The HD CRT thing is pretty much accepted in general. You have to deal with contrast ratios and response time when looking at LCD and Plasma TVs. To quote many other opinions on the web, CRT will always offer the "blackest blacks", while black levels are usually not black enough on comparable LCD and Plasma TVs. For example, if you look at lower end LCD TVs with a contrast ratio of 3000:1, you might notice some hints of green colour when looking at black colours on the TV screen.

Another thing to note when selecting LCD or Plasma TVs is the response time, measured in miliseconds. The lower the number, the better. For example, a 2ms response time is better than a 16ms response time. If the response time is too high, you'll see something that is commonly referred to as lag, but lovingly called "HDTV Lag" in this HDTV era. CRT TVs don't have to deal with response time, since the image is displayed at the same time it is drawn on the tube. So yes, HD CRT can and do look better than LCD or Plasma. Think of CRT TVs as the standard by which LCD and Plasma TVs are measured against.

So why do people bother with LCD or Plasma? Size and space would be the main factor. I used to game on my Toshiba 29" HD CRT. It looked great when running any of my consoles. However, I have two main gripes with the TV: it isn't widescreen, so games that support widescreen will have black bars on the top and bottom of the TV, reducing the viewing area. The second reason is my main gripe: it weighs about the same as a baby elephant or something. And this is only 29". Let's just say that if AV makers decide to release a 50" HD CRT I doubt there will be any substance inside people's home that can withstand the extreme weight...