Recently, I was asked this by demons: Your iPhone or your life?
It sounds like an easy choice to make were it not for the fact that my iPhone is my life (and, yours, too, although you have yet to realize it). It is true that, for this farmer, if would be nigh impossible to give up his hoe, given that a farmer's hoe is the means by which he lives. Same for this soldier and his sword. My iPhone is both to me; without it, there'd be neither harvest nor war, neither progress nor trailblazing.
My nemesis, Evil, has viewed my iPhone in similar fashion, and has damaged or destroyed every one I've had:
Two months ago, a sucker demon stretched from below me, latched onto my cellphone, and then retracted hard enough to break the screen; the distance between the ground and iPhone: 2 feet
Fortunately, a very reasonably priced repair center cut my costs in half; but, bills add up. Less than two months later, the new screen was cracked in a similar way; I have yet to repair it
Even the one I have now has a hairline crack in the screen, which would be completely broken if the last repair technician hadn't practically forced me to apply an ultra-thick, adhesive screen protector last time I it was replaced.
UPDATE | A day after publishing this post, I was able to repair my iPhone screen again:
The same repair center knocked an additional $20 off the price for the same repairs as before—and threw in the protective screen cover (which, by the way, actually prevented the screen from becoming unusable)
If my iPhone isn't destroyed by sucker demons (thin, black threads stretching from out of nowhere that snatch your iPhone right out of your hand), then by miniature hobgoblin demons [seeVIDEO | Wrestling with a Demon-Possessed iPhone in the Dark]:
If you watch inside the box, you will eventually see my iPhone morphing into more of a ball than flat rectangle, as it turns over and over in my hand. The round shape that seems to be flipping it over and over in my hand is the body of the aforedescribed demon, who is risking his life to make cellphone-holding inconvenient for me.
Sometimes, humans are the culprit; even still, it's always at the behest of demons
Before you start thinking that, As long as there are no demon problems around me, my iPhone is safe, let me warn you: It's easier than all that to steal or break one; no one needs a demon to do it or a demon to tell them to do it. There are regular people who get robbed or vandalized by regular people in a regular manner. I just haven't met regular yet—not even prior to the thefts and destructions. Before demons and their people, owning and using things never brought a problem for me, and I couldn't have named a single person who had a problem with my owning and use of something.
After that changed, I don't think I've ever been the victim of vandalism or theft that wasn't announced by a demon or demon person prior to the act in my life. In the weeks leading to last night's trip to the VMC (Valley Medical Center) emergency room [seeVIDEO | VMC Hospital nurse attacks using demon], I was warned and taunted about a pending loss of my iPhone, everywhere. Sure enough, after I was ejected into the lobby this afternoon (following an overnight stay of which I remember nothing more than begging God to give me one last chance to clench my fists around the throat of evil before I die), someone took it as I lay slumped over a chair, unconscious and in piss-soaked clothes.
I won't divulge the details of the theft, even if they were somewhat interesting, because there is a far more important story to tell concerning the circumstances surrounding the theft, specifically, one which came down to an ultimatum by demons, Give up everything (iPhone, blog, "software," by which they mean, Chroma) or you're going to die.
And, die I nearly did last night; but, once again, God, who is always at work to make sure everyone receives a degree of mercy for which they can praise Him forever (should that be a desire), saw fit to stay Death's hand once more—and, on top of that, return my cellphone to me.
Apparently, God has angels everywhere, even in the unlikeliest of places, the particular deputy-angel who found it being the kind that can move faster than GPS. She located it, retrieved it and returned it quicker than my MacBook Air could notify me via Find My iPhone:
I didn't ask who stole it. I felt lucky enough to have it back. When I left the hospital, I thought it was gone for good. It wasn't until I was stopped by the deputy in the parking lot that I was told they had found it with Find My iPhone, which I left up on one of their office computers, and intended to retrieve it. The deputy did, though, indicate that it was just a few blocks from where she stopped me, and that it wouldn't take her anytime at all to find it (which was true).
What I wouldn't have asked, even I had I known at the time, how she narrowed down the iPhone's location from all the different places it was reported to be. Google Maps suggested these three places:
My iPhone was either found at the apex of the triangle that marks the iPhone's route...
