders to work with). The ultimate tensile strength is about the same as R853, but is up to 42 HRC. Based on available tubesets, you can build a KVA frame as lighter than the lightest R853 frames. The general consensus from builders on the net is that KVA still has the feel of steel people like, but is snappier. (http://roadbikeaction.com/New-Releas...ess-Steel.html )
I have no data, but I venture to say stainless is more dent resistant than CrMo of the same diameter and commonly used oversized titanium tubes used on bikes.

I've seen SS frames cheaper and more expensive than titanium. That and the fact that it requires a truly talented builder to work with the stuff leads me to also agree you can't call it the poor man's titanium. And you kind of insult the engineers who developed these materials if you lump this new class of frame materials in with chromoly steel and kitchen knives.