I posted a link. It's contents were not my research.
Weather you believe it's contents or not is your choice. Just as it is mine.
I have shown many links that agree with the findings of the first link I posted.
It's not about what I "believe". You are welcome to your beliefs and the words of others. That's called *faith*, not science. In this case I'll stick with the empirical data and good critical thinking skills, Thanks. My faith in God, however, remains intact.
Valid questions Randye--an objective approach is always best. Boonie...... Did you read or show any source that DIS-agreed with the NYT article? Or, did you just choose the subjective approach and search for confirmation of what you personally believed to be the truth--iow, what you already believed?
Originally posted by maryjane: Did you show any source that DIS-agreed with the NYT article?
No, I merely posted a link to an article. What others do with it's contents is their affair.
My title was supposed to comically reflect that they claimed I (being a human) could out-run a horse (my whole title was built around the concept that up until then, I didn't know I could.)
Is this really that hard to get?
If you don't believe the findings in the article, say you don't believe the findings in the article. If you don't believe I can beat a horse in a marathon, say you don't believe I can beat a horse in a marathon.
But your complaint is with the scientists. I'm just playing off what I read.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-23-2015).]
No, I merely posted a link to an article. What others do with it's contents is their affair.
My title was supposed to comically reflect that they claimed I (being a human) could out-run a horse (my whole title was built around the concept that up until then, I didn't know I could.)
Is this really that hard to get?
If you don't believe the findings in the article, say you don't believe the findings in the article. If you don't believe I can beat a horse in a marathon, say you don't believe I can beat a horse in a marathon.
But your complaint is with the scientists. I'm just playing off what I read.
For the record, I have no personal problem with you at all. You are free to *believe* any horseshit you want, no matter who it comes from. The New York Times, or a Harvard PhD marathon runner.
It's not about what I "believe". You are welcome to your beliefs and the words of others. That's called *faith*, not science. In this case I'll stick with the empirical data and good critical thinking skills, Thanks. My faith in God, however, remains intact.
Having good critical thinking skills and a reliance on well founded science based on reliable data is not a corollary to being bereft of faith.
Originally posted by Boondawg: My title was supposed to comically reflect that they claimed I (being a human) could out-run a horse (my whole title was built around the concept that up until then, I didn't know I could.)
I got that. I dont even think I'm that bright sometimes. Must be my good day today!
My title was supposed to comically reflect that they claimed I (being a human) could out-run a horse (my whole title was built around the concept that up until then, I didn't know I could.)
Is this really that hard to get?
It is when you deny for 2 pages that you were even talking about yourself in the opening paragraph.
quote
[B]Originally posted by Boondawg:
You actually believe I was talking about myself?
quote
If you don't believe the findings in the article, say you don't believe the findings in the article.
I do not, and have already stated why.
quote
If you don't believe I can beat a horse in a marathon, say you don't believe I can beat a horse in a marathon.
I don't believe it, and neither do you--you have already stated you can barely walk.
quote
But your complaint is with the scientists. I'm just playing off what I read.
Did the scientists type the title of this thread and the OP?
You're so badazz that I get negs just for living within 200 miles of you.
I live clear across the country from Boonie, but I'll go ahead and blame my negs on him too(although I suspect they're from not jumping on OP's bandwagons)..
I don't want to make any erroneous assumptions, so I'm asking you a serious question in respectful manner.
Are you suggesting I jump on Boonie's "bandwagons" whenever given the opportunity... no matter what the topic or where Boonie might be standing?
Not at all. I guess I should have put in "(sarcasm)" after my word "too" in my previous post. I was just piling onto your "blame Boonie" post as an apparently too subtle jab at the bandwagoners (who should show up below to point out my bandwagonning without ever admitting their own). Having read through this thread, I see a bunch of folks dog-piling Boonie for what was obviously just another one of his creative titles.
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 02-24-2015).]
WTF this is still going on because Boonie made a thread and the title is a little deceiving, and maybe a little off, give it a FKN brake, he didn't write the article now did he and to top it off the dam idiots or doctors or scientist or WTF ever they are don't know a horse from a FKN cow for crying out load. They most likely would know a horse if it walked up and bit them, that's obvious from their Statements in the articles for crying out load. Give it a rest, Boonie didn't write the article he read it and maybe he took liberties with the title, we all have done that at one time or another in one way or other.
"Let it go will ya!"
