Thorned Rose

I find girls that masturbate a turn on.

Good for you. I think many men do. As I am a girl, I do not. But then I don't find men masturbating particularly appealing either

Perhaps, but animals can't talk. They aren't self-aware, and thus are no more worth saving than an insect. Just today, I was trying to get out my old bicycle to go for a ride. While opening the shed, I didn't notice the wasp nest on the inside of the door. After I turned around to try to get something, I was attacked by wasps and one stung me on the left temple. I didn't hesitate to kill every one of them and destroy their nest. Why? Because wasps need not infest human dwellings, since they can live in places in the wild where we cannot. I felt no remorse for killing them, and they felt no pain or fear for being killed. The majority of animals (that are tested upon, anyway) have no real intelligence. They live their lives completely by instinct and never really realize what's going on.

Unfortunately you are wrong. I have had many 'discussions' with my mother on this topic. She is a Christian and as such believes that animals do not think, feel etc and are only here to serve mankind. Being that I am qualified in Animal Care and Husbandry I have studied a lot and read a lot of research on the subject of 'animal' intelligence and emotion. I would suggest you do the same before you mouth off about something you quite clearly are ignorant about. If you had done some research you might know that 'intelligence' is subjective - you might consider yourself to be smart but to someone else you might seem stupid. My cat is smart by cat standards so he is very intelligent but then he cannot do human mathematics. Why? It's not because he lacks intelligence, it's because he hasn't evolved the capacity to do maths. Why should he have to?! It's not necessary for his species' survival. You might also 'know' that fish don't feel pain but if you had done some reading you would actually know that research has found that fish show similar brain wave patterns and release the same chemicals into their bodies when they are harmed as humans do indicating they have a pain response i.e. they feel pain just like humans! Similar studies have been done on many other animals. If it's got nerves, it feels pain. Even trees have been shown to have a pain response.
As for animals not being able to talk - what, you expect them to be able to speak english?! They do communicate through body language and vocalisation, humans do exactly the same thing. And to think that my cats can understand when I call their names, tell them to get down, tell them to go outside etc and yet most people don't have the foggiest what my cats are trying to tell them - many animals can understand some amount of human speech and yet most humans don't remotely know what animals say - hows that for intelligence?!
Your assumption that animals are not self-aware is also unfounded. Like I said, try doing a little reading and you will find a lot of research that shows quite the opposite. Here are some articles: http://user.strato.net/crvny/sa03002.htm, http://anaheim.universitytutor.com/anaheim_sa050225-2-tutoring, http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ etc. Of course, once again, like intelligence self-awareness is subjective.
Intinct is also subjective. What many humans class as thought is in actual fact instinct. Anything that is not a learned behaviour is instinct - speech, walking, urinating, defecating, sex, smiling, the need for interaction, eating, problem solving, tool use etc etc etc - all instinctive behaviours. People might be arrogant enough to elevate themselves above other animals but the fact remains humans ARE animals.

As for no aids cure - not if Bill Gates has anything to do with it!

You can't say that no one knows. It is silly to say that just because you don't know, no one else can know. I DO know though I don't expect you to believe me and I know that I probably sound like some religious nutter saying they know something to be true in the hearts blah blah blah, there's nothing I can do about that other than to say I'm not religious, nor a nutter and I base my life around science and the reality. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you believe me or not, you'll find out when you die anyway

And many, many people do not.

 

Please, please people wash your hands after sticking your hands on and in any orafices (that includes mouths, noses, ears, genitals and your behind)!!

Eh? conret, are you saying that girls are sluts if they masturbate or they aren't?

I sort of would like to believe that what happens to your body is what you believe will happen or what your religion says will happen. I mean if you think about it, maybe you are reborn another person and completly forget everything you knew from your past life. Like maybe I was George Washington. Or maybe if you believe in heaven instead of reincarnation you will go to heaven and live in a whole new world watching those on Earth playing games with them like a computer game or just being their guardian angel. I guess you really won't know until that time does come and even then you may not figure it out.

