You are the one that said "I", "I", "I", "MY". Just don't get it do you?
Kevin
I can't make it any plainer for you. If you (or anyone else) actually believed I was saying I could out-run a horse, you would haved called me a liar and asked me to prove it. But this ain't about that at all, is it?
You may have even provided a clue; "Used to like your post, but not so much in the last few years. Sure Cliff loves the waste of bandwith of your constant posting of crap starting thread, after thread, after thread, after thread, after thread,......"
You, like Formula88, seems to have taken some kind of offense to me. Well within your rights.
But what makes you think it's important that I hear about it from you?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-22-2015).]
(I'm a 55 year old fat man who can barely walk, let alone race a horse).
And yet you plainly stated you could. Fact is, anyone 'can' race a horse (or a human or any other animal or 'thing') and many do--they may walk most of the race and come in hours after the first few cross the finish line but they do participate by the thousands. The Houston Marathon is limited to 13,500 participants, the half Maraton has the same limit which means there are 27,000 participants. Winning is where the rub comes in. There is only one qualifying requirement for entering and partipating in the Houston Chevron Marathon and Houston Aramco Half Marathon: Participants must be at least 12 years old on race day to register for the marathon
For the Chevron 26.2 mile race, there is a 6 hour time limit. Water and Gatorade Endurance Formula (Lemon-Lime), the official on-course sports drink of the Chevron Houston Marathon, are available every 1.5 miles beginning at mile 2. The specialized Gatorade sports drink contains approximately twice the sodium of Gatorade Thirst Quencher (200 mg per 8 ounces), along with chloride, potassium, magnesium, and calcium to help sustain hydration by more fully replacing what is lost in sweat. The race is called at 6 hrs so the roads can be re-opened and anyone that hasn't finished at that time has their finishing time computed by how far they have run/walked up to that point in 6 hrs using an electronic chip carried on the runner's shoe or ankle. It's specific t each participant and is read by mats placed along the course--usually every 5 km. Some races in the past have allowed participants to continue running if they do not impede traffic. According to theat race's official website, In order to actually finish the 26.2 mile marathon in under 6 hrs, you would need to maintain an average pace of one mile/13.45 minutes.
The average person is understood to be able to casually walk 1 mile in 20 minutes, meaning a participant would need to run or jog at least a potion of the 26.2 mile course and walk the remainder in order to finish in under 6 hrs. (360 minutes) .
2-4mph is considered avg walking speed on a treadmill and 4-6 mph is considered avg jogging speed. Taking the middle numbers (3mph walking and 5mph jogging) means the average person in reasonably good health can walk 9 miles in 3 hours and at an avg jog for 3 hrs gets you 15 more miles down the course for 24 miles total in 6 hrs. Theoretically, one would only have to exceed the mid point avg of walking/jogging for a portion of the race to finish in 6 hrs. If you take the high end of each pace (4mph and 6mph) 4 hrs walking nets 16 miles and 2 hrs jogging nets 12 additional miles traveled=28 miles in 6 hrs.
For a horse: All horses move naturally with four basic gaits: the four-beat walk, which averages 4.0 mph; the two-beat trot or jog, which averages 8.1 to 12 mph. The equine's walk is on the high end of an avg human's ability in mph, and the jog or trot is more than double the high end of the average human's ability. In my younger days it was not unusual at all to remain on horseback all day long, alternating gallop, trot and walk. As long as they are hydrated, they can go as far and as fast as a human can.
I can't make it any plainer for you. If you (or anyone else) actually believed I was saying I could out-run a horse, you would haved called me a liar and asked me to prove it.
I doubt anyone actually believes anything you post anymore. I certainly don't. You used to be a thoughtful individual who posted insight into the human condition. That person hasn't been seen around here in years. Now most of your posts are random internet links that could just as easily be done with an RSS feed. Rarely do you offer any commentary on the topic you're posting. You're the PFF version of a pop-up ad.
You have repeatedly demonstrated intellectual dishonesty on this forum. Calling you a liar isn't necessary. Anyone can read your posts, and your backtracking and come to their own conclusions. I'm sure I'll get some negative ratings for this post, but those will be based on what I said - and I meant what I said. I own it, and I'll accept the responsibility for it. If others feel the need to rate meet negatively, then at least it's a rating that was honestly earned and given.
After all the endless political/religious/bigoted/war-mongering sh!t that gets posted here, I can't believe all the fuss over this harmless thread.
The attempts here to assassinate Boonie's character are disgusting.
Seriously, some of you guys need to step back from the keyboard and evaluate what it is in your life that's actually bugging you... 'cause it's not Boondawg.
Did anyone read the article? Check their methodology?
Were they lying?
P.S. They didn't say horses don't sweat. They just said that humans are better at it (regulating body temperature over distance).
