> SC: Well let us go back a step, shall we. You did not answer my
> question. You answered my initial question stating that the
> geometric relationships exhibited between G1 and G3 was
> probably coincidence and then when I subsequently asked you to
> quantify your probability, you then claimed you had "no idea".

So, I answered your initial question. And then I answered your follow-up question with "I have no idea how probable".

Questions answered.

> How can something, in your opinion, be "probably coincidence"
> when you have "no idea" how that might be so?

That is not what I said. I never commented on "how that might be so". Again, I said that "I have no idea how probable".
Here is a much needed crash course in probabilities for you: For something to be "probable", the probability must be above 50%. To quantify the probability in this particular case is impossible since we do not have all the variables needed to do the calculation.

> MA: You are in no position to demand anything.

> SC: Oh but I am.

No. See above.

> I am the Author of the Month here.. [snip]

Then act like it.

I shall leave it to the readers to decide for themselves if I have answered your question or not.

They might also ponder why you refuse to answer a relevant question concerning your hypothesis.

Morten