Plenoptic, you are right there. The dead often manifest their beliefs around them. i.e if they believed in heaven when they died their experience of death is 'heaven'. The same can be said for places like hell, valhalla etc. Some dead don't realise they are dead and tend to manifest their own lives or the events leading up till their deaths. You often hear 'ghost' stories of this nature. I remember hearing a medium relaying what a little boy was saying. He and his entire family had been murdered by his father. A childhood friend asked why he didn't move on and the little boy said he didn't know why, just that he was trapped in the house where he was killed. The little boy also said that even though he understood what had happened he still loved his father (who is still alive and on the run). Very tragic and very sad.
My experience of death is this - I didn't go anywhere as it were (no heaven, hell etc) but it felt wonderful like a euphoric state and it was like being up in space looking down on the world and being able to see everything. Memories of past lives come back. It's not cold or warm as it were but just pleasant. My last life wasn't a good or happy one (and I didn't go to hell for it despite being a pretty unpleasant person) so I didn't stay there very long - there wasn't anything holding me onto my old life so it was time to be reborn.
Many people still have vague memories of their past lives but usually they influence things like your instincts, or personality or habits, fears and loves.
The dead are always there and always around. Loved ones look in on you from time to time. And it would sure make for some interesting conversation if only people were more open. My mother is a Christian so she believes that ghosts are actually demons which I find very sad because I know for a fact that her father goes to see her on occasion.
It's all science. Just because science hasn't proven something doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't mean it has no scientific basis. Science is getting better and better at 'measuring' 'paranormal' (paranormal is such a stupid thing to call it considering there's nothing para about it) activity. It's only a matter of time before 'conclusive evidence' is released to the bigger audience. Then I can finally stop scrapping with people like my mum and rest easy (no pun intended) that other people finally get it and don't have to fear death either.

Ummm... ok. While I have nothing against that I'm not sure that it's something everyone really need to know... At least more than I want to know

There's this weird thing that girls go through when they are that age, maybe boys too. They think they are as grown up and mature as they are going to get. It's really a shame that she's gotten into this situation. It's easy at that time when you think that you know everything to get involved with these creepy and sick older men because they say things like how mature you are and you fall for it.

 

The real reason that a guy will go after an underage girl is that they will put up with more. Women their own age won't put up with those guys' crap. Seriously, that's the only reason. This goes for men who are 22 and men who are really old (not really old compared to me, but compared to the poor girl) like the one in this sad story.

 

Yes, I have strong opinions on the subject. If I were the girl's parents, not only would I "put an end" to the relationship, I would prosecute the man- probably after beating the daylights out of him.

 

brandice, you have got it so right. I look back on being that age now and I think "My God, I was immature". I feel like such a moron for thinking I was sooo mature at the time. I realise that I was more mature than most girls my age but by gollie it doesn't compare to the maturity you have at 27.

My sister's partner is significantly older than her and she suffers abandonment issues from her father. She is quite obviously looking for a father figure in her life. In my experience, girls who go out with men significantly older than themselves are usually looking for male love normally provided by their fathers. It may be that in this situation the girl's father is a decent father but she subconsciously feels unloved by him.

And yes I agree that men often go out with young girls because they are 'easy'. I have been with my husband since we were 17 and I remember being wheedled into things I didn't want to do because I wanted him to love me. Lucky for me that we were devoted to eachother and are still together. I could easily have ended up pregnant and alone. Girls unfortunately, have something built into them when they are young that make them do just about anything to get a guy to love them.

As for the affair - relationships based on affairs virtually never work out.

As for the girl's parents, they need to find a way to get her to end the relationship. If they do it themselves, she will just hate and resent them and try to find a way to see him anyway. Better yet, they should get him to end it. It might be awful to break her heart, but it would be a lesson well learned. I would also think that she should adopt the baby out. A 15 year old cannot look after a baby with the necessary maturity. My sister had her first when she was 18 and she is not a fit mother. Of course some people are more mature than others and just because you are 18,19,20... doesn't mean you aren't adept at being a parent (i've known plenty who are excellent parents) just that most do not have the necessary maturity. And 16s and unders definitely don't! I would only ever recommend it if she had a strong maternal instinct and her parents are there 24/7 to help and watch.

I also think the man's family has a right to know what he's been up to but perhaps via anonymous letter

For sure there is. Death is one of the biggest lies that ever was. I don't fear death because I know that I will continue on even when my body expires, I only worry about what I leave behind. I guess that's why so many people stick around after 'dying'.I have many experiences of my own, all confirmed by a great many other people (alive and dead ).But what I can tell you is that death itself doesn't hurt, it's quite pleasant. You don't have to be religious to go to 'heaven'. People aren't the only ones with souls. Reincarnation is a fact. Those on the other side often try to communicate with the living, we are just inept at hearing them. There is no 'meaning of life'. There is a point to life, but no 'meaning' as it were. The point is to evolve, become better both physically, mentally and spiritually. What we do in one life will have great impact on the next, it is up to us to learn from our mistakes otherwise we will make them again and again throughout our lifetimes until we do learn. We remember things from our past lives though most of the time it is on a very subconscious level.... I could go on and on.Like I said, death is the biggest lie that ever was. It's a transition, nothing more, nothing less. Just another part of life. We are conceived, we are born, we grow, transform, learn, evolve, procreate, our bodies die, we choose to exist for a while or be reborn and the cycle starts again.

