Bob -
Yes, I misquoted the soft-field procedure, i'm sorry (I don't have the
book in front of me).

Could you elaborate more on your 'no' for the procedure I mentioned?
I'm more interested in why one particular talkoff procedure over
another... This is about increasing my personal understanding more than
it is about simply being told 'what the book says' so to speak.

Brian-
Thanks for your input, some quick responses-

True, But not a very smooth takeoff as you have pitch up, pitch down
and then pitch back up.

Done 'correctly' (again, I'm not 100% sure I'm correct, but the old
timers at my club swear by it), the pitch down after attaining ground
effect is very subtle... I do have to say that it "feels" really
smooth.

False in most cases on a paved runway, In fact I watched a Commache
Crash doing this. Fully loaded he was off the ground in 1500 feet in
ground affect nose high. He flew off the end of the 5000 foot runway
still nose high and only 4 feet off the ground before he aborted the
take off. He never was able to reach his best climb speed in the nose
high, high drag configuration.

Hmm... that's interesting, my initial sophomoric instinct suggests that
perhaps he didn't release enough of the back-pressure to accelerate
enough... but as I said - purely sophomoric judgement there.

True, But good crosswind rudder and aileron control input will usually
let you take off without having to do so. (Raise the downwind wing and
keep straight with the rudder)

A slip is still a slip though, isn't it? even if you're correctly
downwind-wing-high and on your upwind gear, the wind is still striking
the fuselage at an angle.

False, See response to #2 DA was a significant factor in
that accident, But if proper short field technique had been used I
believe they would not have had an issue.

I have no experience with higher DA yet, so I am completely
un-qualified to comment I suppose - I am merely quoting what i have
been told

Did you mean Soft Field?

yes