Yes it does. But, those guidelines don't prohibit someone from offering their own ideas on behavior guidelines.

every sip? where can i buy one?

People are usually branded as trolls when it appears that they are only arguing for the sake of arguing and/or making inflammatory statements that serve no purpose other than to cause controversy.

FYI it's Bud Light.

please no, not that. time to do some bike maintenance.

i read that thread. i'm not a math wiz but i was really happy to see that someone essentially picked up the challenge to show some math. right or wrong there was some actual math put up. regardless of where it came from it turned into a festival of arguing from both sides. it kept going on and on and even brought in arguing about whose AI is better than some other AI crap. that thread had two, maybe three, long winded arguments and i'd say that was trolling from both sides, not just one.

coffee brewed, time for wrench turning.

"That thread" was not mentioned in my post nor the post I was responding to. Mine was a general statement, as I assumed the other post was.

Sure they can but nobody is under an obligation to abide by the guidelines set by that " someone" whoever they may be....My only obligation is to abide by the rules set up by the MODS who oversee this forum.

No one said you were obligated to abide by his guidelines. You are free to ignore every word of it.

"that thread" that shall not be named. its got a certain ring to it. :lol:

never did get to the bike...forgot that i had to make an antenna for an old radio that got moved to the kitchen. 1928 (or 29, i forget) American Bosch sounding so nice now. hands are still waxy, almost like waxing a chain.

I am all for respecting personal preferences. Nothing wrong with personal preferences (subjective statements) - ex: I like to do it this way and it's better for me. But when one claims that A is significantly faster than B (objective statements) and has no scientific evidence to back it up, that's a totally different story.

...*sigh* :( this is when you are supposed to call your sponsor.

...this is a common misunderstanding. It's not at all that the mathematical explanation provided is wrong. It is that it is only "right" within certain limits. So to generalize from it, to include "all cases", is pretty much the definition of bad science. At least, that is what I heard in all my college science classes.

To address your "force of negativity" comment: Part of the distracting pseudo babble, which you probably don't understand as well, is that the problem is not in the math, it is in the way the argument is structured. This is a very common reaction to discussions when people with a strong confirmation bias, are presented with some sort of alternative conclusion. There are a number of ways the human mind reacts to this cognitive dissonance.

One is to simply continue repeating, "I'm right !" Another, is to listen, attempt to analyze what's being presented as the alternative, and try to somehow combine the two into some expanded synthesis. There is even a demographic that grows increasingly hostile, the longer the discussion ensues. Those people eventually classify the presenter of the alternative as some sort of enemy (or "troll" in this case). Trust me, there are numerous studies of the phenomenon. Many of the more recent ones are in the realm of political belief systems. But I don't want to trigger anyone, so you'll need to do your own searches. Wikipedia treats the topic, but only superficially, here.

Happy to see I've made another friend here. :love:

So I take it you don’t agree with my suggestions then? Or is it just the principle that you find patronising?

But those rules don’t prevent you from trolling or just talking complete bs. I think it’s safe to say that most regular forum members have you marked down as a sad troll.

When did you suddenly become aware that people have different cycling preferences?

Says nothing to me, what does it say to you?

Here you go again.

Ok, you are right. If you promise to keep your psychobabble in check.

There was no all cases argument in that thread. It was merely putting the trivial MOI of wheels into context when OTHERS made the general statement of how massively important they were. Like all of your type, you have it backwards.

Another thread starts biting the dust .....

I find I learn a lot when talking to people who know more about a subject than I do when I say "please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand this is..." It's a good way to help them figure out what I do know and what I misunderstand, so they can tailor the explanation. My job involves explaining things to people who vary a lot in their levels of education and knowledge, and one of the basic tasks is figuring out how deep the explanation can be without either swamping them with stuff they're not equipped to understand or boring them by repeating what for them is the bleeding obvious.

Rule #1 of this method of learning is to concede the point if you're told you're wrong.
​​​​​

...I apologize for using big words. Mea culpa.

...fify.

What I am surprised with, is that the most obnoxious trolling/Luddites which weight into any discussion surrounding a product or technology implemented after 1975 are all obviously in their 60’s or 70’s. You would expect a more mature discourse

...you could request that they close this one, too, before it gets out of hand. Think of it like a mercy killing.

...let me reiterate what I have already stated many, many times. I think these wheels, and the bicycles they usually roll around under, are great, if you prefer or "need" them. They are a little pricey, but so are a lot of things. So that's all relative. I would never, ever, presume to dictate some sort of preference choice based on my own criteria. I'm glad you're having fun on them, and I am one of these older people, of whom you speak.

I cannot speak for anyone else. Obviously there are some people who feel like modern bikes are Satan's spawn. Which I also find mysterious.

...so why dwell on it ? Why not simply move on ? Why the compulsion to imagine an army of trolls, out to disrupt your threads of pure wisdom ? I confess that of all the things you've put forth, this is the one I find most mysterious.