Ric: I criticize a few aspects of the Brunswick test, and make a few recommendations for clearing up confusion, and you act like I've kidnapped your first born child and I'm holding it for ransom. Just an honest acknowledgment of the obvious problems of would have been sufficient.
You seem to want it both ways. You post that "We have stated that the video was done for those to view it for what it is, an educational video". But when the completeness of the effort is discussed, you want everything evaluated from the perspective of a complete effort that's beyond reproach or challenge.
As far as my own test, I'm the first to admit if fails the standards I've held BrunsNick to. My conclusions have more to do with what I personally experienced, taking everything I could into consideration, rather than an effort that would hold up to outside analysis. As I've said, this just isn't important enough to me to go to that extreme. I've said CG effect is minimal, but believe there is enough there to at least influence pin placement if an X-Hole is not going to be required. If you believe different, so be it.
I apologize if you you've taken any of this personally. My intent was not personal attacks, but to analyze tests presented. I'll leave it at that.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"