Be irritated - That's part of my goal.
Irritation leads to action. If I have to irritate to get these tests rerun, or to get someone to at least acknowledge that they're horribly flawed, then that's what I need to do.
Because you guys seem content with the alternative - Allowing people to think any number of the following:
1) The people behind these distributions are so incompetent they get half the performance possible, across the board, other than Ubuntu 7.04.
2) Linux performance is dictated by random chance or the will of the Gods or the position of the moon.
3) This site can't manage to benchmark a ham sandwich reliably.
Which is it? Are the results flawed, or are we really going to accept that Ubuntu 7.04 is twice as fast as any other version of Ubuntu of Fedora? Because this site seems to continue to perpetuate these benchmarks as accurate. It's clear they are not.