WTF we are all friends here, at least I like to think so for the most part and most would give the other the shirt off their back if needed, some have in the past for one reason or other. We have all at one time or other made mistakes with titles, look at some of mine, I almost got band because of some of my mistakes saying things that offended the overly religious, used the N word that offended others.
Can't we just all get along and stop trying to vilify one another. I know I like most of the others on here, most of the time, but then others we are at each others throats like in this thread. WTF guys And gals, if any posted.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 02-24-2015).]
Not at all. I see a bunch of folks dog-piling Boonie for what was obviously just another one of his creative titles.
Eh. I think it goes deeper than that.
He's not just scourging the internet finding these links. I've caught him getting his "creative title" straight from a Reddit comment, with the supplied link. He often posts many threads a day, probably thinking "Oh, someone on PFF will find this interesting" but then not actually comment on the subject matter of which the article is about. Almost anytime anyone questions Boonie about the subject matter, he throw his hands up defensively and says he doesn't have a comment or didn't write the article, just finds it "interesting."
It's a copout and, quite frankly, annoying. Who really cares? I don't much just because I don't frequent the forum as much as I used to. But others, evidently, do. He has said to others, many times in the past, to not read into anything he says. Take it all at face value, because to do otherwise is dishonest. But when they did that on this thread, he wasn't happy with that either.
I am of the understanding that humans can outrun virtually all animals over long distances, which is how we used to hunt (and some African tribes still do). Now, about horses? I have no direct knowledge. Horses are probably one of the few that can outrun us. I don't really know.
Originally posted by theBDub: Eh. I think it goes deeper than that.
He's not just scourging the internet finding these links. I've caught him getting his "creative title" straight from a Reddit comment, with the supplied link. He often posts many threads a day, probably thinking "Oh, someone on PFF will find this interesting" but then not actually comment on the subject matter of which the article is about. Almost anytime anyone questions Boonie about the subject matter, he throw his hands up defensively and says he doesn't have a comment or didn't write the article, just finds it "interesting." .
I guess I dont see a problem with that. I suppose after being asked, elaborating on why it was interesting or what may be ironic or attention getting about it would clarify.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-24-2015).]
Originally posted by theBDub: Eh. I think it goes deeper than that.
Not for me.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: He's not just scourging the internet finding these links. I've caught him getting his "creative title" straight from a Reddit comment, with the supplied link.
"Caught"? Project, much? How about discovered?
And I never denied that. Is that against the rules?
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: He often posts many threads a day, probably thinking "Oh, someone on PFF will find this interesting" but then not actually comment on the subject matter of which the article is about.
Personal choice.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: Almost anytime anyone questions Boonie about the subject matter, he throw his hands up defensively and says he doesn't have a comment or didn't write the article, just finds it "interesting."
I don't automatically owe anyone anything. I choose what I say & when I say it. The reader doesn't control that.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub: He has said to others, many times in the past, to not read into anything he says. Take it all at face value, because to do otherwise is dishonest. But when they did that on this thread, he wasn't happy with that either.
Yeah, that's all that's happening here...I'm trying to get out of claiming I can out-run a horse. Nevermind the link to the actual story...
Listen, if enough people are tired of my....."Posting Style"() ruining T/OT for everyone else (since engaging personal self-control and just not reading it seems to be out of the question), the much beloved rating system is in place to solve just that problem. Or you can just get ahold of Mr. Pennock, if you feel you (or the site) are somehow being wronged by my posts.
Of course, you could always just practice personal responsibility and not read them at all. Is that really so hard?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-24-2015).]
Originally posted by theBDub: I am of the understanding that humans can outrun virtually all animals over long distances, which is how we used to hunt (and some African tribes still do). Now, about horses? I have no direct knowledge. Horses are probably one of the few that can outrun us. I don't really know.
Please tell me that was being sarcastic in relation to this thread !
Without even looking it up I can tell you that you are wrong if you are being honest.
average speed = distance/time.
People often use the words speed and velocity interchangeably, but in physics they have different meanings. Velocity includes direction; speed does not.
To find the average speed someone runs in a race, divide the length of the race by the time required to complete the race. The appropriate speed unit will be the distance unit per the time unit. If the distance is in meters and the time is in second, the speed is in meters per second, which can be converted to miles per hour.
World's Fastest Man or Woman
According to the Olympics website, both the world and Olympic record in the 100 meter dash was set for men by Usain Bolt in the 2008 Beijing Olympics with a time of 9.69 seconds. Dividing the distance by the time gives an average speed of 10.3 meters/second. Multiplying this speed by 3,600 seconds in an hour and dividing by 1,609 meters in a mile gives his average speed as 23.1 miles/hour.
