Reorganized and reedited entries of the original page entitled:
About the Natrix

(Though now I just call it Fifi)

 

This document is based on the entries of the original aboutthenatrix.html document of my website. It is reedited and reorganized in order to form a more structured and comprehensive study of the paranormal phenomenon that I have occasionally referred to as Fifi. And I also added some inspirational info-boxes* of some basic definitions and concepts of ufology that I imagine someone might perhaps find interesting.

* All illustrations in that context are from http://www.ufoevidence.org

 

 

The term “Paranormal”:

 

In as much as we assume paranormal phenomena to actually be occurring, we cannot meaningfully define “paranormal” as equivalent with “impossible”; since evidently if it occur then it is obviously possible. Rather we might say that “paranormal” phenomena are not “possible” according to our normal, naturally based explanatory models. In other words; what qualifies a phenomenon as “paranormal” is that it is of such a nature that our ordinary, normal or naturally based explanations do not suffice. – Although there may of course be situations in which “normal” type of phenomena and “paranormal” type of phenomena interact (or more precisely; in which “natural” and “paranormal” explanations are both required to explain or describe different component phenomena that make up the complex of the entire situation to be described), we may loosely characterize “normal” respectively “paranormal” phenomena as follows:

 

1: Phenomena which are clearly of the “natural” or “normal” type: Such are phenomena for which so called “natural” explanations; drawing on scientific and common sense reasoning, are quite sufficient and well functioning.

 

2: Phenomena which are clearly of the “paranormal” type: Such are phenomena for which “normal”; so called “natural”, explanations are not possible, or for which such explanatory attempts are at least bound to result in constructions so absurd and unlikely that referring the phenomenon in question to the class of paranormal phenomena simply makes more sense.

 

For example: - If someone is walking along, thinking to himself, f.ex.; “I wonder if she would like me to buy her some flowers…” and at that moment look up to see an advertisement poster which claims f.ex. “She will be thrilled!” then one might consider it to be a peculiar coincidence, which may perhaps cause one to ponder for a moment. But one would not consider it to be in and by itself “paranormal” as such: A so called “natural”; common sense explanation such as it being a statistical coincidence, may quite sufficiently account for the occurance. - However, if the same thing keeps happening; not just a couple of times occasionally, but consequently all the time, so that whatever the person is thinking about at any given time is apparently “replied to” by the misc. textual messages on posters, newspaper headlines, cars passing by, etc.; or by the fragments of utterances of people that he passes, then an attempt to apply the same common sense explanation; of it all being just coincidences, fail, or at least becomes so absurd that conceiving of it as a “paranormal” occurance seem to be more feasible.

 

This example aims not only at explaining the use of the term “paranormal”, but also at characterizing the paranormal phenomenon which I have referred to on this website; as it mainly manifest itself in this way; a bit more complex than what is described by this example, but the principle is basically the same.

 

Faced with such a phenomenon, especially if it does not recede, but continuously remain to make itself present in one’s surroundings; one need, and will naturally develop (and/or; to the extend that others may have preestablished models from similar experiences, learn from others) operational and explanatory models to provide not only a satisfactory explanation to the phenomenon, but more importantly to deliver a practical frame of reference that enable one to adequately mentally and communicatively navigate and handle the situation. And once established such models may be further refined, and new insights perhaps achieved, by systematic observation and testing. The following is a summary of the more significant of my own personal observations.

 

 

Definition of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects): "A UFO is an object or light seen in the sky or on land, whose appearance, trajectory, motions, lights and colors do not have an obvious conventional or natural explanation, and which cannot be explained, not only by the original witness, but by scientists or technical experts who try to make a common sense identification after examining the evidence." Center for UFO Studies source: http://www.hyper.net/ufo/summary.html)

 

 

Some call it “God”, some call it “the Devil”, some call it “Bob” – I call it Fifi

 

Although, when I started the first version of this page, I originally referred to this phenomenon - to the extent that it manifest itself, in some respects, as a more or less conscious or “intentional” entity – as “The Natrix” (as in the “Matrix” movie; since it delivers a practical terminology, except I chose to change the “M” to “N” so as to avoid any implicit gender-specification), it will now, and in the following, be referred to as “the ridiculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my feet” (or “the ridiculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my arse”); or simply as “Fifi”, although it’s actual name is Looser. Thus also indicated that scorning and redicule seem to be one of the seemingly only effective repellents. Thus Fifi, the rediculous little second rank paranormal blob of snot, named Looser; on the face of which I utmost scornfully wipe feet and arse!

 

May 6th 2009: Just making a note on the fact that the paranormal has once again, just prior to me writing this entry, demonstrated itself to be named Looser, by manifesting itself at all. The paranormal, the name of which is Looser, and which manifest itself as Looser, Looser, and Looser, (although on occasion I scornfully refer to it as Fifi), is a rediculous little blob of Snot who could not chase me off to prevent me from querrying knowhow today, with its rediculous and insignificant likeness to a wing-clipped parrot in a baking oven! I tauntingly wipe my feet on the face of Fifi, as I scornfully call the paranormal, although its name is truely Looser, and it manifest itself as Looser, Looser, and Looser, and on the face/faces of which I wipe my feet!

 

 

Manifestations:

 

By the nickname Fifi (although the actual name of the second rank little paranormal blob of snot is of course Looser) I may refer to anything “paranormal” as such, although the paranormal as I have come to be acquainted with it, has mostly tended to manifest itself in certain ways: As mentioned before the example in the grey box describes the basic principle of the way Fifi mostly manifest itself, although the actual situation is a bit more complex than this, in that this phenomenon rarely makes use of direct language; to be interpreted literally, as in the example (that has occurred but is not its usual mode of communication), but typically rather express itself through a metaphoric or “symbolic” language; in which the meanings of the references (which may occasionally consist of the presence of fysical objects, rather than of linguistic expressions) are often more or less “private” in the sense that they have a particular meaning interpretable only by myself and possibly a more or less narrow group of people with whome I might share whatever particular system of metaphors, and may presumably have quite different symbolic meanings to others. And in which the referances may furthermore have multiple different interpretations, or may rely on puns and word-games. (It sometimes reminds me of the way Franz From described the conceptual rationale of dreams*; in which the occurances refer to waking state situations according to a lower, less specific, conceptual level than used in the normal waking state language).

*In “Dream and Neurosis” - Although in the context of interpreting dreams one should also keep in mind the reports of clients who went from one psychoanalyst to another of a different theoretic background; having presumably reported that the their dreams soon changed so as to accommodate the interpretation model of the new psychoanalyst.

 

In order for this to be possible one has to at the very least attribute this phenomenon a trans-temporal nature in which - as viewed from a human; temporal, perspective - events in the past may be “pre-arranged” to lead to specific events in the present (eg. in order for some object, for example, to paranormally appear at a particular time and place “in response to” thought processes of a person passing by that particular place at that particular time, one has to attribute the paranormal phenomenon a trans-temporal ability to arrange the past so as for that object to have-been placed at that location at an earlier point in time). This is not to say that such trans-temporal appear to be of a “deliberate” nature; rather it seem to be of a pre-conscious; “reflexive” or “automated”, nature; much like most of our own bodily processes and in fact ‘of our behaviour as well, is of a pre-conscious, automated, nature that goes on without us being consciously aware of them. Likewise the trans-temporal “pre-arranging” of past events implied here does not appear to have the “conscious focus” of this paranormal entity; but appear to be automated “background” processes, whereas the “conscious focus” of this entity appear to be temporally relatively narrowed down around the momentary perception of the person “hosting” the phenomenon.

 

I also ought to add, just to get in advance of a foreseeable over-rationalization: The phenomenon described here is not explainable as merely a question of arbitrary objects and events in the surrounding world being misinterpreted into a conceptual frame in which they are erroneously attributed communicative meaning: However tempting such an explanation might appear to someone not experiencing it themselves (though I will not deny that this could be, and probably is, the case in some instances, as a result of the hightened awareness of connotative meaning which result from the manifestations of this phenomenon otherwise), the frequency of occurances in which references to topics specifically corresponding to particular concepts, on which I have just prior to the occurance focused my attention, have emerged in my perceptual surroundings, has been much too high, and the specificity of the references too narrow, to be accounted for as coincidental – and furthermore the specific nature of the phenomenon in some respects contradict such an explanation.

 

An Epistemic note should be taken at this point, that Fifi; the rediculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot, on the face of which I wipe my feet, has generally tended to act out events to "confirm" whichever model (explanatory or otherwise, as long as it can be construed as a scenario suited for narrative enactment), which have immediate or latent actuality in my consciousness; either by having just preceedingly been described or otherwise articulated, or by having actuality as a hypothesis or consideration. Thus its manifestations have to some degree and in some respects tended to confirm or conform to whatever one believe or hypothesize about it at any given time. Which is of course a fact of particular epistemic significance that must be taken into account with regard to any attempt to explain and map out the paranormal.

