Just one thing I want to point out, and makes me rethink the subject over and over. That was the accident of a Fokker 100 in Sao Paulo (CGH) in 1986. The cause of the mishap was a Reverser Deployment after rotation with a fatal outcame.
That particular incident really deserves it's own discussion. It wasn't a case of a reverser light illuminating prior to rotation. In the case of the fatal TAM flight, the autothrottle was engaged. The autothrottle attempted to retard power, and the first officer pushed it up twice, complicating the problem and making it worse. He was fighting the autothrottle which was attempting to adjust the thrust levers, and finally disengaged it and pushed up the power manually on both powerplants...sealing their fate.
The fact that the thrust reverser deployed wasn't what brought them down. it was their insistance on not recognizing that the reverser had deployed and repeatedly fighting the airplane while using the incorrect response. One has to recogize the problem that exists in the first place, in order to do something about it, and the crew wasn't aware that a reverser was deployed, at all. You really can't compare that situation to the discussion at hand.
With a reverser deployment, retarding the power on the affected engine is critical. There's really not much one can do that's worse than pushing the power up on the affected engine...repeatedly. It's a different topic than a rejected takeoff, however...and with a reverser unlock light on takeoff, we're not talking about an unsafe condition that places the ability of the airplane to fly in question. We're talking about a light, with no other indications. One can't handle an emergency that doesn't exist, and by rejecting the takeoff for that light, one is creating an emergency when one didn't exist.
Be careful of scars earned from battles in which you should never have fought.