No-Fork project, bicycle geometry hacked

And while were at it a small comment on the silly and stupid issue: With the No-Fork project i believe i have shown that it is possible to have a bike with angled wheels to ride like a normal bike. I dont like it when the No-Fork project is made out as silly or stupid in this respect. On any other plane (or angle of attack) Im fine with the project being made out for silly, stupid, awkward or anything.

I don't think I've ever attacked the validity of your execution or theoretical basis of your project, just questioned the sanity of investing so much time and, presumably, money in a project of this kind. The people who think it's Gorgeous Baby Blue skies research are a little off the mark, since there is nothing here which is really far outside the normal sphere of activity of single track vehicle design. You seem to have asked, in essence, "can I ride in a straight line with the wheels at an angle to the surface", which is a valid question but one which is answered every time a commuter rides on a crowned road, or a track cyclist travels down the straight at the velodrome

You may be getting over excited about the stupid/silly question in part because you're missing some cultural reference points, such as this

David St. Hubbins: It's such a fine line between stupid, and uh...
Nigel Tufnel: Clever.
David St. Hubbins: Yeah, and clever.

and the whole stream of serious silliness which peaked in the popular consciousness between the Go On Show and Flowery Twats. There is a place for wilful stupidity and whimsical silliness, and it is possible to embed either into an endeavour which also contains deep seriousness and rigour.

It was tacky, but I assumed tester was providing an example of a twisted logic which can occur when someone fails to recognise what is science and what is emotion.

As long as one person gets it, I'm obviously communicating clearly enough. When speaking to a mixed ability crowd, I pitch to the high flyers and assume everybody else will catch up if they want to.

But that is neither here nor there, he's still genocidal.

No serious person would describe the murder of 80 (or even the targeted ~1000) out of a population of 4 million ethnic Norwegians in Norway as genocide. Furthermore, the target was not ethnic Norwegians in general (which would really be fratricide anyway, given the perpetrator) but a narrowly defined political group within the whole population, regardless of ethnicity.