The distributed multi-sub approach has nothing to do with whether or not the mains are highpassed. Those are two separate decisions. I’m probably the one who caused the confusion because I’m a distributed multi-sub advocate but not an advocate of automatically high-passing the mains in every situation. I think it depends on the specifics.
I know, Duke re: multi-sub approach and high-passing mains, but I brought this into the mix, so to speak, because it's my impression the general gist with multi-sub use is to cross fairly low to the mains (i.e.: without high-passing them), not least taking into account the directionality at higher frequencies and how this could be seen as an issue with subs scattered throughout the room around the listener.
I did refer to high-passing the mains as a "potential benefit," which is also a way of saying that I side with your view on how it "depends on the specifics."
The distributed multi-sub approach apparently works well in many situations, but is not the only approach that works well, and in some situations it would not be the approach I'd choose. It depends on the specific situation.
I believe this has always come across rather consistently from your writings, certainly implicitly, contrary to other advocates here of the 4-sub approach who seem quite adamant of it being the only true quality solution, so much indeed that considering otherwise is "not getting it." Again, I've heard great 4-sub setups, no contention here, but I believe a symmetrically placed 2-sub setup can make wonders as well.