So, this illustrates two basic disagreements between us....
"Disagreement" implies there is no error on your part. There is, and you are simply unwilling to bear the consequences of it.
Whether or not Bayesian statistics actually applies to my usage.
There is no question on this point. Every single qualified statistician you've consulted has told you that you are wrong. We've explained in exactly what way you are wrong. You're simply uninterested in that information.
Whether or not my numbers should be taken seriously.
Your model is broken at a fundamental level, and you've already admitted you cannot redeem it. In addition, you have simply made up all the "data" you propose to feed that model. Why should you expect that to be taken seriously? It's a joke from beginning to end, and you don't seem to realize that everyone but you can see this.
I'll be reviewing our past conversation for other unresolved disagreements between us, but you can probably provide your remaining reservations faster than can I.
Oh, please. You were given a comprehensive list of your errors. You pretended for six months that it didn't exist and then finally admitted you couldn't answer it. It's far past the time when you can convince anyone you're serious about addressing errors in your proof. You've ever only wanted people to give you a round of applause for allegedly being so clever.
I doubt that I can be much more convincing than I already have without allowing for another year or two of debate -- and, probably not then either...
The reason you aren't convincing is because you're simply wrong in ways that are exceptionally easy for knowledgeable people to discern. The people whose approval you've sought in the past were not very discriminating and let you get away with unchallenged nonsense. You keep admitting defeat in this roundabout way but decline to own it. After five years of peddling the same nonsense and expecting people just to roll over and let you keep committing these simple errors, it's time to admit the problem is with you, not with them. But no, your history shows you won't do this. You're only admitting tactical defeat now in order to soften criticism. I guarantee it won't last.
...to at least one statistics site, and see what happens.
You already did that, and you haven't changed your basic argument or strategy since you did. What did they tell you? They told you that you were wrong and explained why, just as we have. Not only that, they told you that you were delusional to the point of "reinvent[ing] probability theory" to make your theory work. They further reached the same conclusion as we have: that you are entirely impervious to criticism and seem just to want to hear yourself talk and be praised for it.
The problem is not your audience. The problem is that you are objectively wrong. You are wrong in easily discerned, elementary ways, not in some esoteric nuance that you can convince a crowd of sycophants is just the braying of skeptics.
I doubt that I can do any better at quashing your reservations than I already have...
Then you agree that you have lost the debate and that your proof fails.