X-Master, as you are new, be careful what you post as this could be construed as advertising something.I will certainly give it a go and see how it runs. We suffer from a poor ADSL connection but our ISP has so far been able to fix (Telecom's fault we think) so hopefully this might improve things. We'll see....I have read mixed reviews about it with most people saying it's great and some really *BLEEP*ing about it.Just as a note, I see that people are saying that after you uninstall it, it does not uninstall the registry keys so you have to manually uninstall those... FYI

And yet, you are wrong. I have had a lot of females in my life, and yeah they talk about sex- but most women wouldn't. Women won't openly talk about sex, especially in front of men, because they don't want to spoil their holier than thou image. If you talk about sex amongst yourselves, it doesn't mean anything, because you already keep all your stuff between eachother, so how is sex any different? Yeah we talk about sex with eachother, and yeah we often boast...but atleast we allow ourselves that right, women don't. If you all would just talk about it like men, eventually people wouldn't care its the fact that you don't talk about it as openly, that causes people to judge those who do it. You have really brought it upon yourself. The only time i think a girl is a s ut is if they sleep around , while with someone already, and for men i think the same. Women are constantly not opening up to men, and so men are really forced to judge women, who do because they are always told its not how women are, by WOMEN. I've talked to girls, who are all about sex, and then a straight guy comes along and they shut up, but really a lot of men don't mind hearing what girls have to say about sex, but oh no, must no ruin the image! Its because of women, that people call women who have sex with more than one person s uts, not men.

Dude, I AM a girl. I think I know what I'm talking about not to mention psychology is a hobby of mine. Women won't talk about sex to and around men for the most part because men talk about sex in a different way, as I said mostly to boast whereas women talk about sex to get reassurance from friends ("Is it normal to...") and for emotional guidance and comradery. Most men cannot provide that. I cannot go to my husband and say how does doing this feel to you if I am looking for reassurance because he has a penis and has a less emotional response to sex than a woman thus his experience will be very different. That's not to say men only have sex for physical reasons of course, they just have less of an emotional response than women to the experience. Not to mention, most women find it off putting when men talk about their sexual exploits as though having sex with a woman is conquering something. Women find it insulting and for the most part cannot relate to it. Why would you open up to someone that you can't relate to and won't understand you? Talk about sex like men?! As I said, women are not motivated by the same reasons as men so we cannot talk about it like men. I believe in equality and feminists pi** me off just as much as some sexist pig but I also realise that men and women are different. Women are far more open than men are. That's not opinion but fact. It's the way men and womens' brains differ - mens' brains have less connection between emotion and communication so they have more trouble communicating their feelings. Women are constantly trying to open up to men and get the same response but as men cannot communicate feelings well they usually don't notice and can't really reciprocate.
The majority of women don't want to boast. It's not our main motivation so it is ridiculous to say that women should boast about sex like men do. And I don't think that boasting is a right. No offense but what a ridiculous thing to say. It's a sure and fast way to put a chick off. Expressing you opinions is a right but boasting about how many people you've had sex with or how you knocked someone up, sideways and down to next Tuesday isn't some sort of God given right. It's people trying to elevate themselves in someone elses eyes through a fairly crude and blunt way.
Once upon a time, womens' sexuality was quite literally worshipped. Women were viewed as being something very special because they brought new life into the world however with the advent of male led religion (mostly christianity and Catholism) this idea was quashed. Women were ony allowed to have sex with their husbands and they were told to just essentially lie there and take it because they had to service their husbands whenever he wanted. Because of original sin, child birth became a punishment for women instead of something miraculous. Unfortunately this became so ingrained, women passed these ideas down to their daughters. I had these sorts of lectures from my Grandmother (a Catholic) - it's not becoming for women to blahdey blahdey blah... This is an idea that is still buried within society. So many cultures have and still belittle women while encouraging men to be sexually proud and expoitive (the Karma Sutra for example tells men it is ok to have an affair so long as they don't get caught but not ok for women). Women may be spreading these ideas but only because these ideas were put upon them by the generation before whereas some men are still actively encouraging these ideas. I consciously think that sex is fine and not dirty, yet my subconscious (influenced by what I was taught a young girl) says that it's dirty and disgusting. How is that fair? So unfortunately men have been the biggest culprits. As for a holier than thou image - women like to feel special and be 'worshipped'. Probably an evolutionary thing too. If our partners are making us feel special and like we are the only ones they want to be with, we can ensure that the only offspring they are creating is with us and they aren't spreading their seed on the side.