Materializations of fysical objects: Countless reports on so called ufo's as well as other types of fysical manifestations; oftentimes witnessed by several people independently of each other, appear to demonstrate rather conclusively that the paranormal might to some people manifest itself in the form of fysical objects and creatures of an other-than-normal kind materializing in the fysical world, with which they are seemingly quite capable of interacting in the same ways as other fysical objects. Personally I do not have any experiences of such kind, though in context of a general study of paranormal phenomena as such the vast report-material of this kind can not be ignored.

Fifi's manifestations, as I know them consist in more or less elaborate manifestations of semantics (as well as in correspondence between such events and corresponding events in my social- and private life), and Fifi thus primarily (although not exclusively) manifest itself in the media of verbal (sung, spoken, written, etc.) expressions, when- and whereever they occur within my perceptual field. With regard to Fifi's (the rediculous little second rank paranormal blob of snot, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my arse!) basic "methods" of how it manifest itself as a perceptually detectable phenomenon within different semantic situations I believe the following distinction makes the most sense:

• Ongoing 1st-hand discourse: When manifesting itself through the semantic media of the verbal (spoken or written) utterances of another person with whome I am having (or trying to have) a conversation
• Ongoing 2nd-hand discourse: When manifesting itself through the semantic media of an ongoing discourse between multiple persons (such as the talk of people passing by, or of people having a conversation nearby): Although Fifi has for some reason hardly used this "channel of communication" at all lately*, it used to be associated, in particular, with a phenomenon that I termed "the nasty boys", which consisted in a group of about 3-5 young males (hence my naming of it; although later on this type of manifestation might occasionally also consist of females) following behind me, or staying in my vicinity, talking; though the conversation they were having, appeared to be interpretable i a context of-, and as a commenting on my own personal situation. - The same has been the overall case of this semantic media in general, although in the particular context of the "nasty boys" phenomenon the commentary was typically of a more condescending nature - until I discovered that they were easily scared off by simply looking angrily at them; at which point the nature of this phenomenon periodically changed** into wider variety of a crowd of more brusque types (rather than just annoying, as had been the case of the original manifestation) less easily scared off, before this phenomenon finally more or less ceased to occur. (At least as a manifestation of (or through) fysical people in my physical surroundings.) Though it was replaced by the local harassment from the kids at the neighbouring school and the emergence of the graffitis and object oriented weird stuff going on (see the photos section).
  *June 19th 2010: Although the reduction of this particular type of manifestations has manifested itself mainly by a general reduction of the sound volume of the speech and music in my audible surroundings. NOT by ceasing to manifest double language secondary meaning content (as is the main problem) in the language utterances of my perceptual surroundings - which would have been a much more effective solution. Quite contrary to ceasing to manifest that kind of double language secondary meaning content, and ceasing to act out narrative sequences of events, Fifi has in stead attempted to install even more additional secondary meanings and enacted even more narrative event sequences. From which fact may be concluded that the partial reduction of auditive verbal manifestations does not appear to be an expression of any genuine intent of ceasing to manifest- or even reduce the frequency and intencity of paranormal manifestations in my perceptual surroundings. The actual intent may rather be hypothesized to be; to PRETEND to be cooperating about reducing paranormal manifestations, - to attempt to motivate me to discontinue my blocking out of audio-visual sensory input, - and to attempt to motivate me to play along with its "therapeutic" theme narrative illusion.
  **In that transitional period, btw, also the ducks and swans and other birds down at the lake were acting strangely intrusive and territorial towards me when I got down there.
• Monologue: When manifesting itself through the semantic media of complete verbal (sung, spoken, written, etc.) utterances in monologue form (eg. such as lyrics, stories, lectures, etc.)
• Semantic Chunks: When manifesting itself through semantic media which have the form of small individual, chunks of semantics (such as collections of headlines, titles, filenames, etc. - or people talking at a distance so that only loud parts can be made out): - This media is not adequate for complex and highly structured linguistics, but is much better suited for 1: short, simple utterances, imperatives, or querries, which can be expressed directly through the explicit language utterances of each individual semantic chunk (such as "do xxx!", "xxx is yyy", "what is xxx?", etc.). - 2: Associative symbol- and letter-combinations. - And 3: rather general conceptual notions, which are identified and demarcated by using multiple chunks, in approximate (perceptually temporal) vicinity of each other, to express asociative references to the general notion (such as eg. a known movie or story, a situation from memory, etc.). - Once a particular conceptual context has been established by this method Fifi may subsequently use the previously mentioned mode of expressing itself in short, but direct, linguistic utterances, imperatives, or querries within that context. Such "sessions" often have the form of (Fifi 'enacting') something reminescent to the dialogue of a movie manuscript or a play or similar.
• Non-verbal semantics: When manifesting itself through non-verbal media (such as images, objects, somebody's visual appearance, etc.)
• Narrative sequences of events: Other than the previously mentioned individual paranormal occurrances which render themselves as more or less immediately perceivable, at a more or less particular time, I ought also add to this list of ways in which Fifi manifest itself; the more elaborate "narratives", unfolding over time, which consist of seemingly coordinated complex "narrative" structures of individual events.

Other than the semantic media through which the paranormal manifestations occur, the paranormal phenomenon may also be said to have consisted of the correspondence between such events and corresponding events in my private- and social life (which is to say that one appear to influence-, effect-, or cause-, the other, although evidently not by any fysiological cause-and-effect relation). And furthermore the paranormal phenomenon may be said to have consisted of the regularity of this apparent relation of relation of correspondence between events, due to which regularity the occurrance (if though not the specific nature) of "disturbances" in, f.ex., my private sphere have become predictable from "disturbances" in my perceptual surroundings, and vice versa. - By continuously manifesting such paranormally corresponding events, Fifi has made my choise to commit suicide by September unavoidable, since such a state of affairs necessitate me to act in accordance with this regularity, as I can evidently not simply choose to ignore this regularity of the reality that I live in, as little as I would be able to choose to ignore any given other regularity (such as eg. gravity, or mechanic cause-and-effect relations), by which fact Fifi has attempted to nescessitate me to act-, and utter myself in accordance with a reality including paranormal phenomena which, if not unknown to the public, then certainly tabooed so as to "confirm" commonplace stereotypes of what kind of behaviour and beliefs is presumably commonly expected to "legitimize"a psychiatric labelling*, which (as is precisely its intended social function) guarantee to dicourage and destroy any chance of romance and social advance. Thus; regardles of the specific nature and content of Fifi's manifestations of corresponding events; the paranormal manifestations of such correspondences as such, in and by itself, necessitate my suicide by september (as accounted for here). Congratulations, therefor, to Fifi (the rediculous little paranormal blob of snot, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my feet and my arse!) on having, by manifesting paranormal correspondences at all, managed to, at this point now unavoidably, necessitate its host organism to self terminate.
*So who exactly has benefitted from Fifi's activities? Especially interesting in this regard is to note that although these paranormal phenomena started occurring in my perceptual surroundings, initiated by Erwin's utterances in that situation referred to on the index page, was not long after (still; after!) the labelling (see footnote to 'People "Types"'). 'Keep in mind the self fulfilling tendency of this phenomenon tending to enact whatever model is presented. So whose interest exactly does it by these facts appear to have actually been serving? Regardless of what it may occationally seem to believe of itself.

Paranormal vs. Non-Paranormal harassment:

 

As described elsewhere on this website I have, in addition to the paranormal phenomena, for quite awhile also been subject to stalking and harassment on the internet as well as in the physical neighbourhood where I live. – One obviously have to distinguish between what are actually paranormal manifestations, and what are the quite naturally explainable acts of concrete physical people.

 

However, the harassment appear to be intertwined with the paranormal phenomenon in two ways:  ways: – Firstly; the non-paranormal harassment appear to be- (or may at least be meaningfully conceptualized as) a kind of subordinate occurrence (albeit non-paranormal) of the paranormal phenomenon as a whole. – Secondly; the non-paranormal harassment has to a large degree been making use of “magic” formulae and procedures which, with regard to their rationale, appear to be based on a paranormal frame of reference and/or intend paranormal effects of some kind, although of course there is nothing in and by itself paranormal about the mere utterance of some formula-, painting of some graffiti-, or arranging of some object or objects.