...or at Kohl's or...
...or in an unfinished addition to the VMC campus
iCloud reported these two:
Two of the five places the iPhone was supposedly located while it was on a field trip of its own
Regardless, she (apparently) went straight to it without leaving any names, although they were later ascertained (on April 4th, 2017) by county records. It is also unclear as to whether the grantee or grantor listed for 4671 Mia Circle (as reported by iCloud) are employees of Valley Medical Center Hospital. That will be determined at a later date.
The question: Is Michael T. Walker or Bahram Allahyarzadeh an employee of VMC?
The iPhone story is dull, though, the near-death VMC emergency room story is not. I'll get to that eventually; but, I've got lots of iPhone software to write. Until then, here's something to give you an idea of what that story entails:
Here, by the way, is its conclusion:
There is a God, He is alive, In Him we live, and we survive.
On Quora, someone asked whether it is legal to fetch and display public personal data about people? I answered because I have a little experience publishing personal data about people [seePLACES | Demon-infested homes]—and that under the most extreme circumstances anyone might do this—and I thought that, based on that fact, my answer might add some color and interest that others answers are not likely to have.
I think it is indeed colorful, in that, somehow, my answer segues into a series of things you must do prior to publishing personal-but-public information about criminals who committed crimes against you. For the first time since putting people on blast since 2006¸ I've enumerated and described how to prevent increasing crime against you, and otherwise snitch with the likelihood of the least volatile reaction. It was culminated per the counsel of police, the criminals themselves, and their peers—a multitude of other career criminals who did not commit the crimes complained of and were not affiliated with the criminals who committed them, but who offered "advice" on how to do what I did "correctly" as possible, if I must in fact do it. After I posted the dirt (as it were), my counsel (as it were) all said three things:
they didn't like the idea or what they heard about it before they read it, but they don't blame me now that they have read it, the circumstances being more egregious than what they themselves feel comfortable imposing on one person;
they approved of the way I did it (I didn't say more than I had to, and the amount of work I put into it was obviously substantial, and hard work is appreciated by all; and,
they intend to keep their disgust silent and unmoving, which meant I escaped the designation of being called a snitch, and all the things that come with that.
Here's what I wrote:
Before I answer your question:
In every state, there are statutes governing the acquisition, use and publication of public information. They are published online, and hard copies are freely available at every public law library. These statutes are invariably prefaced by the meaning of public, but it is a common sense definition, with no pitfalls or loopholes. So, I'm not concerned that you mean anything different than information that is freely and readily available to everyone, and information that is distributed by a custodian who is under and complies with a legally prescribed obligation to provide that same information to anyone requesting it.
Now, my answer:
Yes, and for any purpose, except to commit a crime, such as criminal stalking or for subsequent fraudulent use by a third party, or to influence or alter trade market shareholder values (where applicable) in order to unlawfully obtain financial gain by any subsequent dividends or surplus or by short-selling; misuse without criminal intent or use without permission under certain circumstances may incur civil penalties. There is no such thing as a legal obligation for any common citizen to protect the personal information of another outside of a legal, business or contractual arrangement clearly established prior to disclosure—and, if it's public as defined by statute, especially so.
It’s even legal to slander someone, provided it does not place the subject in danger, nor does it impute them to a serious crime for which you did not witness or a criminal complaint has not been filed or for which the subject has not been charged, arrested or convicted, and if the publication is not a component of a crime or of a crime to which it can be composited (or enhances the degree to which either was being committed).
The illegal publication of personal data does not usually define a crime itself, but merely forms an element of proof for another crime and/or enhances or supplements the degree to which a given crime was alleged to be committed or provides a complement to a composite of crimes to form a single crime that carries a charge. In the case of the latter, criminal intent is usually established only when personal data was published repeatedly, and each publication can be readily ascertained as a means to further the commission of another crime under the circumstances and in its purported context.
While some crimes are constituted by the unlawful acquisition of personal information, it may be technically legal to publish it, even though it was stolen; however, the publication of stolen information can be used to prove the commission of the theft. On the other hand, some data thefts are not defined as such until the data is published.