Unfortunately JasperIk, that is where you are wrong. You'd be surprised about what women talk about amongst themselves. Women are very open about their sex lives and often bounce ideas, thoughts, feelings, experiences etc off each other for reassurance and comradery. Men on the other hand tend to boast about their expoits but not share details or the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship/experience. As I said, women who are promiscuous are labbelled as sluts because it has long been held that it is not 'becoming' for a woman to have sex with anyone other than her husband. Unfortunately this aspect of society still remains if in a more subtle way.People often consider me a prude because I believe you should only have sex with someone you love and are committed to that does not mean I am against sex altogether or don't like talking about it - quite the opposite. I don't want my daughter and son growing up thinking sex is dirty or something to be ashamed of so I also believe in being open in talking about sex (age appropriate of course) and I don't believe women who have strong sexual drive are sluts. My libido has been at times, stronger than my husbands. That doesn't make me a **** but society as a whole could label me that way. It's not because of prude sorry - it's because of men.

i know girls that tell me that they do and stuff... but not everyone does. for some reason if a girl is open about that kind of stuff to everyone they get labelled as a '****' or something derogative. that's just how society is i guess... personally, i don't care if they do or not (admit to it).

Quite true. I often notice that in society. Women who are very sexual are labelled as sluts or hos etc yet promiscuous men are a given and are considered cool. It's something as a women I have to say really pi**es me off! I'm the opposite of promiscuous having had only one sexual partner whom I'm still with and truth be told can't stand how people trivialise sex and still it annoys me. That said, why are women who openly enjoy sex sluts and men who openly enjoy sex just normal? I guess a throwback (or in some places and amongst some people not so) to days when women were second rate citizens.

As for masturbation, of course women do. If women want sexual fulfilment through intercourse, why wouldn't they through other means. That said, statistics say that women masturbate less than men and even think about sex less though I don't entirely think that the whole thing about men thinking about sex every 20 minutes is true. Seems a bit much though I've seen some people (men and women both) who would blow that stat out of the water
If you want to know why men masturbate more (and women less) it all comes down to testosterone. Testosterone plays a big part in a persons abilty to be sexually aroused - the more you have the more easily aroused you are and the more sexually driven you are. Men have more testosterone, making them more sexually driven. As an interseting note, just before women ovulate their testosterone levels increase making them more sexually driven and aroused. Interesting sometimes how nature ensures we procreate.

Did any of you read what I wrote?! Look at this picture carefully. It's of a slideshow put on by Sony so the information comes from Sony:

 

Look at the Cell (Read) and under Local Memory. It says 16MB/s and as Sony so nicely put's it "no, this isn't a typo...."

 

The Cell processor is seriously broken!!

Well how about the fact that the cell processor is seriously screwed?

 

Read an article here

 

Or how about this bombshell:

 

 

Look closely at Local Memory read and as Sony put it "no, this isn't a typo..." Oh dear!

 

And as for Sony's controller having motion tracking - woopie. It's a novelty that could be easily replicated by other consoles, shown exactly by the fact that Sony ripped it off Nintendo.

Well I can't say that I think cutting or digging it out is a good idea as it can leave scars. Nor do i know about the nickle thing but sounds too old wive's talish to me.

I do know that you can get rid of them when they first start to appear my putting Dandelion milk (the white sap in dandelion flower stalks) on them. Worked perfectly for me. Put the dandelion milk on when I first saw one and the next day it was gone. As for when they are full-blown, I have no simple cures. The only time I had them somthing bad, my mum got a cream from the Chemist (Drug Store) that made them fall off... Good luck and I hope you find a solution!

This is an interesting thread. I must say one thing though lol. Only that the fact is People can imagine and think and see things different than you. Not through their eye but through the images composed in your mind. The concept of what you saw, or what you think you saw. is really what you didnt see at all. This isnt really making since. so heres an example. You all came to this thread to see opinons on this. You might of saw what i said, but what you thought of it is different from everyone else or maybe similar, it could even be the same. But anything is possible in this world. even things that seem beyond logic and common sense, this world be live in is unbound beyond laws of gravity and matter.

