In response to Don's irrational obsession to his beloved textbook, I'd like to point out what the real purpose of that book is.

It isn't to create outstanding dancing.

Instead, it is to create a common starting point for the study, teaching, and discussion of dancing.

It doesn't really matter if the technique the teachers are being examined on is right, because the purpose of teaching exams is not to propogate perfect dancing. Instead, the purpose is to test the teacher's ability to learn and present structured and precise material about dancing. The quest for the state of the art comes later - once the teacher has the groundwork to observer, analyze, and describe how things might be subtly but importantly different from what was written down.

Much as they say "Democracy is the worst system, except for all the others" we could say "this book is the most innacurate... accept for all the others".

But it's role isn't to be accurate - it is instead a common reference and starting point, that isn't too bad as a way to dance for the first few years of a student's training.

Anonymous. Now hold on there are you saying that the Alex Moore book is inaccurate but more accurate than other books that are recognised by the IDSF. This includes the latest one which most teachers would have and is put out by the society. There are many steps that are not in the book. Pendulam Points Woodpecker Pepperpot and so on. You won't find a Three Step going diagnal to the centre which is often done in competitions. They're not there for obvious reasons.
It would seem your critizism of the book is simply because it does tell you not to twist. It does tell you that there is CBM on the first step of a Reverse. It doesn't tell you that you go to the point of imbalance. It doesn't tell you to have a left side lead into a Reverse Turn Foxtrot. It does tell you that there is a mid point, which is split weight, on a forward or backward step. Do you also try a left side lead in the Waltz. That's enough for now.