Law enforcement agencies generally only pursue allegations where victims sustained substantial loss (usually corporate victims) due to the cost of and time involved for an investigation to prove criminal intent by and to calculate loss or damage from the unlawful acquisition and/or publication of personal information is exorbitant. District attorneys generally will not file affidavits for a crime of data theft or unlawful publication thereof even if it can be established by a single occurrence unless it is committed multiple times by the same offender and under the eye of an investigative body to which the complainant filed a report.
Even if legal, publication of personal information may not always be advisable, particularly when doing so provides no remedy for loss or damage or fails to prevent same (or warn), or when another remedy for loss or damage exists and has yet to be pursued, and especially when loss or damage has been remedied or when doing so may place you or others in danger of harm.
The publication of the criminal acts/history warn others of the stated intent by the subjects to repeat and/or habitually commit those acts
All available alternative remedies were exhausted, but failed by no fault of the publisher (me), and there were no penalties imposed on the subject that can be compounded by the publication of personal information
It places me in danger, but not others—and that, not by design, but by circumstance; not even an infinitesimal possibility of danger to others had been ascertained, in that there are no appearances that remotely suggest that the publication of the information and the manner in which it was published was carefully crafted to protect others from danger by hiding their involvement
Although I advise against snitching, it can be (and was) a reasonable risk under these specific circumstances:
You are already in danger to the extreme, and exposing the crimes committed against you might dissuade the persons committing them, as well as others providing their material support
You have no means of third-party, physical protection and are unable to provide your own for all reasons
You are the sole victim of the crimes you publish, and you are the only witness
The crimes are serious, and you have, in fact, sustained significant loss or damage to property and/or have been injured or threatened with brandished weapons, and you have overlooked everything than what most people would consider less (you’re going by the judgment of others on this, not your own)
The crimes are likely to be repeated or will lead to other crimes or compel others to commit crimes against you
Every other legal means of remedy has been pursued with due diligence [completely, thoroughly and in timely fashion], and your full cooperation was given to those who can facilitate remedy, and to their complete satisfaction
That, prior to pursuing available remedies, you made at least one attempt to resolve the matter with the subjects in a way deemed reasonable and feasible by both parties, and that the attempt was witnessed by peers on both sides
That you were not contributorily negligent in any way, shape or form to the crimes committed against you (some say this shouldn't matter; but, when it matters to someone, it then matters—especially with career criminals. I added this qualifier to emphasize that a balanced picture of the circumstances surrounding the crime(s) is essential; although you are a victim, you could incite further and more serious crime at the acquiescence of others who may have frowned on such if you use your victim status as a license to portray a monster that doesn't exist to literally everyone the subject knows—including his/her parents)
That you have taken every available step to ensure your safety and the safety of others around you prior to publication, and employed any and all means at your disposal for preventing a reoccurrence of the crimes you publish
That you have provided the fewest possible details to achieve adequate warning and prevention
That you can ensure that your publication is distributed to every person who could be affected by it, including the subject, persons like the subject, and everyone inside the geographical area in which the subject committed, commits or may commit the crimes you published
The now-shuttered, but downloadable The Sunnyvale Knock blog met all 11 conditions prior to publication, and even was announced prior to the subjects before it went live; moreover, it used the words of the criminals and accomplices themselves to provide an account of the crimes (via voice recordings).
By the way, if you’re interested in the information I posted about the subjects after shutting down the blog, read these posts to The Life of a Demoniac:
If you’re not in the mood to read, listen to Secret Recording Reveals Demonic Agenda, by far the most compelling recording of them all, primarily because the subject matter discussed between the two persons heard in it is still relevant.
I love answering questions about demons on Quora simply because of this blog; I simply point to it whenever any question about the existence of demons arise. If one post alone doesn't convince someone, I simply recommend they add to the other 999 or so posts, which, collectively, should remove all doubt about whether demons exist, and what some of them are up to on this planet (that is, if doubt existed at all).
I always get upvoted (similar to "Like" on Facebook) for my answers, even though some who read my answers do criticize from time-to-time. For example:
She forgot to take a look at the blog; even still, I can deliver demons right to her doorstep at-will, so, if she really wants testable evidence....
