Masturbation is for Losers

[Happeh]

At one point in time, I asked people if they knew what Ayurveda said about sex. Again, in the rush to invective, no one said anything. I thought that adults that claimed to be scientists could use google, type in sex and ayurveda, and read the results.

Silly me.

Here is the result of 2 minutes on Google searching sex and Ayurveda

Sexuality is considered an integral part of longevity. Ayurvedic Medicine has outlined many ways to preserve sexual health. First, the number of times you engage in sexual intercourse is important. As you grow older, the amount of sexual activity should decrease. Above the age of forty, sexual intercourse should not occur more than once or twice a week. Sexual secretions put a stress on the adrenal glands, which, in later years can weaken the immune system and make the body frail.

http://www.ayush.com/articles/sex.htm

I very clearly say that senility, bad hip, blindness, general weakening, etc are symptoms described by Happeh Theory for an old age person.

 

[cole grey]

I agree with the idea that excessive sex is a drain on the body's resources.

The info posted in the ayuveda link seems somewhat reasonable.
EXCEPT - if a person doesn't use caffeine, alcohol and drugs (the main thing that drains the adrenals in our society), or use them very sparingly, you should have some excess energy to waste having sex or masturbating. So if a couple of times a week (more in winter) is good, then 3 or 4 times a week is good for someone over 40. Also, by the time I'm 40 I will still be snowboarding, hiking, doing yoga and surfing (not excessively exercising, believe me I don't exercise heavily all the time). I'll have not been drinking or using drugs for many years, so by the time winter rolls around, sex every day will still be fine.

Also, a person who is 18 or 25 should be fine with doing plenty of adrenal stressing, especially if they are smart enough not to drink, or use drugs.

Your theory needs to stop being so general, it is useless without more specific guidelines.

Also, you MUST put up pictures of people who we know do NOT have excessive sex or drug use, and show us their straight faces and postures, or you can forget about using pictures at all. And don't try to put up models and actors who have nice straight features because they use drugs a LOT and f*** like bunnies.

 

[James R]

Happeh:

At one point in time, I asked people if they knew what Ayurveda said about sex. Again, in the rush to invective, no one said anything.

Wrong. I asked you to tell us, since you say you're the expert.

Sexuality is considered an integral part of longevity. Ayurvedic Medicine has outlined many ways to preserve sexual health. First, the number of times you engage in sexual intercourse is important. As you grow older, the amount of sexual activity should decrease. Above the age of forty, sexual intercourse should not occur more than once or twice a week. Sexual secretions put a stress on the adrenal glands, which, in later years can weaken the immune system and make the body frail.

This is pretty far from "masterbation makes you go blind", and even this comment is eminently disputable.

 

[Happeh]

Also, you MUST put up pictures of people who we know do NOT have excessive sex or drug use, and show us their straight faces and postures, or you can forget about using pictures at all. And don't try to put up models and actors who have nice straight features because they use drugs a LOT and f*** like bunnies.

I did. I posted a picture of Bernanke and pointed out the differences between him and the others.

 

[Happeh]

Happeh:
Wrong. I asked you to tell us, since you say you're the expert.

I do remember this. I do not know your history. Some of the people that I have met have an entirely different style of teaching than what I beleive you are used to.

In the west, teachers tell students. The student is a jar and the teacher fills it up. This leads to slaves, followers, losers. The students cannot think. They need someone to fill them up.

The people that I learned from? They believe that you give someone a part of an answer. This forces the person to get off of their butt and find the other half. The student must use his own energy and smarts to obtain the full answer.

When you asked me my qualifications etc, you wanted me to fill you up. Because I think that is bad for you, I ignored you. In my experience, if you are really a good student, you would then go look for yourself.

In addition to that reason, it is my experience that if I post links to material, I am frequently told the material is biased. I am only posting what supports my ideas. By forcing you or anyone else to find the information on your own, you are guaranteed that I am in no way fiddling the results or skewing the information.

This is pretty far from "masterbation makes you go blind", and even this comment is eminently disputable.

Yes it is. Many people here felt it was silly to think that an action on the penis could affect they eyes or any other part of the body. They did not believe me when I said trust me.

This article says there is a connection between the penis and the adrenal glands. The adrenal glands are about 1 1/2 feet away from the penis, and located inside of the body.