Florence Griffith Joyner set the women's 100 meter Olympic record in the 1988 Seoul Olympics at 10.62 seconds, however she set the world record two months earlier in Indianapolis at 10.49 seconds. She ran her world record at an average speed of 9.53 meters/second or 21.3 miles/hour.
These speeds are impressive, but not sustainable. What speeds can people sustain over long distances?
World's Fastest Marathons
Haile Gebrselassie set the men's marathon world record at the 2008 Berlin marathon. He ran the 26.2 mile distance in 2 hours 3 minutes 59 seconds. His average running speed for this distance was 5.67 meters/second or 12.7 miles/hour.
Paula Radcliffe set the women's world marathon record at the 2003 London marathon, when she ran the marathon in 2 hour 15 minutes 25 seconds. She ran the 26.2 miles at an average speed of 5.19 meters/second or 11.6 miles/hour.
Western States 100 Mile Endurance Run
To get an idea of human speeds sustainable for even longer distances, look at the results of the Western States 100. This endurance race is a 100.2 mile run in the Sierra mountains of California. Runners battle cold, heat, mountains, and distance to complete this race.
Scott Jurec set the men's record in 2004 by running the 100.2 miles in 15 hours 36 minutes 27 seconds. Ann Trason set the women's record with a time of 17 hours 37 minutes 51 seconds in 1994. Jurek's average speed was 6.4 miles/hour and Trason's was 5.7 miles/hour. Ordinary humans can attain these speeds but few can sustain them for 100 miles.
Speeds for Average Humans
The above speed records are impressive and of course represent the fastest people on Earth. How fast is the average person? More typical marathon times of 3, 4, 5, or 6 hours require average speeds of 8.7, 6.6, 5.2, or 4.4 miles/hour. The Western States 100 has a 30 hour time limit which requires running at an average speed of 3.3 miles/hour for 100 miles.
With proper training people can run at impressive speeds for sustained distances.
Addendum
New World Record
After this article was published, the author learned that Bolt broke his own record. On August 16, 2009, running in the Berlin stadium made famous by Jesse Owens in 1936, Bolt ran the 100 meter distance in 9.58 seconds. His average speed was 10.44 meters/second or 23.36 miles/hour. Because of the time needed to accelerate his top speed would be higher.
Another New World Record
On August 20, 2009, Bolt followed up with a world record at 200 meters at 19.19 seconds. His average speed of 10.42 meters/second = 23.32 miles/hour was only a little slower than for his 100 meter record.
The fastest land animal is the cheetah which has a recorded speed of 96–120 km/h (60–75 mph).[1] The peregrine falcon is the fastest bird, and the fastest member of the animal kingdom with a speed of 389 km/h (242 mph).[2] The fastest animal in the sea is the black marlin, which has a recorded speed of 130 km/h (80 mph).[3]
While comparing between various classes of animals, a different unit is used, body length per second. The fastest animal on earth, relative to body length, is the South Californian mite Paratarsotomus macropalpis, which has a speed of 322 body lengths per second.[4] The equivalent speed for a human running as fast as this mite would be 1,300 mph (2,092 km/h).[5]
This is far in excess of the previous record holder, the Australian tiger beetle Cicindela eburneola, the fastest insect in the world relative to body size, which has been recorded at 1.86 metres per second (4.2 mph) or 171 body lengths per second.[6] The cheetah, the fastest land mammal, scores at only 16 body lengths per second.[4]
Compared to other land animals, humans are exceptionally capable of endurance, but exceptionally incapable of great speed. Usain Bolt set the 100 m world record at 9.58 seconds, which is about 10.44 meters/second (23.35 mph, 37.58 km/h). His fastest footspeed during that sprint was 12.42 meters/second (27.79 mph, 44.72 km/h) during the 60 m to 80 m interval. Hicham El Guerrouj set the current men's mile run (5,280 feet/1,609.344 metres) world record of 3:43.13. Svetlana Masterkova set the current women's mile run (5,280 feet/1,609.344 metres) world record of 4:12.56.[62]
In the absence of significant external factors, non-athletic humans tend to walk at about 1.4 m/s (5.0 km/h; 3.1 mph) and run at about 5.1 m/s (18 km/h; 11 mph).[63][64][65] Although humans are capable of walking at speeds from nearly 0 m/s to upwards of 2.5 m/s (9.0 km/h; 5.6 mph) and running 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) in 6.5 minutes, humans typically choose to use only a small range within these speeds
Wildebeest 80.5 km/h (50.0 mph)[d] The wildebeest, an antelope, exists as two species: the blue wildebeest and the black wildebeest. Both are extremely fast runners, which allows them to flee from predators.[24] They are better at endurance running than at sprinting.[23]
Horse 70.76 km/h (43.97 mph)[44] The fastest horse speed was achieved by a Quarter horse. It reached 70.76 km/h (43.97 mph).
