Prejudiced lightning

[Arising_uk]

Still unable to respond. …

Respond to what? I've responded to your actual OP but as usual you've now decided to divert attention away from it as you are unable to address your own thoughts, 'Yank' indeedy.

Too bad you don't have Bob Evenson around to henpeck. You really didn't get far with him, did you? …

Nope, as like you he was a 'Yank' and completely unable to accept critique of his thoughts.

So which Brit club do you belong to? Must be the club of henpeckers. …

I thought you said you didn't call us Brits? Make your mind up!

I'm a fully paid-up member of the Philosophising Club.

PhilX

PS Often people accuse me of things which actually applies to them. …

You live in a Fraudian world of paranoid fantasy.

As it turns out, Arising has been around here for over ten years. That's what his stats show.

*Bing* The lightning strikes. Although why you woud wish to say this to anyone reading I don't know as they'd have got it the first time.

Anyhoo, banter aside. Are you now willing to consider that the answer you googled about why US men are five times more likely to be hit by lightning than US women was the correct one? If not could you give another reason why you think this occurs.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Arising said:

"Nope, as like you he was a 'Yank' and completely unable to accept critique of his thoughts."

Prejudice as there's no need to mention country.

There's nothing from the internet to account for the 4 - 5 times ratio in the US. Your so-called explanation doesn't make sense and you can't henpeck me into changing my mind.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

Prejudice as there's no need to mention country. …

Who's mentioning country? I'm mentioning a name for a specific set of common behaviours by a type of denizen of a country who have visited this forum of the past decade or so.

There's nothing from the internet to account for the 4 - 5 times ratio in the US. …

Well apart from the statistics showing the percentages between men and women who partake in out-door-pursuits and occupations that would lead them to be exposed to a higher chance of being struck by lightning and that US men appear slightly stupider than their females but maybe that's a bit harsh, lets say less risk adverse.

Your so-called explanation doesn't make sense and you can't henpeck me into changing my mind.

PhilX

I'm not trying to, you are obviously not open to any reasonable explanation. What I'm interested in is what you actually think is going on then that allows you to dismiss the obvious answer? What leads you to believe otherwise?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I'm posting what AccuWeather Channel says, but it doesn't mean I agree with it:

https://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-ne ... s/70004230

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

If I were to say that I saw an object moving up towards the sky due to gravity, who'd believe me? That's how I view this situation.

PhilX

[-1-]

Men are taller. They are closer to the clouds. Hence, the path of least resistance leads through them for electric current that originates in the sky.

Men are denser. I don't mean intellectually. I mean, their specific gravity is higher than women's. So the path of least resistance leads through them for electric current.

The sticks that men carry on the course to hit the ball with, are longer, thicker, and heavier. Better conductors of electricity than women's golf equipment.The current will take the path of least resistance.

Men don't mind getting their hair wet. A LOT of middle-aged women mind that. So women tend to seek shelter on the first drop of spittle. Men tough it out. Therefore men are wetter, and longer in the open than women, who run like the hunt to find shelter.

All these can be found on the Internet. All these facts.

Just copy-and-paste this URL into your URL window, and you will see the Internet references:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=24248&p=360854#p360854

[Philosophy Explorer]

I googled "Prejudiced Lightning" and this popped up which some might find an interesting read:

https://books.google.com/books?id=pKz2R ... ng&f=false

PhilX

[commonsense]

I googled "Prejudiced Lightning" and this popped up which some might find an interesting read:

https://books.google.com/books?id=pKz2R ... ng&f=false

PhilX

This reference relates to prejudice against the use of lightning rods and has nothing about presumed proclivities of lightning strikes.

[commonsense]

BTW, for anyone trying to keep up with the battle of the posts, the score is Arising 9, PX 23.

[Philosophy Explorer]

BTW, for anyone trying to keep up with the battle of the posts, the score is Arising 9, PX 23.

Very often the thread poster contributes more posts than anyone else. Historically though you'll see I don't post that often to my threads.

PhilX

[commonsense]

BTW, for anyone trying to keep up with the battle of the posts, the score is Arising 9, PX 23.

One point is awarded for each insult posted. It's sort of like golf scores.

[Philosophy Explorer]

BTW, for anyone trying to keep up with the battle of the posts, the score is Arising 9, PX 23.

One point is awarded for each insult posted. It's sort of like golf scores.

Your snide remarks are johnny-come-lately to me and Arising. BTW the battle has been over.

PhilX