 

June 9th 2009: For reasons unknown to me, someone has for quite some time been practicing the somewhat odd act of placing different objects around in the neighbourhood where I live (particularly bycicles (possibly another reference to a particular writing on a certain forum at a certain time, to do with the other references commented in the graffitis photos section) seem to have been popular; for example placed upside down, or in the middle of the road, or otherwise strangely presented - though lately they appear to have lost interest in the placement of bycicles, whereas rocks seem to have been more in favour lately - though also jackets, gloves, beer cans, and other objects seem to have been subject to this weird behaviour) - especially in the school yard which is also mentioned in the graffitis photos section (one might of course suspect that it is the same person). - This gives me the opportunity, of course, to comment on the necessary distinction I already pointed out (in the communication with a former acquaintance of mine which I published on this site earlier); between, on one hand; the actually paranormal phenomenon of the ridiculous little second rank blob of snot which I call Fifi (although, of course, its actually named Looser) effectuating-, and manifesting itself as, paranormal phenomena (such as, typically, statistically (very) abnormal concentrations of "irregular" occurances and correlations) the nature of which is such that it strongly suggest a some degree of "consciousness" or "intentionality"; although they could not possibly have been arranged by any concrete fysical person or persons - and on the other hand phenomena which are evidently caused by concrete fysical people, in ways which are quite explainable within the parameters of classical fysics and normal everyday language (although the rationale of them may not be). Thus that point ought to be sufficiently clarified. - It may be of relevance to mention it on this page (other than because Fifi - in spite, admittedly, of having appeared unusually inactive lately - apparently still not (as of June 9th, 2009) has entirely ceased to manifest itself) to make more clear the distinction between the "paranormal component" and the actual people, and how to apply it. Although the distinction may often be somewhat unclear. As it would seem, however, that whomever made the graffitis and are placing objects around (assuming it is the same person or persons), in spite, of the means by which they did so must of course have been quite natural and need no reference to anything paranormal; the rationale of these strange acts appear to be, at least to some degree, akin to something like what we might refer to as "voodoo" magic, and as such relate to the paranormal aspect of the persecution, which is the general topic of this document.

 

Thus one have to distinguish between what are actually paranormal phenomena, and thus attributable to Fifi – and on the other hand what are naturally explainable phenomena attributable to the intentional acts of humans. This document is concerned with paranormal phenomena, for which reason it is not particularly concerned with the “object oriented” magic arrangements etc., which are evidently performed by concrete physical human beings in or around the neighbourhood where I live. – Other than in as much as Fifi may in some ways have expressed or manifested itself through (the detectable remains of) that activity.

 

 

"UFO Report - a statement by a person or persons judged responsible and psychologically normal by commonly accepted standards, describing a personal visual or instrumentally aided perception of an object or light in the sky or on the ground and / or its assumed physical effects, that does not specify any known physical event, object, or process or any psychological event or process [even after examination by qualifed persons]..." Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Northwestern University, founder of the Center for UFO Studies. (source: http://www.temporaldoorway.com/mufonct/summary.htm)

 

 

Observations and Findings:

 

Cognitive abilities:

Although Fifi's cognitive capacity is in some respects evidently more extensive than that of a human, it appear in other respects to have a level of "intelligence" comparable to that of a child. (Which may explain the seemingly widespread belief that it is a "child spirit" of some kind (the spirit of an unborn- or "potential" child, or the "ghost" of a child, etc.* - contributing to this impression is its mode of expressing itself, which, as mentioned, typically goes on on a more general conceptual level, reminescent to that of a child). In some respects, as I have previously mentioned elsewhere, its response-patterns; semantically as well as operationally, may even be compared to that of a "chat-bot" computer program or the "non-player-characters" of some computer simulations, with respect to the "mindless", "automatic", nature of those behaviours. As for the question of wether and to what degree Fifi is actually incapable of understanding the direct, actual meaning of language utterances, or wether its consequent misinterpretations, to the effect of apparently twisting my words, are a deliberate obstruction tactique, I'm not really sure. Though the fact that I have hitherto only experienced Fifi to having consequently misinterpret my utterances into something worse; ie. useless or downright harmful, seem to suggest that these misinterpretations are deliberate. For had it been due to lack of ability to understand the literal meaning one would have expected that the misinterpretations with at least some regularity had been, albeit not what I meant, though in the direction of something good; ie. something pleasent or useful.
*A role that Fifi has of course demonstrated itself keen to enact, due to its tendency to conform to whatever one believe of it.

One example which make this apparent intelligence "deficiency" particularly obvious is with respect to Fifi's apparently complete lack of understanding of even the basic principle of reward. In fact Fifi seem to be generally incapable of understanding the principle of conditioning as such; punishment as well as reward, as a means of behaviour modification. (Thus its occational tendency of "payback" ought not be mistaken for knowingly applying 'punishment' in any Pavlovian sense). Fifi's attempts at influencing behaviour has so far been based solely on brute force, intimidation, scare-tactics, and manipulative attempts to induce animosity and other direct emotional reactions. The only thing reminescent of reward that I have ever experienced from Fifi has been its seemingly more or less automatic tendency for a kind of pseudo-"reward" consisting in causing misfortune to people of some general "type" which it has preceedingly attempted to induce animosity in me against, and vice versa. Which tendency, though appear like a rather automatic reflex behaviour. -Other than that the only examples I can think of, of Fifi having (at least seemingly) done anything remotely reminiscent of doing something nice, is its occasional attempts at luring- or tempting me with "offers" of things (which all experience hitherto seem to have unequivocally demonstrated that it has no intent of actually giving) which have though hitherto always been accompagnied by some kind of condition or had more or less obvious "strings attached". Which examples thus do not demonstrate any understanding of the principle of reward as a positive reinforcer of behaviour, but rather witness of a short sighted and manipulative "hustler" mentality. (Likewise the keenness it has demonstrated for the principle of revenge and for using pavlovian type conditioning to induce or reinforce phobic associations, does not seem to be examples of applied understanding of behaviour modification through conditioning, but rather to be examples of a basic behavioral pattern in accordance with what has appeared to be a basic function to it, of generating animosity and conflict among humans). This is not to say that Fifi is not, at least to some degree, susceptible to conditioning through the principle of punishment and reward; it just don't seem to be able to understand- and apply it.

Similarly does the principle of generosity, as an investment in goodwill, seem to be beyond the scope of Fifi's capabilities of understanding. At best Fifi seem to understand that giving can make you "popular" with the receiving person or persons, on a very immediate basis. Though it has not demonstrated any kind of understanding of the principle of acting generous as what you might call a longer term "investment" in future goodwill. Judging from its reaction to my occational giving someone something freely, Fifi has hitherto seemed to conceive of that as extravagance and wastefulness, or later on (as it appear to have understood at least that there was some meaningfulness to that behaviour) attempted to figure out "the trick". Since I started attending to this in particular, though, a new trend has emerged, as I have on a few occations lately been given complimentary coffee or similar; although in these situations I have often had the distinct impression that Fifi expected to get something rather immediately in return, or that something else was up, such as the offered item being part of some narrative enactment. It is my impression that the same might be said of altruistic behaviour in general: At best it seem to understand altruism as a kind of "trick" or "popularity booster". On a few single occations a theme has played out, of me helping an elderly lady; both of which cases was seemingly part of more elaborate narrative enactments. In that context it is worth noticing the very much kliché nature of the situation of "helping an elderly lady". Thus Fifi evidently has that basic, rudimentary stereotype of altruism, which it has most likely picked up from humans using that cliché. Though it does not seem to be much more than a stereotypic template.

The apparent intelligence "deficiency" ought possibly be conceived of as an expression of Fifi's natural perceptual and operational "interface" is not specialized on the same social universe and fysical time/space niche as a human individual, by which is implied that attempts to measure Fifi's "level of intelligence" against that of a human may be comparable to f.ex. attempting to compare the intelligence of a dog to that of a dolphin: The two creatures live in- and are adapted to fundamentally different environments, for which reason their abilities to understand and navigate each their niche is not immediately comparable: The dog may conceive of the dolphin as an imbecil due to its lack of skills-, and understanding of the importance-, of digging holes and burrying bones, whereas the dolphin may conceive of the dog in a similar manner due to its lack of skills-, and understanding of the importance-, of underwater fish hunting and navigating after geo-magnetic fields. Similarly Fifi's cognitive and perceptual specialization may be assumed to be primarily focussed on the meta-temporal and trans-personal "niche" on which its operating appear to be based.


Other observations:

Nov. 18th 2008: Other conclusions: Since it would appear that Fifi had still not (as of November 18 2008) stopped bothering me I publish here the statistics I made of Fifi’s behavioral patterns; based on the first notes I made (throughout August 2008 until the beginning of September 2008), in relation to this test. This table shows the distribution of notes across the different categories I found to be of relevance:

Nov. 26th 2008: In addition to the notes upon which this table was based I commented (appr. September 2008), which I now publish here in response to the fact that Fifi had at this date; November 26th 2008, still not ceased to make its presence noted:

Although there is nothing in these notes which have delivered an occasion to mention it I have at earlier occasions noticed the following tendencies:

-         Fifi’s occasional attempts that it has pretended to be whatever I have uttered or whatever opinion or hypothesis about it I have been prone to.

