Well I wrote it out, thoughtfully and with constructive intent so throw myself upon the merciful mods to stick this in there...it was the Devon99 thread about probability and god. Here:


If you are referring to me, yes I understood what you were trying (poorly) to say and the miscommunication that was happening. I also understand that you are wrong, do not understand what you are talking about and have been as thoroughly refuted as Ive ever seen on this forum. Michael has been patient, clear, concise and gracious in this discussion and you didnt listen and dont understand whats being said to you.
You sir, are the living embodiment the Dunning Krueger effect. You are too ignorant about probability and logic to understand why you are in gross error here.
Im not trying to be rude. My hope is that you will be helped by these criticisms in the future, but its crystal clear that whatever learning you’ve done on probability and logic was the bare minimum education you needed in order to utilise these subjects to reinforce a conclusion you already reached/held. Ad Hoc I believe its called.
So Im sincerely sorry to be the one to tell you that your critical thinking, logic and understanding of basic probability are very poor and fundamentally flawed. If you have any interest in understanding ideas like this you will need to learn or be taught basic critical thinking and logic.
Maybe you really are some kind of genius at probability, destined for nobel prize and overturning all the experts in those fields with your new way of looking at them but you haven’t demonstrated that. You have only demonstrated where you lack understanding, which makes it all the more difficult to believe you are correct and we are to simple to understand your genius contribution to probability theory and logic.
I know its going to feel like im attacking you, but Im not. Education sometimes feels that way when you have made large fundamental errors. This is a good example of Dunning-Krueger but if you think it isnt then please tell me how you excluded that as a possibility.

It was in response to him referencing me in a post to @Michael.