 

True true. It's like the discussions about reality and what we perceive as reality. Is this real or are we just dreaming (like the whole Matrix thing). You can very much see different perceptions of reality when you look at people with severe psychoses where they believe their delusions are literally real no matter how far out and funky they might be. What we see and perceive as being real isn't what is actually there. It's what our brains 'think' is there. '

I watched a documentary a while ago that was about vision and the things that can go wrong with it. When things go very wrong with vision, the majority of the time it's because of the brain not the eyes. I remember this one woman they interviewed who couldn't see movement. I thought "what?!" How can you not see movement. If something is moving in front of your eyes you are seeing it move.... It was hard to come to grips with as I couldn't comprehend how someone could not perceive movement. What the lady saw was like a series of still photos, like a slow strobe or if you turned the frame rate way down. The problem was that the part of the brain responsible for perceiving motion was damaged. Once again all in the mind and very, very wierd but very interesting.

For those who do not believe in the Bible, just let me point out a very important fact. The Bible is the worlds oldest book know to man. No other book earlier than it has ever been found, making the Bible the first ever book written.

Were you born in a cave? I think the Chinese, Indians, Romans, Greeks, Sumerians, Babylonians among many others would beg to differ. In fact it was the Babylonians who taught the Jews to write. How could they teach the 'authors' of the Bible to write if they didn't in fact already do so themselves?! Not to mention, I could walk over to my bookshelf right now and get a book that dates before the Bible (reprinted of course as I unfortunately don't own the original )

 

From the BBC:

A book thought to be the oldest surviving printed book in the world has gone on display at the British Library.

The Diamond Sutra, which bears the date 868 AD, was found in a walled-up cave in Dunhuang, north-west China, in 1907, along with other printed items.

It consists of a scroll of grey paper printed with Chinese characters, wrapped around a wooden pole.

The scroll forms part of the Library's Silk Road display, which focuses on the art and culture of the region.

It was discovered by the Hungarian born explorer Sir Marc Aurel Stein, and is thought to be part of a library which was walled up in the cave around the year 1000AD... "This was copied by a man called Wong Jei, in May 868 on behalf of his parents, and he notes this at the end."

The scroll was printed hundreds of years before moveable type was discovered separately in Europe.

 

And that's printed let alone written. (Printed over 500 years before the first printed Bible)

 

Also from the BBC:

The world's oldest multiple-page book - in the lost Etruscan language - has gone on display in Bulgaria's National History Museum in Sofia.

It contains six bound sheets of 24 carat gold, with illustrations of a horse-rider, a mermaid, a harp and soldiers.

The book dates back to 600BC

The small manuscript, which is more than two-and-a-half millennia old, was discovered 60 years ago in a tomb uncovered during digging for a canal along the Strouma river in south-western Bulgaria.

So that makes you WRONG! Oh and the full article can be read here.

 

Also the Bible didn't become the Bible until 325CE during the First Council of Nicaea. Constantine (the emperor of Rome at that time) made Christianity the state religion and called the first Council of Nicaea where they decided many things including what books should be canonised into the Bible.

 

And for the love of God - THE DEVIL'S NUMBER IS 616, NOT 666!

If you believe in that sort of thing. The world didn't end on January 6th nor did it end in the year 616. People have always said the world is going to end on a certain date and they have ALL been wrong. Get some councilling for your hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia!!

Will you be saying that when your house burns down or you get electrocuted in your shower? Just because something hasn't happened in 8 years doesn't mean it won't or can't. So you might think to yourself, "Why should I listen to her? I've been fine all this time and she's not an expert anyway." Well if you won't take my advice then listen to the fire department and registered electricians - get your house grounded! Here in New Zealand, it's illegal to build a house ungrounded and with good reason - IT'S DANGEROUS!

Can you tell me the dating of these manuscripts? Or can you provide me with a link to where you got this information, so i can research it myself?

 

same here I heard it on the radio a few months ago But it was on a program called mancows mourning madhouse and although the show is political and seroius sometimes its a bunch of bs others. I would like more info on this also.

especially since the original text never said 666 it said six hundred 3 score and six. a score is twenty years so it could weither be written 666 or 6 60 6 or 6606

I would search for it myself but ever since y2k my computer stopped working and I've been living in a box because society ended then too remember.