See there is one problem with thinking you know everything, No one Does, NO ONE Especially me, I have never said I did and never will but do know a lot more about some things than other people and obviously a lot more about horses and animals than the 2 jerks with degrees who wrote that article. So does Don and a lot of other people, But not you.
But I am not the one who is picking Boonie's post title and thread apart, personally I like most of his threads as they are informative in most cases, while not always correct as in this case I still don't try to degrade him like some here have, I state what I know and tell him he is wrong or his article is wrong and let it go, obviously many others here can't and have kept this thread alive for 3 pages just trying to degrade him and his posts.
WTF folks you never made a mistake, in punctuation, spelling, posting of a thread that had faulse information that you thought was true, Just,
"Let it go for Christ sakes, WTF "
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 02-24-2015).]
I was going to post some actual first hand factual information about horse endurance. I own, ride and have been around horses my whole life. I also train with my wife who is a professional endurance rider. Together we put many thousands of miles on horses each year and she does hundreds of miles in sanctioned long distance endurance competitions, up to 100 miles in a day on 1 horse. But this thread went to **** in a hurry so I figured instead I'd just write up a snide comment about how I "was going to."
Please tell me that was being sarcastic in relation to this thread !
Without even looking it up I can tell you that you are wrong if you are being honest.
average speed = distance/time.
People often use the words speed and velocity interchangeably, but in physics they have different meanings. Velocity includes direction; speed does not.
To find the average speed someone runs in a race, divide the length of the race by the time required to complete the race. The appropriate speed unit will be the distance unit per the time unit. If the distance is in meters and the time is in second, the speed is in meters per second, which can be converted to miles per hour.
World's Fastest Man or Woman
According to the Olympics website, both the world and Olympic record in the 100 meter dash was set for men by Usain Bolt in the 2008 Beijing Olympics with a time of 9.69 seconds. Dividing the distance by the time gives an average speed of 10.3 meters/second. Multiplying this speed by 3,600 seconds in an hour and dividing by 1,609 meters in a mile gives his average speed as 23.1 miles/hour.
Florence Griffith Joyner set the women's 100 meter Olympic record in the 1988 Seoul Olympics at 10.62 seconds, however she set the world record two months earlier in Indianapolis at 10.49 seconds. She ran her world record at an average speed of 9.53 meters/second or 21.3 miles/hour.
These speeds are impressive, but not sustainable. What speeds can people sustain over long distances?
World's Fastest Marathons
Haile Gebrselassie set the men's marathon world record at the 2008 Berlin marathon. He ran the 26.2 mile distance in 2 hours 3 minutes 59 seconds. His average running speed for this distance was 5.67 meters/second or 12.7 miles/hour.
Paula Radcliffe set the women's world marathon record at the 2003 London marathon, when she ran the marathon in 2 hour 15 minutes 25 seconds. She ran the 26.2 miles at an average speed of 5.19 meters/second or 11.6 miles/hour.
Western States 100 Mile Endurance Run
To get an idea of human speeds sustainable for even longer distances, look at the results of the Western States 100. This endurance race is a 100.2 mile run in the Sierra mountains of California. Runners battle cold, heat, mountains, and distance to complete this race.
Scott Jurec set the men's record in 2004 by running the 100.2 miles in 15 hours 36 minutes 27 seconds. Ann Trason set the women's record with a time of 17 hours 37 minutes 51 seconds in 1994. Jurek's average speed was 6.4 miles/hour and Trason's was 5.7 miles/hour. Ordinary humans can attain these speeds but few can sustain them for 100 miles.
Speeds for Average Humans
The above speed records are impressive and of course represent the fastest people on Earth. How fast is the average person? More typical marathon times of 3, 4, 5, or 6 hours require average speeds of 8.7, 6.6, 5.2, or 4.4 miles/hour. The Western States 100 has a 30 hour time limit which requires running at an average speed of 3.3 miles/hour for 100 miles.
