> that you are able to do so when – by your own admission – “To
> quantify the probability in this particular case is impossible
> since we do not have all the variables needed to do the
> calculation.” Have you any idea just how ridiculous your
> position here is?
Your original question was "how many here on GHMB consider the clear gemoetric relationships in the diagrams below to be the result of simple coincidence".
A consideration is "a thought or reflection; an opinion based upon reflection". You asked for my opinion. And got it.
> MA: I shall leave it to the readers to decide for
> themselves if I have answered your question or not.
> SC: Oh yes – you gave an answer but a completely illogical
> answer which means it is no answer at all.
You asked for my opinion and got it. If a statement was what you were looking for, you should have asked for it.
> I am sure most
> readers will be puzzled how you can claim on the one hand a
> probability value above 50% and yet, on the other hand, you
> have “no idea” upon what to base that value.
I am sure you are wrong. Most people make probability-assessments without any calculus on a regular basis.
Who said that "I have no idea upon what to base that value"? I know excactly "upon what" I base it. I base it on your inability to provide evidence beyond "it looks right".
What I said was "I have no idea how probable". See the difference?
> This is what is
> being asked of you, so do explain. Or retract your statement.
You asked for an opinion and got it. No statement was put forth - there is nothing to retract.