I’m sorry @Dan_Eastwood but, your endorsement of this comment notwithstanding, this claim is utter balderdash.
Carefully pruning away the context of a quote allows the quoter-out-of-context to make claims that make little sense in the full context – as Sam does here, as documented by @Roy here. It allows the quoter to distort, and thus misrepresent, the clear intent of the original comment.
That “the up arrow” does not do a sufficient job of retaining that context was clearly demonstrated by Sam himself. When he quoted me out of context here, he provided himself with so little context, that he was unaware that I had only hours before explicitly discussed, and provided a link to, “Marshall’s review”.
Context matters. And even without the distortions that removing context allows, it is confusing to have to search months ago, and hundreds of comments back, simply to find out what was really meant by a short phrase. This becomes increasingly unwieldy, as we will shortly see, if multiple comments are at play.
Sam, if you were genuinely interested in what I meant, rather than in petty point-scoring, then perhaps you should have looked at my comments IN CONTEXT!
I will do that now:
Looking at my comments in context, there is no contradiction between them:
-
The “highly unlikely”-not-“impossible” applied to a hypothetical apologist, not to Behe and Meyer specifically. And this hypothetical apologist might have greater scientific background in the topic they were discussing than those two do, so have a higher likelihood of insight.
-
Even somebody with lesser understanding can, by pure chance, utter something insightful. So even for Behe and Meyer, it is not-quite-impossible – merely more unlikely than for some apologists.
Sam, when your “chuckle[s]” are based on willful distortion of what was actually said, I in turn won’t be able to resist impeaching your vacuous humor. 
And I’ll take this “consesnsus” over the fetid cesspits of the ID echo chamber any day. 