Originally Posted by
mstateglfr
wow that is condescending. What have I learned? You assumed things that I didn't say and so I directly clarified that I don't disagree with things you assumed I disagree with.
That isn't me learning, it's me clarifying things you mis-aasumed.
Are you serious? Whining about condescension after just writing "Side note- good work expressing your point. Accurately uderstanding what others typed isnt quite up to par, but keep working at it!"?
And that after being wholly unable to understand the thread, to boot. High comedy, that.
Originally Posted by
mstateglfr
I have been clear with the general options that likely do and don't exist based on bike type and timeline/decade.
Well, you were clear -- but now it's been shown why and how you were wrong, and you've backpedaled significantly.
Originally Posted by
mstateglfr
No. If you don't have this basic understanding, then you need to learn more before participating further. I am not interested in typing out complex and detailed explanations because I do not believe you are genuine in wanting to learn. I believe you are interested in focusing on a general comment that would be within ally hat info and hyperfocilusing on how that general comment may not always apply to all situations.
.
I think it's brutally obviously why you are not able to type out "complex and detailed explanations" -- because you cannot. So about a simple explanation? Maybe not enough to educate a simpleton, but just enough to show off your alleged knowledge. No need for ELI5 here, just a very basic review of the physics that cause, say, fork trail to affect a bicycle's acceleration, will do.