It seems obvious that if the penis can affect the adrenal glands, the the penis could also affect the eyes.

When it becomes apparent to me that this is no longer a problem for people, then we could move on to the next question or disagreement.

 

[James R]

Happeh:

In the west, teachers tell students. The student is a jar and the teacher fills it up. This leads to slaves, followers, losers. The students cannot think. They need someone to fill them up.

I guess you've never studied in the west. In fact, the opposite is true. Eastern countries are more likely to have a student-teacher relationship in which the teacher is the guru and the student is supposed to sit quietly and take notes.

Where I come from, students are encouraged to question everything, and to debate concepts. That's how I try to teach my students, anyway.

When you asked me my qualifications etc, you wanted me to fill you up.

I never asked you for your qualifications. As I recall, you've already admitted you don't have any. Only your "personal observations" over many years.

In addition to that reason, it is my experience that if I post links to material, I am frequently told the material is biased. I am only posting what supports my ideas. By forcing you or anyone else to find the information on your own, you are guaranteed that I am in no way fiddling the results or skewing the information.

The problem is, Happeh, that you assume that people are as interested in your ideas as you are. You assume they are willing to go off on a wild goose chase just to please you. In fact, I don't think most people will be bothered making the effort? Because they're lazy? No. Because you haven't presented anything that looks like it might be worth chasing. If what you've presented here so far is the best you can do, I wouldn't expect many converts to your way of thinking.

Yes it is. Many people here felt it was silly to think that an action on the penis could affect they eyes or any other part of the body. They did not believe me when I said trust me.

People trust religious gurus, not crazy-sounding people on the internet. People will consider crazy-sounding ideas only if they are shown convincing evidence which suggests they should take the crazy idea seriously. And you haven't presented anything convincing.

It seems obvious that if the penis can affect the adrenal glands, the the penis could also affect the eyes.

How does the penis affect the adrenal glands? And which article are you talking about? I'll take a look if you give me a link.

 

[Happeh]

Happeh:
I guess you've never studied in the west. In fact, the opposite is true. Eastern countries are more likely to have a student-teacher relationship in which the teacher is the guru and the student is supposed to sit quietly and take notes.

Odd. I distinctly recall my Chinese instructor purposefully making a mistake on the blackboard. He did this to see if the students would catch it and correct him. The asian students did. The american students did not.

I have never in my life seen a western teacher purposefully put up a wrong answer to see if the students had done their homework and catch the mistake.

The problem is, Happeh, that you assume that people are as interested in your ideas as you are. You assume they are willing to go off on a wild goose chase just to please you.

Just to please me? You must be kidding? That is more of that crazy psycho talk. Like saying a baby is trying to control the parents.

It is called curiosity. At least normal, mentally healthy people call it that. Someone mentions a sujbject they never heard of and curiosity drives them to go investigate the subject. I check into new things every day. No one asks me or gives me hints. I see something I never heard of before and I go look into it. I am a curious person who wants to understand the world around him.
I see no point in being a droid. Having everything handed to you on a plate. A person like that may as well be a plant.

In fact, I don't think most people will be bothered making the effort? Because they're lazy? No. Because you haven't presented anything that looks like it might be worth chasing. If what you've presented here so far is the best you can do, I wouldn't expect many converts to your way of thinking.

I expect a .00000001 percent chance of success. I don't know if I told you, but I have met about 5 people in 5 years on the internet who were able to sustain focus and interest enough to speak to me. What can I do? I used to think scientists were smart and they were scientists. Now I find out that 99.9 % of them are psychiatrists because that is the easiest way to gain the status moniker of scientist, or they are beaureacrats who spend their time playing word games with each other in order to determine who is submissive and who is dominant.

I can't help it if I am in the upper percentile of intelligence and no one can understand me.

People trust religious gurus, not crazy-sounding people on the internet. People will consider crazy-sounding ideas only if they are shown convincing evidence which suggests they should take the crazy idea seriously. And you haven't presented anything convincing.

How can you say that? You have seen those pictures. You say they are not evidence. Do you truly believe that I willy nilly just picked out any old picture and said this and that about it? Do you really think I have spent the past 5 years on the internet talking about something meaningless? Do you really think I have written 2 books in baby talk to try to make what I am saying clear to people? Do you really think I have 3 more books planned to flesh out what it is I am trying to say, all based on nothing?