 

As I said, I got it from the BBC website. They screened a television series including an episode titled "Revelation: The End of the World?" on Sunday 25 April on BBC Two, 12:00-12:50. You can read about it here (including the quote I supplied)

 

If you want research, here are some more articles:

A fragment from the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, dating to the Third century, gives the more mundane 616 as the mark of the Antichrist.

 

Ellen Aitken, a professor of early Christian history at McGill University, said the discovery appears to spell the end of 666 as the devil's prime number.

 

"This is a very nice piece to find," Dr. Aitken said. "Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast."

 

The tiny fragment of 1,500-year-old papyrus is written in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, and contains a key passage from the Book of Revelation.

 

Where more conventional versions of the Bible give 666 as the "number of the beast," or the sign of the anti-Christ whose coming is predicted in the book's apocalyptic verses, the older version uses the Greek letters signifying 616.

 

"This is very early confirmation of that number, earlier than any other text we've found of that passage," Dr. Aitken said. "It's probably about 100 years before any other version."

Here's the full article

 

http://www.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/mp666.html

 

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

From National Geographic:

The latest volume includes details of fragments showing third- and fourth-century versions of the Book of Revelations. Intriguingly, the number assigned to "the Beast" of Revelations isn't the usual 666, but 616.

Full article here

 

There was even articles written about it by Satanists but I decided to exclude them lest any Christians get angry at me because their soul has been sullied by clicking on the link.

 

If you Google 616 Revelations it comes up with 121,000 pages so if you want more articles - there are plenty more.

Sorry, can't help you there unfortunately as I am in New Zealand with different currency, prices and compliance laws. I hope you problem is resolved though (and that your computer doesn't bloiw up )

It's nothing to do with individual interpretation or perspective. It comes down to the fact that when the Bible was translated it was translated incorrectly so that it ended up being 666. It wasn't until recently that this was discovered - when some Oxford academics shone different lights on damaged manuscripts (oldest known remnants of Revelations) they discovered it actually read as 616. (The passage that normally states the number as being 666 was damaged so using different light spectrums they were able to see the previously unreadable text).

From the BBC:

However, evidence from ancient manuscripts indicates that 666 may not have been the number of the Beast. In the late 19th century, British archaeologists working at the site of the Egyptian city Oxyrhynchus discovered a cache of papyri which were brought to Oxford, where academics have been working their way through them ever since. One of these papyrus fragments is of the Book of Revelation and gives the number of the Beast as 616

Techniqually this color is just a wave of photons that is being transmitted outwards by a leds in the monitor of a certain wavelength. We as humans, have found it easier to name these wavelengths like red and blue instead of going around saying "can i get the 630nm crayon please". It just makes more sense. Plus, back in the days when the colors were named, they didnt have the technology to measure the wavelength of light and they didnt know that only certain wavelength are reflected by some materials which is why we see them as that color.

 

Doesn't change the fact though that what different people see is subjective. Take a blue-green colour for example (around 493nm) - I might say that it is a blue colour with a hint of green whereas other people will say that it is a green colour with a slightly blue tinge....

It's also dependent on how much of the different idopsins (cone pigments) there are in the retinas of someone's eyes. If a person lacks some of the idopsin responsible for red colour absorption, that person's vision will appear much more washed out with a blue-green tinge than other people (try turning down the red on your monitor and you'll see what I mean). The amount of idposins can also vary from eye to eye - if you close one eye and then change to the other you may notice that your vision has a slightly different tinge to it. It's also what we call colour blindness - where someone may completely lack the idopsin for a particular colour range.

It's not as simple as light waves. My favorite colour is blue. Why is that? Why does my daughter like pink? (which I hate). Colour/light also has a profound effect on human emotion that while generally the same for most people is also subjective to experience. If a person suffers a trauma and they are surrounded by the colour blue may end up with an aversion to it, even though emotionally it creates feelings of peacefulness and tranquility.

 

Like I said, the human mind (or any minds for that matter) are fascinating and amazing in how they work and why they work the way they do.

A lightning storm is just one cause, there are lots, like arcing in high winds, vehicles hitting power poles, the power company screwing with things etc. Surge protectors will probably need a ground as well though I'm not 100% on that as different brands use different ways to protect electronics. A surge protector still may not protect you from getting a lethal zap. Is the whole house not grounded? Cause if not, that is extremely dangerous....

Ahhh.. only if you don't mind your computer blowing up and setting fire to your house if there's a power surge (as happens commonly during lightning storms)