I've been using CRTs but am just curious. I've heard people say they are better than the flat panels for editing. Is that true?

yes yes yes

I thought so. Why?

just because this technology (CRT) allow better picture (but does not always deliver, if badly set up)
LCD is new technology, and almost like all new technologies, it is made to be cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter and whatever you name, but not BETTER.
In digital era, you can size product quality by just setting the number of bit, so usually , cheap LCD are far under the average quality of an average CRT (most of cheap LCD use only 7 bit, while you computer use 8)
You can find LCD that are as good or better than CRT, but they cost the hell.
Another thing is the LCD works with several layers of technology, so the final quality depends of the quality of each layer, were a CRT tube was pretty simpler and there was no room for improvement but the base principle itself was very good at the start.
So again you can find dozen of different LCD screen using different technology that are performing very differently. (chemical used for LCD, the way they are twisted, the backlight quality, the uniformity of backlight, dead pixel, speed of LCD, the antiglare layer, the electronic to manage all these pixels, etc...).

the basic challenges that a lcd as versus CRT is :
number of color rendered (banding into blue sky )
colors usually way to strong ((but you can correct this)
black and white render is often problematic at least for one (crushed blacks or burned whites)
contrast and luminosity too strong and not uniform
ghosting on fast moving picture on slow LCD (and the better the slower unfortunately).

Thanks
I love my CRTs! But boy are they heavy. (They do a great job though).
=)

Some people compromise, and use only use a CRT for their output monitor. That way they can be sure of color accuracy before final.

That being said, I only use CRTs anyway. Energy and counterspace carnivores notwithstanding, I make sure I turn them OFF - not standby - when not in use.