How could any person honestly do all those things unless they were completely convinced? You can make your comments about how anybody can be convinced of anything. Then I make my comments of how you are making this statements about an area of which you have no expertise. I point out to you that I am the expert in this area, and you just sweep that under the rug. Because you know best.

I try to point out to you that their is a huge world of knowledge that exists outside of your USA technology knowledge. A world that says that there is a price to pay for sex. Your response to that is "you are not providing any evidence". From my point of view, you are being resistive. You are refusing to acknowledge the obvious because it does not fit your world view, or some other psychology reason. A reason that has nothing to do with the validity or accuracy of my theory.

How does the penis affect the adrenal glands? And which article are you talking about? I'll take a look if you give me a link.

I am being sloppy. When I said penis, I meant sex. That ayurveda quote said that "Sexual secretions stress the adrenals". I shortened sex activity to penis. The quote and link to the full story are about 4 posts up.

Are you really reading what I write? Or do you just drop in to say I am wrong once in awhile?

 

[Happeh]

Let's see. Now that it appears people are just shouting "you are wrong", without even bothering to look at links, I guess I have to put the stuff here huh?

Happeh Theory says you will go blind from Masturbation.

Last year a study was released that said Viagra users were suddenly going blind in one eye. Exactly what Happeh Theory says. The scientists do not know why. But Happeh does.

People cannot have sex because they are weak or whatever. No boner is natures way of protecting the man from too much sex. Viagra overrides this safety mechanism and allows the men to have sex they should not have. The result is one eye blindness.

I wrote to the FDA and told them they were wrong saying Viagra was the cause of the blindness. It was not Viagra, but the sex that Viagra allowed men to engage in that caused the blindness.

After the study, the public announcements by Viagra were nervous. They were worried about lawsuits and effects on sales. Then a very interesting thing took place. About a week or so after I wrote to the FDA, the tone of Viagra pronouncements suddenly changed. The news article I saw said "Viagra is not the cause of the problem". They said it very confidently. As if they knew they could beat the lawsuit by saying it was the act of sex, not the drug Viagra that caused the blindness.

Here is a verifiable news article that says that Viagra is associated with one eye blindness. Viagra is for sex. Masturbation is sex. Viagra causes one eye blindness because it allows sex. Or, worded another way, Viagra causes one eye blindness because it allows masturbation.


"Viagra and two other popular impotence drugs may cause sudden blindness in one eye in rare cases, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned."

The condition, called non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) is caused by a blockage of blood to the optic nerve. Men who were older than 50, those who smoked or those with high blood pressure, heart disease or high cholesterol were at greater risk of the condition, the administration said.

The administration said it had received 43 reports of the condition in men who had recently taken Viagra, Cialis or Levitra. The vision loss is generally not reversible.

Pfizer, which makes Viagra, has said it does not believe its drug is causing the sudden blindness.

"There is no evidence that Viagra causes blindness or any other serious ocular condition," said Joseph Feczko, the company's chief medical officer. "Men taking Viagra are at no greater risk for blindness - including vision loss from NAION - than men of similar age and health not taking the medicine."

But the administration's recent announcement on the subject offered a different perspective. It said it was "not possible to determine whether these oral medicines for erectile dysfunction were the cause of the loss of eyesight or whether the problem is related to other factors such as high blood pressure or diabetes, or to a combination of these problems".

 

[SnakeLord]

Here is a verifiable news article that says that Viagra is associated with one eye blindness. Viagra is for sex. Masturbation is sex. Viagra causes one eye blindness because it allows sex. Or, worded another way, Viagra causes one eye blindness because it allows masturbation.

Several things:

1) There were 43 reported cases out of 25 million viagra users. You will find it impossible to prove a case with such figures.

2) Viagra is not sex. It is a bunch of chemicals that can have adverse affects on certain people. It is the same with any tablet, any medication.

As an example, I have just opened a packet of headache tablets, which say:

- stomach problems, stomach bleeding

- allergic reactions

- changes in the blood cells which cause an increase in infections

- kidney problems

- liver problems, loss of hearing, loss of vision.

Check the last one.. Should we now make a theory that states "headaches cause blindness"? You wouldn't do it, but you're doing the exact same thing here.

