Coreece

Mother do you think they'll try to break, my balls . . . . . .ooops, wrong song.

Phil, we've discussed this already. You keep doing that thing where you confuse a comma with a period. pffft, last time I pwned you with facts and logic. You ran away on your hiatus. Are you for real with that, lol. Like I said Phil, you make this easy.

Pretty fucked up that you've only been back for several days and you're already using the deaths of this outbreak to troll the forums with more of your divisive, single-minded horseshit just to take jabs at religion and those with differing political views. I mean all this time off and you still can't get your shit straight, lol. That was Dan Quayle. I'm glad you're back Phil. You make this easy.

Deleted. I made a political prediction - I don't like doing that.

Too slow - Phil's been back only a day or so and he already beat you to the troll booth. . .

SARS, been there done that. If that's what they were calling it, I doubt too many people would be as concerned as they seem. . .

Ya, you seem more like the Twitter type. . .

As if it's even acceptable to do that at McDonalds even without some viral scare?

Didn't mean the same thing in the 1700s as it does in the modern era. Well regulated meant functioning and in order. Ya, that's why even presidents back then settled their disputes with gun duels. . .

Ya, I hear ya. I acknowledged that in another recent post. Oh well. Ya, I gave dekker a few points just because he was funny as fuck. I don't give Jakee any points, otherwise he's liable to come slapping his dick in my face telling me to suck it, hahahaha.

I'm just happy to know that what I thought was a world problem is really just a sauna problem. Brent told me not to sweat it so now I won't. I think the problem in this thread is that both you and Bill are clearly more intelligent than me, and that's fine I suppose - but I'm still jealous. I've also known guys that were even more intelligent, but lacked common sense - or at least the ability apply their ideas practically or realistically. I remember the smartest kid in high school. He was so smart that on Chili Dog Day, he'd go up to the cafeteria counter and ask for a chili dog without chili - lol, no shit. . . .and I understood all that, I knew where he was coming from. But he didn't understand where I was coming from. I told him that he could've just asked for a hot dog, but he insisted on arguing with me. He said but it is chili dog day and I have to explicitly ask for no chili! I just said whatever and walked away. Here I am again 20+ years later, saying whatever, and just walking away. . .

?? No one claimed you would get "burns." What are you talking about? I'm talking about the difference between the effects of higher heat index temps (let's say 175-278F) compared to the effects of actually experiencing those real temps. They are clearly not the same either in how they feel nor the danger they present.

From the point of view of how it feels - probably true. From the point of view of what it does to you physically - not so much. No doubt. But being in a steam room for 20 minutes is quite different from being in that environment all day. But again, compare that to the competitor that passed out in the actual 230F sauna with 3rd degree burns in just 6 mins and died. You will not get 3rd degree burns even with a heat index of 278F, nor will you pass out and die within 6 minutes. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?

I don't know - We have lawyers here - what is their opinion? I'm just not willing to let it go. I know. I was just saying because you agreed with Rick's comment about enablers. Not sure if there are legal ramifications for being an enabler depending on the extent/circumstances, but I feel his point.

It would at least be enabling, right?

But seriously tho, look where Biden is at. Sometimes I wonder if this is just the type of dirty game the reps are playing knowing that they would get off Scot free. (or Scott Clean, as in the toilet paper. ) No wonder the Dems are jealous about playing dirty. . .

I imagine that as being the real caricature of turtlespeed! Edit - and you know I 'm just kidding Clint. I hear you're a very handsome guy. (Ok, I know you are, but I didn't want it to sound so gay, lol)

WILL kill you. Your body temperature will continue to increase until you suffer heatstroke and die. . .because at wet bulb 95F your body cannot cool itself - and any breeze will kill you faster since you will gain heat more rapidly. I agree. I suppose I was coming from a more practical and realistic stance in that most people will have access to water or some other way to cool themselves, just as they did in 2003. But yes, without water you're a goner regardless, albeit a bit slower. My point still is that higher heat indexes don't mean that it actually feels like those temps, or that it is even as dangerous as those temps. For example: A typical steam room will be set at 110F at 100% humidity with a heat index of 278F, yet it's pretty tolerable for quite some time, even therapeutic - you should try it sometime. Compare that to a sauna. In 2010 two guys competing in the sauna championships went into a sauna with an actual temp of 230F. They both passed out within 6 minutes with 3rd degree burns - one guy died. So for the last time, a heat index of 120F is probably very similar to an actual temp of 120F. A heat index of 193F is probably very different from an actual temp of 193F, which is exactly why the NOAA doesn't list those temps in their chart, because it would be misleading to do so.

