Here is a generalization for you to ponder - ANYBODY who makes absolute assertions without any objective evidence or comprehensible logic to back up those assertions is gonna get pounded by some and ignored by most on this site.
Those style posts make the poster appear uninformed, subjective and fanatical to a fault to, at least, me. and I am not one of the accomplished analysts to be found hear-abouts.
Wouldn\'t the same thing happen in your work environment? E.g. If I assert all horses have roughly comparable phenotype because they have the same number of legs and run around in groups. Do I appear informed?
Tell us about how your science applies, if it does, and share your evidence with those of us that are unfamiliar.
By the way, what probability (as a %) do you attribute to CC\'s chances of matching General ARod\'s number on a cold sloppy track in Kentucky with mud in his eye? God forbid!