3) Masturbation is not sex. We have already gone through this some 20 pages ago where you assured me that masturbation and sex were not the same thing, and didn't have the same affects - namely because with sex, the penis is entirely covered with even pressure whereas with masturbation it is not. You stated that "the hand does not fully encircle the penis and causes uneven pressure", and that is why the affects happened with masturbation instead of with sex. If you do not believe me, go back a few pages.

Although it's certainly worth noting the effort you have made, unfortunately you are making the grandest leap of faith. Honestly, 43 people out of 25 million people is not a sign that 'masturbation makes you go blind, lose your limbs and turn gay'.

At least you have hopefully finally recognised the worthlessness of pictures in this issue and can continue providing more relevant data.

 

[Happeh]

Don't get your hopes up. It is called diversity of approach.

And what you call "only" 43 out of millions, I call 43 geniune verifiable cases that support the claims of Happeh Theory.

It is good that you remembered my comments about the penis and masturbation and sex. It is bad that you refused to carry on the conversation in a bearable way. What I said is accurate. It is only part of the story.

 

[Happeh]

- liver problems, loss of hearing, loss of vision.

Check the last one.. Should we now make a theory that states "headaches cause blindness"? You wouldn't do it, but you're doing the exact same thing here.

You have the association wrong. The headache pills cause the loss of vision, not the headache itself. If you knew as much as you think you do, you would understand why.

What that headache remedy an Ibuprofen/Advil type of headache remedy? Or was it a Salicyclic acid based headache remedy?

 

[SnakeLord]

You have the association wrong. The headache pills cause the loss of vision, not the headache itself. If you knew as much as you think you do, you would understand why.

Indeed they do - That was the very point.

And what you call "only" 43 out of millions, I call 43 geniune verifiable cases that support the claims of Happeh Theory.

An inaccurate statement. What you now have are 43 people out of 25 million that have gone blind. You still need to verify the exact cause of that blindness. You will need to conduct tests to figure out why, out of 25 million people, these 43 went blind.. A reaction to certain chemicals? Can it be shown that these 43 people masturbated more than the other 25 million? Etc. That is science, get used to it.

 

[James R]

Happeh:

You have seen those pictures. You say they are not evidence. Do you truly believe that I willy nilly just picked out any old picture and said this and that about it?

Yes, essentially. You could easily have found photos of Bill Gates or Donald Rumsfeld with their heads sitting straight on their necks. There are plenty of those. Look:

What you've done is carefully selected "evidence" which supports your theory, while equally as carefully ignoring all evidence against your theory. That is about as unscientific as you can get.

Do you really think I have spent the past 5 years on the internet talking about something meaningless? Do you really think I have written 2 books in baby talk to try to make what I am saying clear to people? Do you really think I have 3 more books planned to flesh out what it is I am trying to say, all based on nothing?

Unfortunately, yes.

I think you probably honestly believe in your "theory". But that's because you have a wilful blindness to all the disconfirming evidence. And either an overactive imagine (which causes you to interpret every head-tilt as a sign of masterbation) or a lack of imagination (which causes your one-track mind and prevents you from even considering other reasons why a person might, for example, tilt his head from time to time).

I try to point out to you that their is a huge world of knowledge that exists outside of your USA technology knowledge.

I'm neither in the USA, nor from the USA.

From my point of view, you are being resistive.

I prefer to call it being skeptical. I question whether theories and conclusions are based on anything solid, or not.

You are refusing to acknowledge the obvious because it does not fit your world view, or some other psychology reason. A reason that has nothing to do with the validity or accuracy of my theory.

No. I'm open to the idea that masterbation might, by some bizarre combination of effects, cause blindness. But I'm not convinced by anything you have presented. Your "evidence" is weak, and I refuse to simply follow you on faith or because you told me "trust me". I see no reason to take your word alone as gospel.

Last year a study was released that said Viagra users were suddenly going blind in one eye. Exactly what Happeh Theory says. The scientists do not know why.

The most proximate cause would appear to be that it is a side effect of the drug. Right? Can you show that it is not merely a side effect of the drug which affects a small number of people using it?

About a week or so after I wrote to the FDA, the tone of Viagra pronouncements suddenly changed. The news article I saw said "Viagra is not the cause of the problem". They said it very confidently. As if they knew they could beat the lawsuit by saying it was the act of sex, not the drug Viagra that caused the blindness.

