It is significant to note that the 1881 Westcott-Hort edition of the Greek New Testament actually reflects the closest approach to a “pure Alexandrian” text edition that has ever been created. The later editions of Nestle and others, including the identical text of the current Nestle-Aland 26th-27th editions and UBS 3rd-4th editions fail to preserve the “pure” Alexandrian character of the text in as sharp a manner as did Westcott and Hort, who relied primarily on the joint testimony of Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) in contradistinction to the assimilation of readings from manuscripts of other texttypes which is consistently practiced according to the eclectic principles espoused by the framers of the modern critical editions.
The current text found in the Nestle-Aland 26-27 and UBS 3-4 editions is actually an “eclectic” text, which reflects editorial choice among variant readings found in ALL known manuscripts and texttypes. Even though the current critical texts stand primarily in alignment with the Alexandrian manuscripts and in opposition to the Textform (Byzantine/Majority) found in most Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the modern critical editions at best represent a “halfway house” between two opposing document-based schools of New Testament Greek textual criticism. They thus present a predominantly Alexandri an text “compromised” with numerous “Byzantine” readings (now shown to be ancient by many early papyri).
Most of the readings wherein the Nestle-Aland 26-27/UBS 3-4 text differs from that of Westcott-Hort actually reflect a turn toward selected Byzantine readings, primarily because these supposedly “late” readings (so deprecated by Westcott and Hort) are now proven to be early thanks to their discovery in various early papyrus documents
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/biblia/gnt/index.htm
As for the comment that the Alexandrian text is "compromised" with Byzantine variations, the same can be said of the whole Codex Alexandrinus.
Despite your claim that I am behind on this issue, there is a surprising lack of balanced (non-biased, non-Protestant) scholary agreement on the "theory" that the older Alexandrian-type text is somewhow "junk" and the Byzantine-type is the one and true version, or that the KJV is the Bible. The KJV is anything but that.