-         Fifi’s more or less homicidal tendencies that it has demonstrated in response to utterances of untruthfulness on Fifi’s part. [As also described - introduced? - by A.C.Clarke.]

-         Fifi’s tendency that it has let things* that I have uttered - as well as narratives that I have read, heard, seen as movies, etc. come to pass shortly after, within certain limitations. (Which limitations are they? What are their rationale? [Further testing may perhaps shed more light on this point?])

June 11th 2010: A fine example of this occurred this morning, as I was on my way out on a walk: The context is here that just yesterday evening I had made a Wikipedia lookup in which was mentioned that Beatles song; 'not gonna type out its title, but, you know; about a bathroom window and something about her thumb.. Then this morning I slightly injured to my thumb so I had to go back to put a bandaid on it, and just as I had turned, and while I was licking abit of blood off my thumb, I passed by a place where two girls were climbing out from a window. Of course they were climbing out; not in.. And it wasn't exactly a bathroom window.. And licking's not exactly the same as sucking.. But still; it's a sufficient number of coinciding elements to clearly associate the event to the song text I'd just been reminded of the evening before. - Had this been a unique occurrence one would of course just shrug by the coincidence. But with this kind of thing having happened on a regular, if not more or less consequent basis, needless to say this this aspect of the paranormal occurrances that have been happening around me, has pretty much made my life impossible, as I obviously no longer do things like read literature or listen to music or watch movies, or make narrative creative work, as I wouldn't want to have some corresponding set of events happening in real life afterwards. September 1st 2010: Another remark in this connection: There is another aspect to this tendency, which I have not hitherto been aware of (which might also be seen as an expression of the tendency of being "shall-we-call-it-helpful", as well as of the tendency described under the heading of "giving my ideas away"): When Fifi, immediately following some theoretic remark I made on this or that, manifest some article or newsstory or similar, which express a similar thesis, it presumably ought to have the effect of (increasing likelyhood of) when somebody later on reads the document in question, that person would be primed with preceding "knowledge" from those just mentioned articles or news stories, by which that person would thus have been in effect INDUCED the precursors of an IMPRESSION that the things I utter myself about to a significant degree "confirm" what he or she already believe to know. Therefor; if you, my reader, recognize such an impression, it might therefor be adviceable to check your background knowledge an extra time. Not that it's necessarily wrong what I say, of course, but for your own sake (as well as for mine - please) don't make some kind of unquestionable authority of me or something like that. Once again: Form your opinion of my argumentation based on the arguments, and try not to let some impression of my "person" step in place of rational analysis of the arguments.

*A comment on this: So far I have tried to upload this html document approximately twenty times, and each time the copy on the server ended up with a spelling mistake in "things". 'Some kind of emergency glitch to prevent it from being (publically) made 100% explicit? Or is it just another example of annuisance? It's spelled correctly in the copy I have on my own PC. - In addition I can mention as a statistical curiosity that although in five cases the server-copy ended up with the misspelling: "thiings", all the other times the misspelling was "thinngs". Though after I added this comment other misspellings; "thhings", and "tthings", occurred. - At this point I've gotten tired of "playing »fetch«".

August 5th 2010: An interesting observation: Immediately following a comment on the LB-forum last January by someone who had stated (as I recalled it) that he would "play around with [my] routines" Fifi started disturbing and obstructing my daily routines accordingly (which, at least up until now, it has consequently been doing ever since). - Though now, as I just read that post again, I discovered that my recollection of that statement had been inaccurate: The precise words of his statement had actually been that he would "play with [my] code" (and thus not "play around" with my "routines", as I had recalled it). Thus it is, if not surprising as such, then at least worth noting this as an example that the paranormal manifestation has thus acted according to my own (in this case erroneous) cognitive representation of the statement, rather than according to the actual words of the original statement itself.

Enactments

 

Enacting different charracters or narrative constructs appear to be Fifi’s modus operandi per se. Fifi seem to be quite depending on those enactments for operational purposes; almost as if they function as a kind of operational interface between itself and the fysical world. Abit like the way a software may be halted by a user prompt urging the user to push a confirm button or make some choice. Thus Fifi has frequently been urging- or forcing me to perform operationally in different ways, within the frame of reference of whatever narrative it was playing out at the time. It has thus, on a pretty much daily basis, presented; as associative or "symbolic" parallels to different real-life situations; all sorts of different objects, which I it seemingly needed-, and somehow nescessitated-, me to move, trow away, repair, destroy, or otherwise manipulte, - or similarly; by disrupting whatever actions I was in the process of doing; nescessitated me to perform different, similarly symbolic, actions (such as take a different route or go someplace), in order to be able to change whatever "parallel" real-life situation they referred to. The narrative models that Fifi has enacted at any given time appear to be rather arbitrary; initiated by whatever more or less randomly appearing hints and suggestions may have come along. However, once some narrative model (such as for example the plot of some movie or story, or, as another example; of a stamped in “quest” or computer-game, or other well known sequence- or construct of events) has been actualized – either by my being reminded of some particular narrative, or after having seen some movie or read- or heard- (or written-) some story or anecdote – Fifi has demonstrated itself to have a habit of rather consequently afterwards of “playing out” a similar more or (typically less) complete enactment of a similar set- or sequence of events in the real world. This may have the form of playing out some particular storyline, or of just manifesting some central components of a more general category of narratives, such as some particular movie-genre or similar, such as described in this entry of May 30th 2009:

 

Fifi still tried though, through a different channel of communication, to taint stuff on my PC; in particular a graphics application that I used to make some of the icons for the software downloads. I did manage to avert the assault though, and came up with the desktop toothpicks program as a result, tentatively as protection against similar attempts. Pointing with sharpened wooden sticks does seem to have had, if not terminal-, then at least some effect. [June 10th: Although, I have to add; apparently more in the direction of causing Looser to make itself comfy in the role as exorcised vampire(s) - same illusion-breakdown as in the case of any of its attempted "personality-transfer" illusions commented on earlier: Looser has kept reappearing; only in a new shape. … ]

 

An effect of this tendency of Fifi to re-enact narrative models has been a phenomenon which has consisted in tendency for especially traumatic events to have reoccurred as a sort of “echo” over and over in different variations (a phenomenon which is abit reminescent of interference patterns).

 

The “cast of characters” of such narrative enactments may consist of Fifi “hijacking” the semantic (mostly verbal) content – such as the speech streams or textual utterances of people - or visually; of making use of basic "types" of my personal perceptual categorization, or of noticable clothing, etc., in my physical or otherwise perceptual surroundings. What I mean by “hijacking” the speech streams or otherwise verbal utterances of myself or other people is that apart from- or in addition to- the primary "layer" of literal meaning that the person intend to communicate and is aware of, a secondary "layer" of "double language" meaning (mostly of the kind which is sometimes referred to as the "between the lines" meaning) manifest itself as interpretable within the frame of reference of the narrative which Fifi appear to be enacting. Fifi may also use a trick of “hijacking” people's 1st and 2nd person pronouns, which, especially in a "ongoing 1st hand discourse" situation, is particularly annoying and disruptive in as much as it implies a "possessing spirit" illusion.

A couple of observations: in this context: In cases of “hijacking” of the 1st person pronoun one person, whome, as I perceived the situation, was experiencing a "jumping personality" type illusion (see "Frequently used narrative themes"), seemed to believe that the secondary "I" interpretation was her husband, whereas another person seemed to believe that it was her son, who was thus expressing himself "through" me.* - Furthermore the language manifestations, to the extend that other people too may be perceiving the cross-media type of communicative expression which Fifi is using, seem to imply a phenomenon somewhat akin to a form of "multiplexing" of communicative messages, by which the same semantic units are attributed different contextual meanings to different persons, so that different messages may be communicated to different persons via partially "overlapping" semantic units. *Although the apparent intention of the "response" reactions might of course in itself have been just another case of enactment, and the persons in question thus actually unaware of their responses being interpretable in such a way.

 

 

Frequently used narrative themes:
Below are listed some examples of the narrative themes which Fifi has most frequently acted out in my perceptual surroundings. These narratives or themes are by no means assumed to be anyhow universal, nor to reflect any kind of fundamental regularities or constitution of things. (Although some of them may be quite common). Only the basic tendency as such, of acting out narratives, and possibly the basic methods and components of which they consist, may at this point (and only hypothetically) be assumed to somehow reflect some kind of universal or fundamental regularities. The below listed narative themes are thus merely examples of how this hypothetically universal regularity of Fifi acting out narrative themes may express itself.

