Ken,
I'm not trying to score any points. The funny thing to me is that when fellows like yourself post, ignoring the flaws of some designs, it seems to irritate you that someone points out the unsubstantiated statements that you make, such as this:
Based purely on optical quality and the image provided, SCTs come in last when comparing equal sized telescopes
So says you. Point being that on pure optical quality, YOU may think that Newts provide a better image, but I don't. I don't want to see diffraction spikes. Both have coma, the Newt more severe, and the SCT can be corrected for said coma. How do you correct for Coma in a Newtonian? If you feel that Newts have an advantage over SCTs, good for you. It means that you don't mind the optical abberations as much as another may. The optical quality on scopes is subjective to many, so your blanket statement is faulty IMO.
Nothing more, nothing less... 
Rich, I wasn't ignoring the flaws of other designs. I didn't feel the need to list the flaws of every design, it has been covered ad nauseum in this very thread over and over. They ALL have flaws, I freely admit that. I can also assure you I am not irritated either..
You say you are not trying to score points, yet it seems you want to counterpoint every negative listed for a SCT, like it is some competition that we can add a score up for at the end. Optically a SCT is the most compromised design. That is fact, not subjective opinion. We could go through every point one by one, actually we don't need to, Eddgie already did that. Some how you can't seem to accept that fact. Somehow you seem to think admiting it is the most compromised design optically, is the same thing as calling it a bad design or a bad telescope. They are not the same thing. You seem to be convinced that anybody who mentions the flaws in a SCT design has some axe to grind with them. I didn't wake up today and say "Man, lets go bash some SCTs in the SCT forum". Anyway, this is becoming a circular argument. Enjoy your SCT, I will enjoy mine..
Ken
I see Ken, so if YOU state something with emphasis over and over, ignoring the flaws of other designs, you're not trying to score points, but if I point out certain aspects of Newtonians and don't concede what you FEEL about the design, that they are better I'M therefore being obstinate? Hmm, that's interesting.
I noticed that a poster following yours now says that the Newtonian's design having coma can be CORRECTED using a Parracorr. Ok, so tell me Ken or other poster, how is it that a Newtonian NEEDS correcting for Coma, but that isn't a design compromise, is it? Maybe the severity of the compromise is in the eye of the beholder?
Ken, I'm not countering any of the flaws of the SCT. I believe I stated that they have coma, although not as severe as in the standard Newt design, you know, the ones that can be corrected with a Parracorr?
I've simply pointed out the fact that Newts are cumbersome, bulky, not easily transportable, and heavy compared to similar sized SCTs. Is that untrue? I challenge you Ken to show me where I am in denial about the design flaws of the SCT. Which SCT problem have I denied? It seems to me that you might just be the one who is in denial.
Perhaps you can answer a few simple questions Ken. Is a 14 inch Classic Newt as easily transportable as an SCT? Would a 14 inch Newtonian have more coma than an SCT? That was basically all that I stated. I haven't denied the theoretical design flaws in the SCT, I simply said they didn't cause issues for me. There is coma in an SCT. Mine has so very little, its hard for me to see. I also know for a fact and haven't denied that the contrast isn't as good in an SCT as other designs. I think I stated in another post SO What? Therefore no issue really for me. How is that being in denial Ken??