Here is your picture with some annotations:
Note that there is no '>' shape to the trail side, that the lead side is apx vertical and that the spine is pretty much angled towards the target.
By comparison Charlie Wi:
Has a '>' shape to his trail side and has both his spine and his lead side angled away from the target.
As I noted previously the fact that your example has the lead side apx vertical (though his torso indicated by his apx spine position and nearly linear trail leg & torso is angled towards the target) does not counter what is 'taught' by S&T through their commercial.
Now you might have said 'Well the commercial may show that but their instruction says something different' but you did not. Instead you posted a quote from the instruction that does not at all address the point stating instead that you find it difficult to reconcile the statement with what is clearly shown in their commercial. Your difficulty with that does not counter the objective evidence of their commercial (and yes it is objective even though it may not agree with what you think or even with what they write).
The fact is that for their commercial, S&T chose to have people demonstrate something that is not representative of what their 'stable of pros' actually do. Even Charlie Wi in the commercial has a top of swing position that does not match his real (i.e. video from actual play) swing. You take the position that their commercial is not their 'teachings'. That is a fundamental point about which I disagree.
The way a civil discussion founded in facts proceeds is for each to post their objective evidence and then to discuss it. You never acknowledged the photo that I posted beyond saying that it was not representative of S&T instruction. You never presented a direct counter to the photo I posted - no denial in their material saying that the torso should NOT be angled towards the target at TOS or interpretation of the photo I posted that it did not show what I said. You presented a quote that did not address the point. You've now posted a photo that you believe shows that the torso is not angled towards the target. I've responded to your objective data with annotations that show why I believe the same photo does show the torso inclined towards the target. A direct counter. That is how a civil, fact based discussion should proceed.
As to your personal comments about those that may disagree with me - there have been many here that disagreed with me and posted their objective data to support their position. These have been followed with very fruitful discussion as the data was discussed and other data presented. Some have learned that there may be alternate interpretations of seemingly obvious data. Some recent discussions indicate that those that take this approach have no problems with continuing to disagree with me here and engage in those discussions.
The rules here are that your comments should address the message and not the messenger. You had been a member here long enough to know that. You have violated that a number of times in this discussion. No more of your posts that violate that rule will appear here.