The key point you and a number of others missed:

I am addressing a community of non-mathematicians in the Bay Area, who plug numbers from their personal life into Bayes' Theorem *by ITSELF* without ANY modern techniques to aid them... and they feel blissfully confident in their conclusions! If you try to publish, having used "personal examples plugged into Bayes' Theorem, raw - done" then you would get laughed away - yet this community of "Rationalists" is smugly certain they are doing statistics correctly. You'll notice, I only mentioned Dirichlet and SAS as *examples* of the improvements we've made in those 260 years - the *kinds* of improvements which are *necessary* to get credible results.