Shy:
"I maintain the view that I'd rather have a well equipped single than a poorly equipped twin."
Quite right
"However, the argument for and against SE isn't just about the likelihood or not of engine failure. It's about duplication of other systems, such as electrical generators, especially with regard to IFR operations."
Agree on the other systems, so they should not be linked to number of engines, let singles duplicate if that is appropriate. Anyway duplication does not equate to more reliable, (the opposite often, magnetos are a classic example)
"I have flown in IMC in both single engines fixed and rotary wing aircraft (trained to do so and done quite legally) but i do look back and think that I'm very glad not to have to do it now." Sure, but a B3 now does not have a significant downside from only having one engine, but does have a significant downside in not being more capable wrt equipment (esp legality of IMC equipment)
Crab "skill-fade due to automation-reliance is very real in the FW world and is spreading into the RW world. I'm an old-fashioned boy (perhaps dinosaur) and rather believe if you have a pilot in the cockpit, he should be capable of flying the aircraft really well. " I am completely with you on that one, although there are significant operators who think that there's not enough understanding of the automatics either.
As for your views on statistics and probability I don't think you have logic on your side on that one.
The numbers in my (oversimplified) example surely illustrate that small point (?)