The "Possessing spirit" illusion: This illusion consist in making appear to the observer as if a secondary "personality" or "spirit" is somehow "possessing" either another person or the observer him-/her-self. In the latter case the illusion is achieved simply by Fifi consistently addressing me ('the observer', as the case, generalized, may be) as if intending something- or someone else. (I know this trick to have been used deliberately by humans, either as a psycholinguist weapon of destabilization, or simply because the persons in question were convinced by the illusion; which, in either case, is propably where Fifi - as far as my personal perceptual world goes - has learned it in the first place). In the case of the illusion being applied on (the observer's perception of) another person, or group of persons, the basic trick by which Fifi create the illusion of a "spirit" or "personality" manifesting itself through (or "underneath" the utterances of) some person, or other source of semantic content, consist in letting the perceived-to-be-"possessed" person (or otherwise) utter, or otherwise display, a few simple perceptual hints and cues. Fifi has frequently demonstrated several variations or advances on this basic trick: The "jumping personalities" illusion: One trick that Fifi has frequently used ever since it learned it is an illusion that make appear to the perception of the intended observer (or observers) as if the personality of one person, not present in the given situation, suddenly manifest itself through a different person. However convincing this illusion may appear on surface, thorough studying of this phenomenon has revealed it to be an actually very simple trick, based on nothing but letting the latter-mentioned person utter or otherwise display a few (typically just two or three) simple hints and phrases which, although unknown to the presumed "destination" person; the observer associate to the "source" person. This illusion appear to be a trick that Fifi (as far as its manifestation in my own personal perceptual world goes) has learned relatively recently and has only been using for a rather limited period. Although, judging from what appear to be the conventional interpretations of others, I asume it to be an otherwise a relatively commonly known paranormal phenomenon, as far as paranormal phenomena goes. – It was also in connection with an observation of this trick that it became apparent that Fifi might be impaired or damaged; detectable by a sudden decrease in its performance ability. - A yet newer variation of this trick which Fifi seem to have learned and started using even later on is the "backwards time traveller" illusion described below, which make use of the same basic technique of creating the illusion of a "spirit" or "personality" manifesting itself through some person; by letting the perceived-to-be-"possessed" person utter, or otherwise display, a few simple perceptual hints and cues. The "time travel" theme is another narrative which Fifi has regularly played out in different variations. In one variation of the "time travel" theme Fifi has pretended to be later versions of myself which should thus presumably appear to communicate with me from sometime in the future. (A theme which Fifi has picked up from movies). At the time of writing this it is the "backwards traveller" variation, which Fifi appear to have be fond of: According to that narrative past events appear to be "explained" (and not least explained away) from contemporary (or possibly future) events; so that symbolic "personalities" corresponding with misc. random pieces of memory are acted out in the semantic space and are presumed to begin or "continue" its "journey backwards in time" (which also appear to have been intended to function to divert the blame of past miseries onto completely arbitrary people). This narrative trick for some reason reminds me of the rough joke that in case one has run someone over with their car then it should presumably be adviceable to back over them again to make sure they're dead because that should presumable be cheaper than paying compensations. The acting out of this narrative illusion is based on the same simple trick as the "personality jump" illusion, in that the simulation of "personalities" actually just consist of loose asociative sentences and bits of information. One fact that clearly demonstrate the illusory nature of this trick is of course the illusion break down resulting from the fact that if personalities or "spirits" had actually been moving backwards in time like that then they would of course not have had any need to "stop and say hello" to make sure I'd notice them passing by. This narrative seem to have functioned to "explain" or rationalize the meta-temporal nature of Fifi's acts, as well as to rationalize Fifi's previously mentioned tendency to repeat (variations of) the same sequences of events. The "burglary" or "intruder"-illusion: One of Fifi's preferred narratives consist of attempting to convince me of conceiving of its rediculous second rank paranormal foolishness as a sign of a kind of attempted "burglary" or "break-in" in order to provoke paranoia; which emotion is then conceptualized in terms of a "burglar alarm". Variations of this theme is as far as I can see also used as a psycholinguist formula (see the index), in the form of the "spyware" myth. It is in this context very possible that those who use this formula believe in the illusion themselves. To the extent that it may be said to have some metaphoric validity would be in context of the before mentioned tendency to project misc. content of consciousness onto the fysical surroundings: To the extent that one is possibly primed to worry about "intellectual valuables" and believe that a sort of "telepathic theft attempt" is unfolding, one is of course also prone to be extra aware of such "intellectual valuables", and thereby bring them to actuality in one's consciousness: Although the projection appear to be more or less random, the statistical likelyhood of a particular idea being projected to depend on the duration and intensity with which it occur in consciousness. Other than that; variations of this theme consisting in the enacting of a paranormal "intruder" the purpose of this illusion primarily seem to be to stir up paranoia: In variations in which the supposed "intruder" manifest itself to me (or whomever else may be perceiving this illusion) within a group situation, its immediate purpose seem to be to cause me (or the perceiver otherwise) to react by attempting to somehow fight off or avert the illusory "intrusion" - thereby influencing other people present in that situation who would then have perceived and interpreted my reaction as a signifier of the presence of an invisible intruder or intruders, by which the illusion would thus have distributed to them also. - A similar dynamic also seem to govern individually personal variations of the "intruder" illusion; given that Fifi's tendency towards enacting any particular narrative in my perceptual surroundings is proportional with not least its actuality in my consciousness; whic is increased if-, or to the extent-, I was to "play along" with it by reacting in accordance with-, and thus reinforcing-, the frame of reference implicitly defined by it. The "impossible female" theme: This illusion consist of Fifi attempting to make appear as if it is trying to offer or give me (or rather, foist on me; as I don't seem to have any choice in the matter) some female. In some variations this enactment has had the direct form of fifi "offering" me some female, implying that I might then owe something obscure in return, whereas in other variations it has had the form of attemping to make appear as if I was simply being "given" some female. - With whome, in either case, however, the whole idea of any romantic arrangement was implicitly impossible for some reason or other (apart from the fact that the female in question has, so far without exception, been already romantically involved with someone else, and mostly also that she (as well, in some cases, as I) did not appear the least bit interested in any such romantic relation). This enactment does thus not seem to serve any intention of actually get me romantically involved with the female in question: Its function, as is apparent from the observable effects of it, rather seem to be to attempt to get me in conflict with other members of the group within which the enactment takes place, as well as generally to stir up sentiments and animosity within that group. The only correct course of action in response to this narrative, is to reject the make-believe "offer" for several reasons: To such a degree as I had gone along with any part of it any experience hitherto suggest that the arrangement would not have resulted in any romantic outcome; but rather Fifi would have taken my response as an opportunity to either disappoint and humiliate me, or to keep demanding counter-favours of me, and presenting me with all sorts of riddles and puzzles to keep stalling until I would have eventually given up. And even in the (very) hypothetic event of the suggested romantic arrangement actually happening, it would obviously be problematic in as much as it could be construed as a sort of "bribery", apart from the fact that it would of course always be a turn-off anyways that I would know; or at least could not avoid suspecting, any "romantic" sentiments on part of the female in question, to be, at best, nothing but a result of emotional manipulation or induction. Thus, the only correct response to this theme is to categoricly reject any apparent "offer" of such kind. In addition to this might also be mentioned that Fifi appear to have even, by whatever means I don't know, actively discouraged or intimmidated females who had initiated flirting with me; thus at two recent occasions the same pattern occurred: In both cases, after having initiated a flirt, the female in question (who was in both cases working in a place where I frequently go to shop) suddenly, for reasons unknown to me (other than in both cases it was immediately after I had told Fifi to mind its own business*), acted as if she had gotten 'cold feet' about it, and after that I didn't see her anymore. *Which thus seem to suggest it to be an attempt at claiming some kind of monopoly or domination over my romantic life by spoiling it if I wouldn't have it as something Fifi had "provided". Well, personally I'd rather die as a virgin. Between Fifi's way and the highway I'd choose the highway anytime. The "renewal" theme: The rediculous little second rank blob of snot, that the paranormal is; on the face and manifestations of which I scornfully wipe