So, you think you convinced the FDA about your theory? Why has nothing been published about it, then, other than by you?

"Viagra and two other popular impotence drugs may cause sudden blindness in one eye in rare cases, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned."

Note that it says Viagra can cause blindness. Nothing about masterbation causing blindness.

But then we have, from Pfizer: "Men taking Viagra are at no greater risk for blindness - including vision loss from NAION - than men of similar age and health not taking the medicine."

So, if the FDA is right, the drug causes blindness, and the blindness is not due to masterbation. If Pfizer is right, people who take Viagra have no greater risk of blindness than normal, which again completely destroys your claim that Viagra leads to more masterbation and hence more chance of blindness. Either way, both the FDA and Pfizer go against your theory.

But the administration's recent announcement on the subject offered a different perspective. It said it was "not possible to determine whether these oral medicines for erectile dysfunction were the cause of the loss of eyesight or whether the problem is related to other factors such as high blood pressure or diabetes, or to a combination of these problems".

So the administration says blindness is due to either high blood pressure or diabetes or both. Again, no mention of masterbation. So no support for Happeh theory.

 

[Happeh]

Happeh:
You could easily have found photos of Bill Gates or Donald Rumsfeld with their heads sitting straight on their necks. There are plenty of those. Look:

What you've done is carefully selected "evidence" which supports your theory, while equally as carefully ignoring all evidence against your theory. That is about as unscientific as you can get.

Look. You took my open hearted attempts to get you to trust me and said you think I am full of baloney. So I can say without guilt that you are being stupid.

If I am showing you signs of any disease, pick any one, what is the point in showing you pictures of people without the disease? I haveposted pictures that clearly without a doubt show the symptoms. Your point is because the man has his head on straight in your picture, that means what I say is wrong.

There is no connection at all. I am trying to be helpful and friendly and all I get is grief. People can take the tack of "you are wrong and a bozo" or they can take the tack of "I do not understand, or could you explain this discrepancy". Everyone, unfailingly, takes the negative approach. Then they are confused when I am less than co operative with them.

Your picture shows the same signs my pictures do. The difference is, for untrained people like you, it is much more difficult to see. In my pictures, I tried to do you a favor and make it as obvious as possible. But if you want to be this way, Here is your picture.

Even though his head is straight, his body is not. On his right leg is an arrow showing the centerline of the leg. It is not vertically straight. It travels from right to left. The curved line on his left leg shows how his leg is curved. The entire left side of his body is atrophied. Because the left side has atrophied, it cannot support his body in a vertically straight position. The entire body leans to the weakened left side. This causes his left hip to appear to stick outwards by itself.

The curve on the upper body emphasizes where the left side of the torso has atrophied. The side of the face to the outside of the red line is the area of the head that is atrophied. That same side of the head, the left, was pointed out as being atrophied in the head only picture I previously posted.

The masturbation with the right hand has caused his entire body to move over to the left.

I would also say this picture looks to be of a younger bill gates than the one in my picture. That is cheating. His symptoms will naturally be less obvious when he is younger and more obvious when he is older.

 

[Happeh]

Happeh:Unfortunately, yes.

As I said before James. Because you were reasonable, I opened my heart to you. And you are taking this patronizing tone with me. Which means I must go back to being hard. I don't want to. But if I am nice, and I get kicked, why would anyone want to repeat that experience?

I think you probably honestly believe in your "theory". But that's because you have a wilful blindness to all the disconfirming evidence. And either an overactive imagine (which causes you to interpret every head-tilt as a sign of masterbation) or a lack of imagination (which causes your one-track mind and prevents you from even considering other reasons why a person might, for example, tilt his head from time to time).

James. That is ugly. What you did to me was ugly. You could have phrased this a million different ways to voice your opinion. You chose ugly.

You have no idea what you are speaking of. You have no expereince with the human body that bears on this discussion. You have no idea of my background or half of the information I know. You admitted you knew nothing of Ayurveda. What else don't you know about?

But you are certain enough to go ahead and be ugly to me, in spite of your lack of knowledge and worldliness. I will never trust you again.

I prefer to call it being skeptical. I question whether theories and conclusions are based on anything solid, or not.