YES..I did read the so-called "research". Did you? I did carefully read their "research" and their "methodology", a lot of which I find highly suspect. ..and YES they did in effect say that horses don't sweat, by concluding that: " In contrast, other mammals cool the body by relying on panting, which interferes with respiration, especially during galloping which requires 1 : 1 coupling of breathing and locomotion.[11]"
The *contrast* the authors were making was in relation to THIS CLAIM: "Humans, uniquely, can run long distances in hot, arid conditions that cause hyperthermia in other mammals, largely because we. have become specialised sweaters. By losing almost all our body fur and increasing the number and density of eccrine sweat glands, humans use evapo-transpiration to dissipate heat rapidly..."
Thus the inference and conclusion the author wished for the reader to draw is very clear.
There is LOT more wrong with that so-called "research" as well, including some basic T/S/D math, but please don't let me interrupt the fun.
I just don't care for intellectual bullshit or horseshit..... even when it's propagated by a Harvard PhD marathon runner and passed along by the New York Times to ignorant people.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-22-2015).]
I tried very hard to address the article (and Boonie's) statements with real data and not voodoo allegations.
I was (in one of the oil/gas threads) recently told this (by a member here at PFF)
quote
Says you. you make a lot of statements like they are somehow undisputable fact. You are certainly entitled to an opinion though
My reply was IMO, an honest one: (slightly edited but only for brevity and clarity)
quote
I'm not the only one that says that, but you are certainly free to prove me in error at any time. I'm all ears. I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates (that I am in error)
Believe me--as a conservative, I would LOVE to be able to say-nay SCREAM--(that I am wrong.) But, I can't, simply because there is no evidence to support such a claim.
If someone shows me that I am in error, I will be indebted to them for decreasing my ignorance and I usually try to remember to thank them for the correction. I'm old, but I still find it important for me to learn.
I doubt anyone actually believes anything you post anymore. Now most of your posts are random internet links...
Lol. Contradict much? I don't write the articles. Nor do I ask you to believe them. Or even read them. I didn't write them.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: Rarely do you offer any commentary on the topic you're posting.
Exactly because of people like you. Using every word & nuance posted as ammunition in some imagined battle against some imagined enemy.
Exactly what point are you trying to make against me so badly that you want others to hear you do it? Why isn't your dislike for everything I post strong enough for you to simply not read it?
After all the endless political/religious/bigoted/war-mongering sh!t that gets posted here, I can't believe all the fuss over this harmless thread.
The attempts here to assassinate Boonie's character are disgusting.
Seriously, some of you guys need to step back from the keyboard and evaluate what it is in your life that's actually bugging you... 'cause it's not Boondawg.
Amen. I've seen some silly sh!t over the years here at Pennocks, but this is by far the silliest of it all.
Not to mention I bet I actually could find some poor excuse of a broken-down crippled horse that I could out-run on a very hot day.... Just silly.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-22-2015).]
"I" meaning somebody who isn't me, but probably exists somewhere in this plane of existence. "love" meaning a toleration of presence that doesn't cause revulsion. "Boondawg" meaning displaced Ethiopian farmers, in general.
"I" meaning somebody who isn't me, but probably exists somewhere in this plane of existence. "love" meaning a toleration of presence that doesn't cause revulsion. "Boondawg" meaning displaced Ethiopian farmers, in general.
You call "I'm More Badazz Then I Even Thought. On A Very Hot Day, I Can Outrun A Horse..." plainly stated?
It even suggests I didn't think I could...(i.e. "Then I Even Thought")
You've berated people before for going down the "suggested" road in regards to your posts. "I thought" =past tense. "I can" = present/future tense. "I'm More"-present tense. Yes, I call that pretty plainly stated, unless something has changed drastically since I was a youngun' in school.
I too make mistakes. But I own those mistakes--they're mine. I willfully typed the following:
quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by maryjane:
It has always been suspected that some or all of the videos purporting to show the executions were faked..........faked in that the execution didn't happen during that particular one scene video
Rebuttal by someone else:
quote
The videos are clearly professionally edited together. That's been obvious from the beginning. Edited doesn't mean faked, though.
My reply:
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
True. "Faked" was probably not the best choice of words for me to use.
Originally posted by maryjane: I too make mistakes. But I own those mistakes--they're mine. I willfully typed the following: "Faked" was probably not the best choice of words for me to use.
Ok. "I'm More Badazz Then I Even Thought. On A Very Hot Day, I Can Outrun A Horse..." was probably not the best title for a post that provided a link to an article where scientists were stating that on a hot day a human can beat a horse in a 26.2 mile marathon.
Better?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-22-2015).]
<<<<Negatives for politely defending myself. Yeah, the rating system works just fine.
What the hell are you whining about? I took a heavy ratings beating not too long ago for just politely stating my opinion about "medical marijuana". Before that I had almost no red....
Totally O/T Originally posted by Boondawg: Topic: I'm More Badazz Then I Even Thought. On A Very Hot Day, I Can Outrun A Horse...my secret. I sweat.
quote
I mean, I thought the initial post was just fine
....../\ assuming you ARE talking about yourself /\ It was, until you began denying you were referring to yourself.
quote
So what's all the fuss about, again?
