Steve,
Your reviews are always fun to read. You are over the top, but that's OK. It will turn off some, but its who you are. Don't apologize for it. That said, a few observations:
You are right about moire. I have had it a few times on my M8.2; it just takes detail at the right frequency for it to show up. Adobe Capture Raw will actually smooth it out in many cases, so it may be a case of your raw converter needing to be updated to better deal with moire. I noticed it another image on page 6 of your review.
As for the 35 lux, of course it still has focus shift. It has nothing to do with the camera or sensor; it's a function of the lens design. I'm surprised anyone would think it would be a function of sensor size. However, you have demonstrated clearly that its just a function of lens design. Just like the Canon 50/1.2L--you have to learn to live with it as part of the trade-offs of what the lens is good at.
Just a nitpick, but on page 12 you mention that today is October 1, but its really September 29--at least here on the west coast. Has the midwest moved their calendars ahead recently?
On page five, I think you have an error. The shot where you had the 24/1.4 on the camera but still had the lens set to 90mm DOES have correction on, although you say it doesn't. It just has the WRONG correction set; if you had it manually set to 90mm, then the camera is applying the correction for that lens.
Finally, on the high-ISO noise, I guess this is one area where I would like to see some 100% samples to back the claims that the M9 is better. The few 100% samples I have seen show no real improvement. Given that it appears to be essentially the exact same sensor (just FF with some changes on the microlens layout) and most of the exact same electronics, this would be what we expect--little real improvement. Sean Reid's very detailed review shows this to be case.
I will get an M9 as soon as they are physically available, but I guess I have now developed a realistic view: Some items like the LCD cover and lack of LCD on the top are real and significant downgrades. Oh well, I will have to live with it, but its disappointing. Some items are disappointing that they weren't fixed/enhanced: Speed of the camera (wake-up, etc.), low-resolution LCD (not ideal for verifying focus, especially for those who love shooting wide open with fast glass), overall high-ISO performance. All of that said, the reality is that its always magical to use the camera lens combo as they were designed--which is to say, full-frame. Like you said, its like going from an APS-C or APS-H to FF sensor in the DSLR world. The lenses reveal their true nature when used as designed, and its obvious. That to me is worth the upgrade.
I suspect that within a year or so we will see an M9.2 with a higher-resolution LCD, true chrome, and the sapphire LCD cover. It's the new world of the digital M--the cameras won't be as long-lived as the old film M's.
Jeff
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhapeman 