At first glance, I wasn't sure if this was more of the typical heckling I get from demon collaborators; but, on closer inspection, it lacked the ridiculousness that comes with such. This person just looks a wee bit behind the rest of the class.
NOTE | You can read my answers to demon-related and other questions on my Quora profile.
Same thing with the answers to the question as to whether demons exist prior to my contributions; they seem to have demon-people origins, they are so off. But, lacking the requisite ego-stroking innuendo or I-know-but-I'm-not-telling phrase here and there, I'd say these people are simply ignorant to the point of being dangerous:
Are demons real?
Out of 200,000 years of humans existing, there has yet to be a single solitary speck of evidence supporting the existence of beings referred to as “demons”. None. Zero. Zilch. People claiming things is not evidence. They need evidence to support their claims.
It is safe to say that this concept, originated by humans in the first place as a way of explaining things that were not understood in the past (much like how people thought a human fetus came from a “homunculus” before we understood biology better, or that bad smells could carry diseases and so you just had to block out the smells to avoid getting sick, etc.), has no credibility whatsoever.
Remember: Believing something doesn’t make it real, and insisting demons exist but not having evidence to support that claim does not suffice as evidence. Just because some people may not require evidence to believe something fantastical for which there is no support does not mean everyone else is going to accept their feelings as proof of something which supposedly exists and functions independent of their feelings.
And when those who do not believe as they do and do not share their feelings consistently remain immune and unaffected by these “demons”, it should really make a rational human being start questioning whether those who say demons exist and that they’ve had experiences with them are only saying that because they are predisposed to wishing these things were real, since those who don’t believe in demons never have any interactions with them.
Not believing in demons is a 100% guaranteed method of not having any interaction with them.
Are demons real and can they hurt you?
Answer A. Is any entity real? No. To see anything as differentiated from anything else is an illusion caused by your identification with something differentiated from everything else, like a body or a mind. What you see is determined by your desires and fears. Reality, on the other hand, is singular, meaning it doesn't consist of objects, things - they are just a common fantasy within reality. Reality is everything and nothing, which means it is also you. The real you is all of reality.
Answer B. Demons are within you. Everyone has their own unique sets. Some have it as jealousy, some as hatred. Some fear them, some befriend them. They hurt you when you let them over-power you.
Answer C. No, demons are not real, and no, they can't hurt you.The only sense in which "demons" actually exist is in the metaphorical sense of someone being "driven by their demons". This means someone having a bad mental habit or compulsion that causes them to do things that harm themselves or the people around them, but which are so engrained they find them hard to change. This could be physical, like excessive drinking, or more psychological, like jealousy. But these demons, too, can be banished if we understand them as unhelpful patterns of behavior and work to break them down.
Answer D. The scientist in me agrees with most replies here on Quora. That is, supernatural events do not exist.
There are few religions I know of that do not believe in dark forces; either jinns, Devils, black magic or sorcery. To believe in God necessitates a belief in the devil, at least so far as logic dictates. One cannot admit one supernatural power without admitting others.
As has been reported by Pope Francis, the devil does exist. The uptick in requests for exorcism by Catholic priests suggests that there are still many who believe in both positive and negative supernatural forces: http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-fran...
But belief doesn't make something true, it only proves that the believer believes. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of anything supernatural and unless there are some spectacular breakthroughs with quantum technology, there won't be in the foreseeable future.
Personally, I sit on the fence, having seen too many inexplicable events in my own personal life to make a resounding no on the topic of demons.
I therefore admit the possibility of my own delusions, elemental possession and/or naivety. I believe that those things which cannot be explained by science will most likely be explained with further advances in science. Until that time, perhaps leave science to continue its quantum investigations and take anecdotal evidence for what it is - someone's subjective opinion of reality. And for those curious about dark forces, I'd caution you about playing the devil's advocate. I've seen my fair share of psychiatric hospitals.
I didn't ask who stole it. I felt lucky enough to have it back. When I left the hospital, I thought it was gone for good. It wasn't until I was stopped by the deputy in the parking lot that I was told they had found it with Find My iPhone, which I left up on one of their office computers, and intended to retrieve it. The deputy did, though, indicate that it was just a few blocks from where she stopped me, and that it wouldn't take her anytime at all to find it (which was true).
