WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ARTICLE? "REFRACTORS ARE NO GOOD"

[Dr Strange]

I think that is rather presumptive, biased and possibly ignorant though I am not very familiar with the author and can't tell if he is serious or was taking the mickey.

Having worked with both reflectors and refractors they each have their place and purpose. For example, I wouldn't try and view most open clusters with an SCT but I wouldn't go after planetary nebulae or globular clusters with a refractor as my primary tool. The same would apply if I were looking for short looks or for that matter didn't have a lot of time to view. In that case a refractor will cool faster and reach thermal equilibrium ergo will be a better fit overall for that use case. However the SCT is considered the Swiss Army knife of telescopes so for a beginner who had to pick one telescope that would be a good choice to start with if they didn't want to go with a Dobsonian.

Bottom line is both types of telescope (reflector and refractor or SCT and refractor) have their place and purpose. 

[mikeDnight]

If efractors are no good then the Earth is flat! 

[coopman827]

All telescopes are good because they are tools that enable us to observe the universe.  Each design has its own pros and cons.  There is no perfect telescope or else the other types would no longer exist.  If you want to go deep and see a lot of DSOs, then aperture is what you will need more than anything else.  Myself, I am not out there trying to find/see every DSO in the star atlas.  I am more interested in spending quality time under the stars and experiencing the awesomeness to  whatever degree that I can, with whatever equipment that I happen to be using at that particular time.