?? No. Take a look at the chart. The NOAA chart says "likelihood of heat disorders with prolonged exposure." I agree, but if you look at the explanation in the paragragh below that chart, it also says "The Heat Index is a measure of how hot it really feels. . ." Also, in this post you quoted an article saying "The combination of heat and humidity, measured by the dew point, is what makes the heat index — or what the temperature actually feels like outside." So that's why I said that - but to be fair, in the past you also said that the heat index measures the relative danger as well. Ok, but again, in this post you quoted an article saying that it was 176F, which is what other news outlets were reporting as well: "The absolute highest dew point recorded in the region and therefore the world (of which I am aware) was 95° at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia at 3 p.m. on July 8, 2003. The dry bulb temperature stood at 108° at the time, so theoretically the heat index was 176°." Also look at the chart, 108F at 75% is nowhere near 125F: And also, if you use the calculator that you linked to, you actually get 193F if you use the the relative humidity, or 178F if you use the dew point of 95 that you referenced. So for that specific day in Dhahran, you have made reference to three different Heat index temps, 176F, 193F and 125F - which one is it? And again, my point about NOAA not even listing those higher temps still stands, because it would be misleading to do so, especially when the public perception is that the heat index measures how it actually feels. They'll list lower numbers because yeah, a heat index of 120F probably feels like 120F. Theoretical temps like 170F-195F and beyond, no so much - but some alarmists don't really care about accuracy or being misleading as long as they can further their cause by any bullshit means necessary.

I didn't say that it would "feel like 195F" But isn't that the whole point of the heat index, to say that that's "what it feels like?" But whatever, apparently it's also used to gauge the level of danger - and while I still think it's misleading say that it "feels like" 195F, I suppose that saying 108F at 75% humidity doesn't covey the sense of urgency it requires, so they just use the the 195F number to get people's attention. Well, it could kill you - similar to even lower heat indexes. Most people survived that day back in 2003.

See, I don't know what you're really talking about, and I'm not going to waste the time trying to figure it out. No, just expressing my frustration with your nonsense - big difference.

See, I just clarified in a previous post about how I wasn't personally calling you a fucking idiot, but you still went out of your way to take a cheap shot, and a lame one at that. OK. It's "kill you" dangerous. (Or is that not politically correct enough? Perhaps we should call it "life-disadvantaged dangerous.") The point is that a heat index of 120F might actually feel like 120F. A heat index of 195F isn't actually going to feel like 195F, c'mon dude. That's why the NOAA says that it gets to a point where theses indexes are meaningless in that regard, so they just say that any heat index over 125F is simply extremely dangerous. To say that a heat index of 195F actually feels like 195F is just dishonest. Well some people don't really know what those heat indexes really feel like. The just hear about a string of people dying and see scary temps like 195F and think that you have to spend your day sitting naked in the shade in front of a fan.

Hopefully you know this, but just to clarify, I honestly didn't mean that to sound as personal as it does. I really was speaking generally, but should have phrased it differently. I guess that's just how I talk.

I don't think you quite grasp the topic of conversation. I was trying to do one of those deep slow-thought Turtlisms, but it didn't work. What I mean is that I don't think anyone can achieve enormous levels of financial success/independence without government assistance. The internet for example created ample opportunity for excessive financial gains, but we need the government to allow the maintenance the web's infrastructure. And even if you use a decentralized ctypto currency rather than that of a government regulated one, you still need access to that online infrastructure. But ya, I know all that is kind of obvious.

True. Paralysis of analysis.