I don't think the rotation neglect constitutes a problem for our tests on #389.  I mean, if for no other reason than that they worked. :)  

But more seriously...  for the parametric galaxies, we did start with a circular galaxy (shearing it to make it elliptical, and then shearing it again to add a testable shear, right?), so this shouldn't have introduced any bias.  For the real galaxy tests, we started with the already-sheared galaxy and sheared it again.  So the rotation was already in there, since we didn't rotate the galaxies further (except obviously in the rotation test)--they're the orientation they were in the COSMOS images.  So in both cases I think we wouldn't have included a rotation even if we used a generalized formula that could include it.  Do you agree?

(Side note, I see that you left this comment 2 months ago, which I guess is a kind of scale for how long I've had tabs open in my browser...)