Stacy,
You have no idea how lame these excuses* that you make up, time and again, are.
So you think that by and large MOND is considered a crackpot idea? Or is it that you prefer to direct your thoughts to those idiots that think that it is. This is absolute rubbish. Actually, I think it verges on scientific misconduct. If there is a RESPECTABLE theory that predicted what you find (a no-scatter relation of slope 4)
then honesty dictates** that you say this in the paper and abstract, and all excuses of the type you mention, even if they had any sense, are forbidden. Believe me, if people heard your excuses for not mentioning MOND they would think you dishonest. And, in the end, these matters do come to light.
Everywhere I go I see that MOND is encountered with great respect***. I am now in Kyoto where I attended two meetings, one on GR, last week, where I was invited to review MOND, and another, this week, a DM conference, where I was invited to chair a session where Khoury spoke. There is a lot of interest in MOND and in how it performs vs. DM, so don't try to sell me these unacceptable excuses.
Anyway, you do your thing, I'll do mine.
Moti Milgrom
** Indeed. Honesty is the entire reason I find myself in this ludicrous predicament (see this much older post). When I first worked on the Tully-Fisher relation I was unaware of MOND and its predictions. When I became aware, I said so - because that was the honest thing to do, even if it did surprise the bejeepers out of me. It would have been much easier (and more convenient, career-wise) to ignore. I continue to write papers about MOND and the Tully-Fisher relation, when appropriate. I do not agree that every paper about the Tully-Fisher relation also has to be about MOND. Not everything can be crammed into a single paper, even if we try.
***Hmm. I wonder how that came to pass?