This thread is interesting to me. I have read quite a lot of criticism of the NWT in the past (including the book by Countess) and found a lot of it to be reasonable. Not to mention that there did seem to be a large number of Greek scholars who had made statements against the NWT, and the fact that the WTBTS's list of supporting scholars was pretty weak (in some cases misleading regarding their credentials). Now this one scholar pipes up and basically says that criticism is all wrong, those 20 people you mentioned are all wrong, really in fact there is no consensus against the NWT because scholars don't have time, in fact the NWT is fabulous, etc. Just seems very curious. I for one did not find Countess' book "mostly tendentious and disputable". Of course I am not a Greek scholar [tm].
While I agree that the NWT is quite literally acurate in 99% of the verses, it is the 1% of tweaking that is an issue IMHO.