my arse, has with some frequency attempted to cause me to 'change my ways'; though, mind you, not due to practical or moral or other reasons that would at least make some sense; but seemingly due to an enfatuation of change just for the sake of change as such, and according to the general rule-of-thumb which also is reflected in the "negative promotion"* method of obstruction; that it has been seemingly taken whatever I do, say, or want to be a-priori somehow wrong or 'untrendy' or similar. These attempts to change my opinions, my habits, etc., have often appeared to have had an implicit aspect to them as if Fifi was somehow "casting" me in a new "role", and have typically also been rationalized in terms of "renewal" or "modernization" (about which I seemingly have no choice), and/or in terms of the "teaching"- or so-called-"therapeutic" "throw-spirits-out/spirits-leaving" themes described below. Fifi has often attempted to enforce such "renewal" on me, such as by having had my belongings being stolen or broken, or otherwise by having been obstructing my affairs. Needless to say Fifi's "renewal" campaigns have typically implied costing me alot of money in the process. Thus draining me of resources and obstructing my affairs appear - again - to be one of the primary purposes of this behavioural pattern on Fifi's part. Other than that this tendency appear to be another variation or method of attempting to assert domination over me, by Fifi attempting to make itself "the one in charge" over me (see "Providing obstacles"/"Intimidation" under "Methods of obstruction"). *Thus, for example, since I have an interest in artificial intelligence there is seemingly no end to the terrible consequences one could imagine come out of that technology.. since I have a preference of the BASIC programming language there is seemingly no end to just how sub-standard that particular programming language seemingly is to be conceived-to-be... If I had been collecting stamps then there would undoubtedly have been big news stories throughout the past twelve years about findings of very-very-dangerous toxines in the glue on the backside of stamps that could supposedly cause anything from testicular cancer to making your breath smell bad, and stamps would have come with huge warning labels on them telling users of the postal services how bad stamps were to their health and what kind of altogether second-rank and oldfashioned they are due to still using stamps long after the email have made this very-very dispicable scurge obsolete. The "teaching" theme: Fifi has frequently used this euphemism to rationalize it tendency to attempt to enforce particular notions or perspectives on me, as well as to "justify" its generally obstructing my affairs. As for the latter mentioned use of this theme it has the form of the explicit or implicit notion, sometimes expressed in truisms such as "when a man is all the way down he really steps into character" or "only when he's lost it all he really shows himself at his best" or similar. The trick to this kind of slogans and the general notion they express, is of course that it can always function as a kind of "joker" notion to excuse any obstruction simply by claiming that destruction in and by itself is a kind of "help to self help". (One may perhaps have heard the one about "teaching a man to fish" used (abused) in this way.) - With regard to the other, first mentioned, use of the "teaching" theme; by which Fifi has tended to euphemize its attempts to enforce particular notions or perspectives on me, this has typically had the form of presenting the particular conceptual key components of whatever frame of reference it was attempting to enforce on me, and simultaneously or subsequently urging- or forcing me to interact operationally with my surroundings in accordance with that context, by which that frame of reference is reinforced. Thus, as an example of this Fifi has within the past couple of days (as of May 31st 2010) demonstrated its tendency to attempt to enforce its unwanted "teaching" of particular conceptual models on me: In this case it was what appear to be the geographic rationale of some of the graffitis in the fotos section, which it was seemedingly attempting to embed into the context of a particular set of a myths and mysteries that it has seemingly been keen on in the past couple of days. The "throw-out" and "infestation" themes: The "infestation" theme consist of a notion that my ideas or utterances, or even me as a person, are somehow "poisonous" or "contageous", as a kind of conspiracy or plot to "infest" the group. This narrative seem to have a more or less widespread public distribution, at least as a conceptual or narrative latency, akin to the kind of "latent beliefs" reflected in urban legendry, and seem, to some degree, to have been inspired and nourished by the larger-scale, publicly oriented, manifestations of the "throw-stuff-out game", described under "Obstruction"\"Distracting Attention"; which has manifested itself in the public semantic space, with slogans or phrases such as “xxx to go!” or “xxx out!”, etc., and which has at different times played out as more or less implicitly understood that the whatever-it-was to go out implied double-language references to particular segments of the population. This narrative may of course serve not only as a means to intimmidate me from interacting with others (by attempting to induce the belief in me that by merely interacting with others I could be causing them harm), but also the other way around; as a means to attempt to intimmidate others from interacting with me, and have thus functioned to contribute to a trend of people seemingly treating me as if I had "fnat"*. Either way this theme may perhaps also be considered to function as a kind of paranoid induction. - A variation of the "throw-out" theme that has tended to play out on the individual level is a "leaving spirit" theme which attempt to appear "therapeutic" in that it consist of a "jumping personality" type illusion of some "spirit" presumably "leaving". *A childrens game, similar to “tag”, known in danish as “fnat” in which the person who “is it” has the “fnat” (actually the popular name of a skin disease; scabies/psoriasis) and runs around and “tag” the others (who, on their part, are shunning him/her as if he/she was very ‘yucky’) by touching them and saying “fnat”; by which the person who has thus been tagged has then been supposedly “infected” with the “fnat” and is either out of the game or is the new person who “is it” (I don’t remember exactly, or maybe there are more than one version – I haven’t been able to find any descriptions of it on the internet). - A factor serving to the effect of amplifying this impression is the tendency of this paranormal phenomenon to manifest itself as what appear to be double-language talking 'indirectly' about me (see "The Nasty boys" under "People Types"): It occationally appear as if some people, who apparently perceive the phenomenon, adopt and start using that mode of indirect reference, so that in stead of talking directly to- or about me, they pretend in stead to be talking about someone else (eg. some actor, or politician, etc.) Though here again it can be difficult to distinguish between exactly when it is just a case of Fifi hijacking the semantics, or when they are doing so deliberately; as clearly seem to have been the case in at least some instances: In the latter instances I assume the explanation to why people adopt that mode of reference is the fact that they in those cases appear, to some degree at least, to be perceiving fifi's hijacking of the semantics, though they might propably interpret that as deliberate use of double-language on part of those whose utterances Fifi is hijacking, and then simply "follow the trend". (ie. I assume the reaction is; "everybody else is for some reason talking about him that way, so I better use the same way of talking about him" - Comparable to, eg., if everybody else at the table, say, consequently knock on their glass before they drink from it; then even though you may not understand why they are doing that, you'll tend to do the same, just because that's what everybody else is doing). Chasing me away: I have mentioned several examples on this website of this particular theme, which has basically consisted of me being driven- or chased out of places. Those examples have concerned the education- and job-market, plus the LB programming forum. Though Fifi has also been playing out this theme on a more direct and immediate basis of having attempted to drive me out from different fysical locations, by manifesting different character types or other occurances of particular annuisance in my immediate vicinity. This may be seen as an expression of Fifi's elsewhere mentioned tendency for attempting to dominate me, or make me "submit", in these cases territorially. In cases when I have decided to wait it out and the annoying character types had then eventually left, it has frequently occured that just as I was about to leave some new "annuisance" character type would then arrive as if to "challenge" me to stay. This is a typical expression of Fifi's occational tactiqe of attempting to dominate me through the principle of "submit if you do & submit if you don't". The telephony theme By this illusory enactment Fifi attempt to make its manifestations appear like a kind of "telepathic message" from- or "communication" with some other person: Whenever Fifi has wished to apply this theme as a frame of reference, it has initially used a character enacment "type" (see below) of someone talking in a cell phone, sometimes accompagnied by the sound of an old fashioned telephone ringing bell, to direct my attention to this narrative association. Fifi often combine the telephone theme with the "colors" theme, as it usually tend to make use of a "color people" or "basic visual type" character to enact that function, and to make an issue of the color of the phone. The enactment of this theme may thus also function similarly to-, or perhaps as an elaborate variation of, the "colors" theme distraction tactique, or to attempt to generat a particular color association to that person. More generally the intent of this enactment is obviously to make its manifestations appear as if they originate from some other person. The purpose of which illusion (other, seemingly, than to attempt to make me trust its suggestions), has typically seemed to be to attempt to induce particular hypotheses about the beliefs, opinions, or considerations of that person; typically combined with suggestive hints, aiming at attempting to cause me to do or write something in particular, in accordance with the induced belief.

