I have only one problem with your assessment of sealed vs. ported designs: they are BOTH compromises. You throw that term around repeatedly when describing bass reflex subs, but it also applies to acoustic suspension.
How? Well, when you choose a sealed enclosure, you compromise extension and volume for linearity and phase behavior. At least, that is almost certainly the case at a given price point. Sure, you can always increase the price to provide for better drivers and more powerful amplifiers to bring the sealed design's extension and ouput back into line with the less expensive ported design, but now you can buy an equally priced ported design which will again have more extension and output. It is also possible that total distortion at a given level will be lower in the ported design (though not guaranteed by any means) if the total driver + port noise at lower amplifier power and excursion levels is less than the total driver noise at higher amplifier power and excursion levels.
And, perhaps you're talking about a "no compromises" price no object design. In that case, sealed enclosures are still compromises. Why are the NHT evo subs the size they are? They would perform better, all things being equal, in larger enclosures. Oh, but wait... you do lose something going to a larger enclosure, and you gain something as well. Either choice is a compromise based on what you deem is more important. Any sealed enclosure is a compromise to achieve the best (as judged by the manufacturer) performance at a given price point (despite Jack's claims - saying you design to a given performance level and let the price fall where it may is just a semantically differenty way of stating the same thing).
A true "no compromises" sub wouldn't be sealed at all. Therefore, a sealed enclosure is a compromise to keep the package in a reasonable size. A ported design is a compromise that trades extension and output for linearity (distortion could swing either way).
Now, IMO, sealed designs sound better. Like you, I would gladly make the compromise of less extension and output to retain a lower Q and greater linearty and smoother frequency response. But you have to realize those are personal preferences. Spouting off about your opinion being irrefuteable laws of physics is no better than sticking your fingers in your ears and shoting "nah nah." Your preference is for a compromised design as well, so I see no reason to get so defensive about Andre's (technically correct) assessment.