Okay, what ya'll are saying about the NIV is pretty accurate. I checked out several of the verses noted by drbrumley. A few of the verses which he had said were missing were, in fact, in there; also, I never saw a verse which was totally missing - if it was not in the main body of the text, there was always a footnote which had the verse. But, for the most part, drbrumley was accurate (though I did not check all of his claims).
However, the vast majority of the verses were parenthetical in nature - they don't mean all that much. In fact, there was one which was literally parenthetical. A lot of those verses were not that big of a deal.
Also, by comparing the NIV with the NWT and the Jehovah's Witnesses, you imply that the NIV supports the Arian heresy, which it does no more than the KJV, NKJV, RSV, or any other English translation. (By the way, as a lover of the written word, you did a very good job of this. It was very subtly done. It made a point without seeming to. Kudos on your rhetoric)
Further, the NIV was meant for a Junior High audience. It is used by more than Junior Highers, but it was not originally meant for such a wide (and old) audience. Therefore, a perfect as a translation is not necessary, because it was not intended for scholars. It was only intended to give a decent translation to Junior Highers.
Basically, what I'm saying is that, yeah, you guys have good points, but what you're saying is a bit irrelevant. Or, if not irrelevant, then at least a very minor point - not the fundamental issue you into which you are making it.