With proper training people can run at impressive speeds for sustained distances.
Addendum
New World Record
After this article was published, the author learned that Bolt broke his own record. On August 16, 2009, running in the Berlin stadium made famous by Jesse Owens in 1936, Bolt ran the 100 meter distance in 9.58 seconds. His average speed was 10.44 meters/second or 23.36 miles/hour. Because of the time needed to accelerate his top speed would be higher.
Another New World Record
On August 20, 2009, Bolt followed up with a world record at 200 meters at 19.19 seconds. His average speed of 10.42 meters/second = 23.32 miles/hour was only a little slower than for his 100 meter record.
The fastest land animal is the cheetah which has a recorded speed of 96–120 km/h (60–75 mph).[1] The peregrine falcon is the fastest bird, and the fastest member of the animal kingdom with a speed of 389 km/h (242 mph).[2] The fastest animal in the sea is the black marlin, which has a recorded speed of 130 km/h (80 mph).[3]
While comparing between various classes of animals, a different unit is used, body length per second. The fastest animal on earth, relative to body length, is the South Californian mite Paratarsotomus macropalpis, which has a speed of 322 body lengths per second.[4] The equivalent speed for a human running as fast as this mite would be 1,300 mph (2,092 km/h).[5]
This is far in excess of the previous record holder, the Australian tiger beetle Cicindela eburneola, the fastest insect in the world relative to body size, which has been recorded at 1.86 metres per second (4.2 mph) or 171 body lengths per second.[6] The cheetah, the fastest land mammal, scores at only 16 body lengths per second.[4]
Compared to other land animals, humans are exceptionally capable of endurance, but exceptionally incapable of great speed. Usain Bolt set the 100 m world record at 9.58 seconds, which is about 10.44 meters/second (23.35 mph, 37.58 km/h). His fastest footspeed during that sprint was 12.42 meters/second (27.79 mph, 44.72 km/h) during the 60 m to 80 m interval. Hicham El Guerrouj set the current men's mile run (5,280 feet/1,609.344 metres) world record of 3:43.13. Svetlana Masterkova set the current women's mile run (5,280 feet/1,609.344 metres) world record of 4:12.56.[62]
In the absence of significant external factors, non-athletic humans tend to walk at about 1.4 m/s (5.0 km/h; 3.1 mph) and run at about 5.1 m/s (18 km/h; 11 mph).[63][64][65] Although humans are capable of walking at speeds from nearly 0 m/s to upwards of 2.5 m/s (9.0 km/h; 5.6 mph) and running 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) in 6.5 minutes, humans typically choose to use only a small range within these speeds
Wildebeest 80.5 km/h (50.0 mph)[d] The wildebeest, an antelope, exists as two species: the blue wildebeest and the black wildebeest. Both are extremely fast runners, which allows them to flee from predators.[24] They are better at endurance running than at sprinting.[23]
Horse 70.76 km/h (43.97 mph)[44] The fastest horse speed was achieved by a Quarter horse. It reached 70.76 km/h (43.97 mph).
See there is one problem with thinking you know everything, No one Does, NO ONE Especially me, I have never said I did and never will but do know a lot more about some things than other people and obviously a lot more about horses and animals than the 2 jerks with degrees who wrote that article. So does Don and a lot of other people, But not you.
Steve
Dude.
I said that I was of the understanding.
Not that I knew.
I very clearly said that I don't know anything about horses, and that it could be one of the few animals that can. I honestly have no idea.
And I said long distances. Not how fast someone can go. You quoted animals with top speeds far exceeding ours, but you didn't note how long they maintained that speed. Hint: Not long.
Reading comprehension has never been your strongest suit.
I very clearly said that I don't know anything about horses, and that it could be one of the few animals that can. I honestly have no idea.
And I said long distances. Not how fast someone can go. You quoted animals with top speeds far exceeding ours, but you didn't note how long they maintained that speed. Hint: Not long.
Reading comprehension has never been your strongest suit.
Seems Boonie is not the only one who can not read, you have a problem in reading comprehention as well sometimes, like in my post.
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: Wildebeest 80.5 km/h (50.0 mph)[d] The wildebeest, an antelope, exists as two species: the blue wildebeest and the black wildebeest. Both are extremely fast runners, which allows them to flee from predators.[24] They are better at endurance running than at sprinting.[23]
Horse 70.76 km/h (43.97 mph)[44] The fastest horse speed was achieved by a Quarter horse. It reached 70.76 km/h (43.97 mph).
