Well, I may belong to the other camp and suggest that if you are frustrated with changing lenses all the time and thus potentially missing a shot, a superzoom may be good for you.
When I started out, my first 2 lenses were the Canon combo, then I bought a Tamron 18-270 VC, the old non-PZD version. I was happy with my decision. I knew back then that if I wanted to achieve serious image quality to shoot let's say portraits, or wildlife, neither the Canons, nor the Tamron superzoom are good enough (I don't knwo anyone who shoots paying portrait gigs or weddings or serious birding with the Canon combo). But it was good for replacing the two Canon lenses I had before.
The Tamron was about 98% quality of the Canons, but I did not mind, since the Tamron allowed my to capture shots that I had sometimes missed due to not having the right lens on my camera.
Again, image quality is not superb, but it's not as bad as many people claim either.
Currently, the best of these superzooms is probably the Sigma 18-250mm OS MACRO, the newest version. Reviewers also are generally on the opinion that this model is the best. (DPreview review)
Currently there is a good deal going on here, costing only $300 from an authorized dealer (actually this deal is on the front page of Slickdeals)
I sold my Tamron 18-270 VC and bought this a few months ago and I'm happy with it. sharpness at 250mm is virtually the same as my Canon 55-250 was at 250mm.
This Sigma lens is pretty good for what it is: a lightweight, compact 14x zoom to take on a trip, travels, walkaround. Again, I do value great image quality (look at my signature for my gear). I know that when I shoot portraits, or events, or wildlife, I do use my other lenses specialized for those purposes. But they also cost a lot more and aren't by far as versatile for an everyday hike as my Sigma 18-250.