1/3 of the fuss is about whether the horse can be outrun by a human in long distances--1/3 is about the reasoning you and the article stated that might be the case--1/3 is about your denial of referring to yourself.
(You asked--I am obliged to reply)
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-23-2015).]
No--not lying Boonie--just skewed to suit the human runner. If you do something to one competitor, you have to do the same for the other, whether it's a positive effect or negative. Re-hydrate the human--you have to re-hydrate the horse too. Strap 15% of the horse's body weight (tack and rider) to him--you have to do the same for the runner. Every test I saw run where the horse lost, it had a saddle, blanket and at least 150 lb rider--the human ran in light clothing and was in good physical condition accustomed to and trained for marathon or other long distance running--the horses used were trained and conditioned to run on typical tracks like 1 1/4 mile Churchhill Downs and Belmont, which is a 1.5 mile track--the longest of the triple crown tracks. This all but guarantees the human will out last the thoroughbred. When you intentionally design a test to prove a preconceived idea, with all the odds intentionally stacked on one side, the results are predictable. Pit Ussain Bolt against one of the Kenyan Marathon record holders, the results of a 26.2 mile race will be predictable.
Can 2 identically prepared NASCAR vehicles, one with restrictor plate and one without really prove anything?
1000km--625 miles-covering 2 marathons each day. They change horses at every 25 mile mark. Marathon is only 1.2 miles further--and the horse is carrying saddle and rider while the marathon runner carries nothing but shorts and the lite shirt and bib on his back.
Accuracy as well as fairness. Both the article and your text allude to the fact that humans outlast horses because horses don't sweat and humans do. That, is an inaccurate statement. It also very much infers that humans don't cool themselves thru panting (rapid or even normal exhalation)--that too is inaccurate. People that work indoors (air conditioning) and normally do little physical exercise, then have to move desks or anything else, will increase heart rate and respiration rate to cool their internal temperature while never sweating a drop. If you've ever seen a news coverage interview of an olympic sprinter at the end of his race, he's panting like a dog--as far as I know, all mammals do this. He's also sweating, but that's a given.
It is also inaccurate to blatantly assert that "humans" can outlast a horse. It very much implies, that you and I can do it, since we are human. Had it or you said that "some humans can outlast some horses" I'd be fine with it. Blanket statements are rarely accurate. Dogs do pant and sweat comparatively little, but dogs in good health can run for long distances faster and easier than most humans. A team of huskies can pull a dog sled further and faster than than the same # of humans can. Is that an accurate statement?
In the next few days, maybe this afternoon when the drizzle stops, I will make my weekly walk down every exterior and interior fence on this 124 ac property. Just a fraction of a marathon distance and I can do it fine, but if I had to do it 2 or 3 times in succession, I could not, but even a mediocre horse could walk or trot it easily and have in the past when we had horses.
I've seen horses tied on an exercise walker and go around for hours on end--the better machines have an adjustable friction disc, but most are relatively frictionless. Some are elec motor powered, some are just 'horse' powered.
I have read page upon page that corroborate the facts of the article I linked:
That's great, but did you actually carefully read and the so-called "research" that the NYT author of that article cited?
When something as seemingly preposterous as a human outrunning a horse is claimed WHY wouldn't your critical thinking skills, (what some folks commonly call a "Bullshit Detector"), immediately start flashing red?
Did you read it with a critical mind, or did the "Harvard" or "scientist" labels stop any critical skills thinking beforehand?
Why do you seem to go to such lengths in this thread to defend the proposition?
Did you check out the *assumptions* the author of that paper made? Were they even valid assumptions? "A dog of equal mass to an average human"?...Really? His assumption that the weight (mass) of an average human is "65Kg".....Really? Are his assumptions of the meters / second speed of a galloping or trotting horse or other mammals accurate? Are his assumptions of the horse's or mammal's galloping or trotting duration accurate? What about his assumptions of the of the "ER", as he calls it', of human runners? Is that extraordinary?...Average?....Fantasy? Does his data agree with any other sources? Did you bother to do any basic math calculations of your own regarding time / speed / distance against the claims made in that paper and see if they made any sense?
Did you note any discrepancies in his assumptions between humans and mammals?
Please tell us what SPECIFICALLY you claim "corroborate the facts of the article" as you say.
I really would like to know, because I don't see it.
HINT: The horses are still looking pretty good. In THIRTY FOUR YEARS humans have only won 2 times, and after that COMPLAINED that the horses were not being properly PENALIZED as they had been before.
"The 2009 race was marred by controversy when the organizers deducted time spent in the 'vet checks' from the horse times in addition to the 15 minutes for the delayed start of the horses. The deduction of this additional time enabled the horse to triumph by 8 minutes, instead of being defeated by 2. Whilst the organizers at the time claimed that the time spent in the vet check (which is not accurately monitored on a horse-by-horse basis) had always been deducted, this had not occurred in previous years."
So even HANDICAPPING the horses time they STILL beat the human runners!
...and in reported HOT conditions...
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-23-2015).]