Other, non-narrative, enactments:
What I mean by "non narrative" here is that the below listed types of observations are not descriptions of narrative themes as such, but rather of such components of which narratives such as those listed above consist, or other kinds of enactments which do not in and by themselves constitute "narrative themes".

People "types": Manifestations in the form of individuals or groups of a few (appr. three) people appearing in my perceptual surroundings; typically commenting on my more or less immediate situation or thought content. In as much as one aspect of this phenomenon used to be to serve as a means of attempting to scare me off from (or condition me towards phobic reaction to) particular topics by bizar insinuations such as catastrophic things (such as the end of the world and thermonuclear armageddon - as if Bagsværd would ever be an anyhow likely epicenter of a nuclear detonation) could happen or national security could be at risk*, one might see some parallels here to the bizar "men-in-black" phenomenon** known from some ufo reports: *I know this technique to also have been used deliberately by people (see the index under "paranoid induction"); in one instance, f.ex., by a psychiatric personnel person who reacted to a male and a female patient standing too close to each other, by a strong warning outburst and a remark of "risk of spontaneous self combustion" - 'just felt I wouldn't want to let one that go unmentioned. And that's far from the only incident I have seen, of psychiatric personnel acting to prevent interaction between male and female patients... Speaking of my encounter with psychiatry, btw; I wasn't experiencing paranormal phenomena until the ENW incident mentioned on the index page, which was after I had a diagnosis labelled on me - which fact of course urge the question of wether the psychiatric label was somehow "foreseeing" the trouble (although of a completely different symptomatology than what it described), or wether it did in fact cause the trouble. **Which, btw. has little or nothing to do with what's portrayed in the movie of the same name. -         The nasty-boys (or, as of a few years ago, -girls too): Consist of relatively young people, and characterized by a more than usually annoying commentary (often somewhat similar to a sports commentary). -         Color-people: Consist of individuals or groups which stand out visually by being clad in unitoned (often strong) colored clothes. They typically don't speak, as the semantics in their case consist in the colors and what they are doing. - Although the paranormal (aka Fifi; the rediculous little second rank blob of snot on the face of which I scornfully wipe my arse) frequently attempt to urge an impression that different colors have some particular meaning content attributed to them, this impression does not seem to serve any purpose other than to feed a kind of "color game" aimed at wasting time guessing "meanings" of colors. Or Fifi may manifest "color signals" simply as a means of heightening attention so as to facilitate and increase the suggestibility and state-of-alert on which it seem to nourish. -         Basic "visual types": Individuals or groups of people standing out visually in accordance with some basic class from my personal categorization of perceptual person recognition, or by similarity to some particular person or combination of persons. Like the "color-people" this character type usually don't speak, as their semantic function is likewise visual. One function of this character type seem to be to attempt to prime me for particular models of interpretation (with regard to attributing blame etc.) by using particular "visual type" characters in repetitions of particular sequences of events. Thus recently I observed the following; First a sequence of events played out in one café wher I was sitting, enacted through one "visual type" character "loaded" with a particular symbolic meaning, and then, not long after, as I was at a different café; a similar sequence of events played out, enacted through another "visual type" character referring to a particular person, so as to apparently attempt to make me associate that person, in a context of the general narrative of the repeated sequence of events, with the "meaning" associated with the first character. -         Jinxed kids: I suppose that the less rational and predictable nature of the behaviour of children makes them particularly well suited for purposes of "surprise-attacks". As an example of this, also demonstrating how Fifi's obstructive and resource draining tendendy may play out; Relatively recently I was shopping for a present and had finally, in spite of Fifi's generally obstructive activities that day, found a nice thing to give. The second I had payed for it by the counter some kid suddenly walked right up to the counter and put both hands on the present I just bought: I knew then and there that it was jinxed and I might as well throw it away 'cos I wouldn't wanna give a present with some bad luck jinx on it or something. A couple of hundred DKR right down the drain just like that. Other than for purposes of surprise attacks like that I suppose the less rigid nature of the language of children may on occasion also serve as a way for Fifi to easier express itself, as the concrete-world context in which the child speaks may be less inhibited by the rational restrictions of the world of an adult. As an example of this; recently, as I passed by the kindergarden some kids were singing a popular christmas song about the christmas elf sitting on the attic*, eating christmas porridge. As I walked on I passed a second place where some kid uttered "It is that kind of food we should have!". Seemingly referring to the particular context of what appear to be an overall theme of some of the graffitis and object oriented stuff that's been going on. *The word "attic" is in danish the same word as "ceiling" (see the comment below). **As of that: I think I pretty much understand the general idea that Fifi and its voodoo-graffiti co-conspirators (or is it the other way around) seem to have conjured up in their insane delusion; of me; as a parallel to some fictive hybrid theoretic chimere they seem to be imagining; breeding a child (see the photos section; especially imgs. 8, 24/lower, and 27) with that "donkey-poop" person whome someone, seemingly in a fit of bad taste humour, had installed to be habituated so-to-speak underneath the feet of the elefant that I therefor had to attach to my ceiling. It's not that I don't understand the idea. (Does Hegelian dialectic theory by any chance still roam? - In a humpin' version???!) It's just that I find the whole idea to be not just personally insulting (and that 'to her as well as to me, I'm sure), as well as communicated- and attempted implemented in an extremely suspicious and untrustworthy way, but downright insane. And besides; that's not how a living, functioning scientific paradigm is conceived and progress! Jeez! Did they ruin my life for that?! -         The "surprize attacker": This character occur with some frequency. In one of its reoccurring variations this phenomenon has manifested itself through a person sitting at a table or seat in front of me who, suddenly and surprizingly, launch some kind of psychoactive assault. (In one instance a co-student at school thus suddenly and for no apparent reason turned around towards me and uttered "maybe he is not as good as he think he is!". In another case it was a person in one of the local cafés who similarly suddenly turned around towards me and uttered "Oh I just wanted to see if you were wearing reading-glasses!". As a third, abit different, example (from the same café), a man sitting a couple of tables away, reading a newspaper, suddenly, as I looked up, raised the newspaper up in front of him; the big, visible headline of the page he was at, stating: "Bang! You're dead!".) In another one of its reoccurring variations it has been complete strangers who suddenly touch me, either by suddenly laying a hand on my shoulder or arm and delivering some message that they seemingly felt like telling me (usually of little or no importance to me), or by brushing against me. (Either unusually hard, or in a way which otherwise made the incident appear extraordinary). The touching incidents have had a tendency of being temporally concentrated so that, whereas it is not something which usually happens at all, though when this phenomenon has manifested itself it has tended occur multiple times on the same day. Furthermore this phenomenon has had a tendency to more or less consequently only happen while I was shopping for things. -         The "shaperone" type characters: This type of characters are enacted through quite ordinary people, usually at some distance, or vehicles driving by, that has had a tendency to just so happen to suddenly appear (turning around the corner, or comming out from houses) in otherwise desolate places when I needed to do some object interaction or similar (as described in the next paragraph) in some way which would appear strange to an observer, and which I would therefor have preferred to do while there weren't anybody around. To the effect of either redirecting the act (if it consist of f.ex. breaking some object or similar) to a different location. Or of, if not preventing me from doing whatever adjustment or otherwise, then at least postspone it, and (perhaps primarily) of being of general anuisance to me, as I'd have to wait either until they'd gone, or until I'd run out of patience and decide to don't give a damn. -         The "followers": This character type has manifested itself in two ways: Either in the form of concrete people who have been stalking me on the internet, and since relatively recently in my local neighbourhood. Or in the form of "spirits" or "personalities" which Fifi has enacted through "hijacking" of verbal spoken or textual utterances. The way this character type* has manifested itself one may distinguish between a couple of different variations or aspects: Either as "admirers" trying to "promote" me (or rather the role they seemingly see me in) as some kind of rock star, demi-god, or as their "king". In this variation it is sometimes associated with the "pro-vs-con" enactment in which this character type manifest itself as opposed "teams" (either in a hyped up sports-event kind of atmosphere, or in a more hateful atmosphere of enacting neofaschist nationalists vs. islamic extremists type of characters). In a different variation or aspect this character type manifest itself as a sort of self-acclaimed wannabe "helpers" or "servants", seemingly determined to "help" me to the effect of being very much not helpful, or in fact downright obstructive. (Either by attempting to "explain" some particular frame of reference to me, or attempting to "explain" (some screwed-up interpretation of) my actions and utterannces to the community - or by attempting to do me presumed-to-be "favours" that I have never asked for and does not want; such as "advertizing" me or my products, or attempting to hook me up with some female; often by means of intimidation, and/or by attempting to present either me or the female in question as a sort of "game prize" or a "merchandize" which the other has presumably "won" or "bought"/been "generously" given as a "present") - This type of character is sort of a borderlile-phenomenon, since it manifest itself not only as a clearly paranormal phenomenon; through "spirits" or "personalities" enacted through the "hijacking" of verbal utterances of others and through "semantic chunks" type of language media - but, at other times, also as a "natural" phenomenon in as much as the concrete people who play the roles of the presumed "fans" and "helpers" in some cases appear to actually conceive of themselves in- (or more likely; 'as playacting) such roles; which is to say in some cases they seem to be aware of the roleplay and thus doing it deliberately. - Regardless of its presumedly "helpful" and "idolizing" appearance of this enactment its actual "purpose" (ie. its function) is to be obstructive, in as much as it functions to attempt to distract and agitate me, and to induce envy and general animosity against me within the group by demonstratively giving me what-appear-to-be-"favourable" special treatment. *Seemingly initiated- and inspired by the ENW pun using the term "fans" in a context of making it short for genitive form of a danish word for "the devil" in the context of the same situation as referred to on the index page. Making me interact with its narratives: Fifi has frequently been urging- or forcing me to perform operationally in different ways, within the frame of reference of whatever narrative it was playing out at the time. Fifi has thus, on a pretty much daily basis, presented; as associative or "symbolic" parallels to different real-life situations; all sorts of different objects, which I it seemingly needed-, and somehow nescessitated-, me to move, trow away, repair, destroy, or otherwise manipulte, - or similarly; by disrupting whatever actions I was in the process of doing; nescessitated me to perform different, similarly symbolic, actions (such as take a different route or go someplace I wouldn't otherwise have gone), - in order to be able to change whatever "parallel" real-life situation they referred to. Enacting different charracters or narrative constructs thus appear to be Fifi’s modus operandi per se, and Fifi seem to be quite depending on those enactments for operational purposes; almost as if they function as a kind of operational interface between itself and the fysical world. Abit like the way a software may be halted by a user prompt urging the user to push a confirm button or make some choice.