I call it resistive. Resisting being friendly and going along with something you don't quite believe, just to be nice. If it turned out to be wrong, well, you still did the morally right thing of being nice. If I turn out to be right, you invested your few hours of time in something worthwhile and you owe me big time.

No. I'm open to the idea that masterbation might, by some bizarre combination of effects, cause blindness.

Bizarre only to someone who does not know how the human body works.

But I'm not convinced by anything you have presented. Your "evidence" is weak, and I refuse to simply follow you on faith or because you told me "trust me". I see no reason to take your word alone as gospel.

This is the same old thing. My evidence is weak. And the only evidence you will accept is studies and scientists. And there are none of those because I originated the theory. And you don't trust yourself to think and observe on my own, so I will never prove it to you with evidence that leaves you to reach a conclusion on your own. And over and over and over and over.

The most proximate cause would appear to be that it is a side effect of the drug. Right? Can you show that it is not merely a side effect of the drug which affects a small number of people using it?

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU PEOPLE DEAF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is the sex that is causing it.

And your next words will be, "Why don't you show us". And my words will be "because you all are mean. You have given me nothing but grief. But you want me to roll over and reward that awful behavior by giving you whatever you demand."



Thanks James. I thought I would be trusting. You proved me right in taking advantage of it. Now I will go back to being untrusting.

Feel free to post as many challenging pictures as you want. If you want to test me, I have no problem. The more smack talk I absorb, the more my enthusiasm grows for seeing all of you eat your shorts when you realize I am right.

 

[Happeh]

Guys, remember what Q says :

Guys. Remember. We are a high school clique here. We agreed we want to make Happeh cry. If you speak to him like a courteous person, we are never going to make him cry.

 

[Happeh]

U know? You guys really do not see anything in the pictures do you? I just looked at the picture like you do, and I saw a picture. I never realized how much I take it for granted the things that I see.

Maybe I should be thanking you. I figured it would take minutes to teach this to any intelligent person. I am wondering now if I should set up a consulting business. I could charge people big money to tell them how their body really looks. Where it is good and where it is not good. I could hire myself out to a company to check for drug users or unhealthy people so they don't get sick people they will have to pay high insurance for. I could hire myself out to a fighter so I can pick out his opponents weaknesses.

I could hire myself out to parents who want to know if their children have started masturbating. I could tell people if their sex life was going to give them heart attack or not. I could tell them if they had a high chance of dying young or not. I could tell them if they had psychiatric problems or not. I could tell them why they have them and maybe how to get rid of them.

You guys are actually building my confidence by letting me know that I am a special person, apparently. I would believe that if I didn't know that I was only special in your guys eyes. In most people's eyes I am just a another guy that knows how real life works. 1 of millions.

 

[Huwy]

Originally Posted by inha:

"Let's assume that these powers are real for a moment. If they don't work on people who can fight, a street brawler or a trained fighter for example, what's the use of them? To kill old ladies that cut you off in a line?"

Happeh's reply:

"To control people. If you anger me and I get upset, I make you sick until you apologize.

True story. Names changed to protect the innocent.

To protect my family. Let's say some very angry man is approaching my son. I do not know the man's intentions but I can tell he is very angry almost to the point of violence. I can take control of the man and make him go away.

True story. Names changed to protect the innocent.

To get people to have sex with me. Did you see the second Matrix? You know that incredbily tedious sequence with the....Watchmaker? when he was giving that girl in the restaurant an orgasm? That is possible. The women don't know what it is, they just know they feel good when they are around you. Works the other way too. Women doing it to men. The men don't know why, they just love being around that woman.

True story. Names changed to protect the innocent.

To sell people things. They come to my store looking. I control them so they buy something expensive.

True story. Names changed to protect the innocent."

 

[Huwy]

posted by Happeh at
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81368&page=3&pp=15

""They can kill someone without touching them.
You know how Darth Vader choked that guy out in the first Star War movies? Vader made that choking motion with his hands and the guy started choking? That is real. People can really do that.
The martial arts guy just reaches into the other guys body and stops his heart.""


hahahaaha oh please happeh don't choke me or give me a heart attack with your magic powers!!

 

[Huwy]

""The way a person kills somone is that their electromagnetic field reaches into the other person's body and takes control of it. You can kill a person, choke them or control them like a marionette. This phenomenon is what the concept of possession is based on.""