See there is one problem with thinking you know everything, No one Does, NO ONE Especially me, I have never said I did and never will but do know a lot more about some things than other people and obviously a lot more about horses and animals than the 2 jerks with degrees who wrote that article. So does Don and a lot of other people, But not you.
But I am not the one who is picking Boonie's post title and thread apart, personally I like most of his threads as they are informative in most cases, while not always correct as in this case I still don't try to degrade him like some here have, I state what I know and tell him he is wrong or his article is wrong and let it go, obviously many others here can't and have kept this thread alive for 3 pages just trying to degrade him and his posts.
WTF folks you never made a mistake, in punctuation, spelling, posting of a thread that had faulse information that you thought was true, Just,
"Let it go for Christ sakes, WTF "
Steve
Now how do you like being made fun of?
Dick
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 02-24-2015).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: ... the much beloved rating system is in place to solve just that problem. Of course, you could always just practice personal responsibility and not read them at all. Is that really so hard?
You posted the "confused" simile. I don't think this is about the ratings system. I think it is about the "post whore count" system. Not that I care. Though I do care about the content of your threads. They used to be ... interesting. Now they are like "open a book" and point. If it is a post count thing, you will never get ahead if we say ...
quote
That's awesome. Thanks for posting.
C'mon Dawg. You are better than that. Your a good man. I look up to you. Not that you haven't disappointed me before. No fair asking my wife if I am a disappointment, . We grew up together. We joined almost the same day. We have all grown up together. You have your fans. I am one of them. One of your threads was titled "do I post too much". It wasn't a question. Someone suggested you combine all your "discoveries". That they enjoy them. We ... Cliff enabled a FAVORITES function. You could blog there. If your post count defines you, there is your "redemption". The reply count. The post count don't mean nuthin'.
You have a lot of, uhh, good stuff that we may not see there if we did not follow your "blog". Don't let that keep you from sharing in the open forum. I will warn you though, from my perspective, if I see one more "my keyboard has been replaced" thread I will consider myself retarded. My ten year old keyboard still works, . I know, I know, there is always someone who thinks their keyboard is not all that.
C'mon Dawg. You are better than that. Your a good man. I look up to you. Not that you haven't disappointed me before. No fair asking my wife if I am a disappointment, . We grew up together. We joined almost the same day. We have all grown up together. You have your fans. I am one of them. One of your threads was titled "do I post too much". It wasn't a question. Someone suggested you combine all your "discoveries". That they enjoy them. We ... Cliff enabled a FAVORITES function. You could blog there. If your post count defines you, there is your "redemption". The reply count. The post count don't mean nuthin'.
You have a lot of, uhh, good stuff that we may not see there if we did not follow your "blog". Don't let that keep you from sharing in the open forum. I will warn you though, from my perspective, if I see one more "my keyboard has been replaced" thread I will consider myself retarded. My ten year old keyboard still works, . I know, I know, there is always someone who thinks their keyboard is not all that.
Or people could just not read what I post.
The one thing I AM NOT concerned with is the AMOUNT of posts people think I should or should not post. Only Mr. Pennock can make that call. And I have a pm into him to settle that question once & for all.
The question is how does a post featuring a article about the ability of a human to out-run a horse in a 26.2 mile marathon on a hot day turn into personal attacks on the poster? Even if I DID state with fact that I could do that very thing, how does even that turn into personal attack? When did a simple "I don't believe that." go out-of-style as a civilized response to something you didn't believe?
Or people could just not read what I post. See, I just cant see another's lack of self-control as a problem that is mine.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 02-24-2015).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: Or people could just not read what I post.
I usually don't anymore. Not that I look for your username to decide. I can tell by the elaborate titles. That's the news entertainment business for you. I don't care about your post count, or mine.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: The question is how does a post featuring a article about the ability of a human to out-run a horse in a 26.2 mile marathon on a hot day turn into personal attacks on the poster?
Ah ... the meaning of life. Do not seek the treasure.
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: See, I just cant see another's lack of self-control as a problem that is mine.
How did it become your problem ? Keep on keeping on.
You haven't brought anything to the table to suggest that they can beat humans at long distance. The original post does. I stand by exactly what I said. You didn't talk about how long any of the animals can maintain their speeds. Just one vague statement in a sea of drivel.
) ruining T/OT for everyone else (since engaging personal self-control and just not reading it seems to be out of the question), the much beloved rating system is in place to solve just that problem.
.
