I have posted this link on my old blog, but I wanted to post it again in case I’ve actually gained a few new readers who are unfamiliar with Dr. Robinson’s work. Before I say anything, let me go ahead and post the text from his second point in the introduction and its corresponding footnote:
Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner. (2)
(2)This includes all the various factions which hope to find authority and certainty in a single “providentially preserved” Greek text or English translation (usually the KJV). It need hardly be mentioned that such an approach has nothing to do with actual text-critical theory or praxis. (Emphasis his)
Robinson’s argumentation is convincing to me, though I’d like to hear what his opponents say concerning this particular essay.
Son of the Fathers 
I’ve read the essay, and I’ve been searching for some time to find any sort of serious response. So far all I’ve found are arguments without anything approaching the detailed substantiation Robinson backs up his with–empty assertions that the Byzantine text is obviously “late,” full of conflations, the result of a recension, etc. Also, assertions that “Most Byzantine priorists are not textual experts” and the like. So far I’ve been unable to find any sort of refutation of Robinson that does not rest on hopelessly fuzzy logic, ad hominem attacks, or appeals to the authority of scholars. I’ve got to say I’m still solidly with Robinson.