Regardless of the fact that Fifi's enactments may appear to attempt to be somehow "helpful" or "therapeutic", or that Fifi may even believe that, the fact, ultimately, is of course that the mere occurrance of any such phenomena in my perceptual surroundings; especially in as much as it has attempted to urge or nescessitate me to interact with them, has, in and by itself, served to guarantee that I can not possibly function 'normally', neither socially nor professionally. By manifesting any narrative enactments as such; regardless of the "intent", Fifi has continuously and consequently been serving to attempt to nescessitate me to act-, and utter myself in accordance with a reality including paranormal phenomena which, if not unknown to the public, then certainly tabooed so as to "confirm" commonplace stereotypes of what kind of behaviour and beliefs is presumably commonly expected to "legitimize" a psychiatric labelling*, which (as is precisely its intended social function) guarantee to dicourage and destroy any chance of romance and social advance. Thus; regardles of the specific nature and content of Fifi's narrative enactments; the paranormal enacting of narratives and characters as such, in and by itself, necessitate my suicide by september (as accounted for here). Congratulations, therefor, to Fifi (the rediculous little paranormal blob of snot, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my feet and my arse!) on having, by enacting characters and narrative themes at all, managed to, at this point now unavoidably, necessitate its host organism to self terminate.
*So who exactly has benefitted from Fifi's activities? Especially interesting in this regard is to note that when these paranormal phenomena started occurring in my perceptual surroundings, initiated by Erwin's utterances in that situation referred on the index page, was not long after (still; after!) the labelling (see footnote to 'People "Types"'). 'Keep in mind the self fulfilling tendency of this phenomenon tending to enact whatever model is presented. So whose interest exactly does it by these facts appear to have actually been serving? Regardless of what it may occationally seem to believe of itself.

Parasitic qualities

 

Any observation hitherto has unequivocally demonstrated Fifi to having consequently been attempting to stir up agitation or arousal of whichever kind. Not just in me personally; by presenting or enacting narratives of somehow disturbing, provoking, or otherwise agitative nature – but also among people, by attempting to stir up sentiments within whichever group it has manifested itself. In particular Fifi appear to have been fond of anything competitive and generally anything involving action, problem solving, etc.

 

In my experience playing along with Fifi’s narrative illusions has tended to make Fifi’s manifestations stronger, in terms of the frequency and intensity of its manifestations, whereas, on the contrary; refusing to play along with Fifi’s narrative illusions, or even depriving myself from perceptual input; thus preventing Fifi from communicating its narrative illusions, has in my experience tended to “weaken” Fifi, in terms of the frequency and intensity of its manifestations.

 

Fifi’s apparent preference for arousal of any kind may perhaps be explained if viewed also in the light of another observation, described elsewhere in this document; that the statistic likelihood of the manifestations of references to concepts and topics that I have recently attended to, appear to depend on the duration and the intensity of my attention on it: Thus the preference for causing arousal may perhaps be explained as serving the purpose of increasing the attention level.

 

Given these observations one might perhaps conceive of Fifi in terms of a sort of parasite which inhabit the perceptual field and nourish itself on arousal. I deliberately use the term “parasite” here rather than “symbiot” given the defining distinction that a parasite, as opposed to a symbiot does not give anything useful in return to its host organism. The same may be said about Fifi; as its only return product has been the narrative illusions which has not served to satiate my needs in any actual way, but has consequently seemed to merely serve the purposes of maintaining its own existence.

 

Fifi’s narrative illusions demonstrably have an addictive quality which compell the host to keep watching its media of manifestation: This effect or quality is achieved through maintaining sentimens such as of competition, intrigue, mystery, etc. in much the same way that the commercial media keep their target group of consumers “hooked”.* At times it’s abit like following a kind of soap opera or a game show. (Some components of Fifi’s manifestations are evidently inspired by popular game shows; thus its compulsive notion of isolation or incarceration, as if in a house or on a desert island, etc., and of separating whichever group into competing teams – or its likewise compulsive notion of throwing out “contestant” entities; eg. population groups, persons, inventory in my apartment, ideas, concepts, whatever).

*Given previous observations that Fifi appear to have learned certain tricks (in casu the “personality jump” illusion) along the way, one ought not jump to the conclusion that this need be an apriori quality of Fifi’s type of being, as it is not entirely unlikely that the addictive quality could have originally been learned from the commercial media and other human endeavours.

 

So in order to make sure I give as little “quality experience” as anyhow possible back to Fifi I pass time, as far as possible, with things like jigsaw puzzles, and similar non-competitive, no-paced (and non-semantic) endeavours characterized by no variation and a high degree of triviality, which isn't intellectually stimulating either (so solitaire won't do). I have gotten rid of the television and replaced it with a monitor that I use only for displaying the slideshow application. To the best of my ability I try to avoid letting myself be provoked against persons or groups (Fifi seem to be especially fond of doing that so that must be of particular value to it). And finally I avoid conceiving of new ideas too (just consider the propability that it would be me who profit from them anyways), since that too seem to be something that Fifi is particularly fond of. 'Nothing wrong with being comfortable though. Just avoid excitement: Thrills, battle, and novelties – those are things that Fifi seem to nourish on.

 

 

Obstruction

 

May 5th 2009: The past couple of days in particular I have on several ocations had it demonstrated that the rediculous little blob of snot that the paranormal (the name of which is Looser, and on the face of which I scornfully wipe my feet) is, has not yet (as of May 5th 2009) finished attempting to spoil my walks as well as pretty much anything else I do, and has generally been doing what it could to try to get me in conflict with people, and has otherwise tried its damndest to be, as effectively as possible, a waste of my time, money, and resources, by manifesting itself as irregularities; the names of which are Looser, Looser, and Looser, and which are also reduculous little second rank blobs of snot, on the faces of which I scornfully wipe my feet! - Though as mentioned: The past couple of days have been particularly prone to that kind of thing. Presumably Looser is not happy about the Deghoster* (the consequent use of which, might I add, appear to have significantly weakened Fifi's (aka Looser's, aka the paranormal's) ability to effect me). So obviously I'm not wasting this opportunity to refer attention to it here as well as on the "Ludicrous" page. *Not to mention the apparently very unappreciable fact of me demonstrating the ability to write a merely reasonably decent software application. September 7th 2010: With regard to the whole case of destroying my stuff and ruining things for me, and the whole sentiment that seemed to be associated with it, I can't help but make a note of the fact that the middle name of the prosecutor of the case against me is also the common danish expression of the special pleasure of someone else's misfortune. - Though, see in the context of the harassment campaign as such, also my comment of September 7th 2010 to img.31 - And as for the method of provocation: Do you think that when Erwin publically insinuated about someone "an iq of a hundred and fifty", whereas in the same situation (as mentioned on the index page) said about another person that he "had never been too bright" that that might be a deliberate tactique to provoke the latter - and everybody who might identify with him - against the first?

 

Methods of obstruction

Fifi has demonstrated a number of obstruction tactics that it has used more or less frequently at different times:

-         Undermining words and concepts by attributing secondary, associative, double-language meanings to them. Perhaps not exactly an obstruction "tactique" as such; as much as rather a basic modus operandi. But certainly very obstructive all the same; as it has implicitly had the effect of seriously hampering my possibilities of interacting socially as well as operationally in the concrete fysical world around me.

-         Distracting attention: One of the most frequently or consequently used methods by which Fifi attempt to obstruct my affairs consist of attempting to distract my attention away from whatever it was that I was in the process of doing. In some cases this effect appear to have been deliberately intended*, whereas in other cases the distraction effect appear rather to have been simply a more or less unintended side effect of Fifi’s paranormal activities as such; as they tend to be generally distracting as such.
*Distractions of this kind may perhaps serve to illuminate what topics and situations Fifi react against.

-       Attempting to generate confusion: Fifi has a number of methods by which it has frequently attempted to disrupt my endeavours by attempting to generate confusion: Such as its “personality jump” illusion, or by promoting a conceptualization of itself as multiple (typically three) entities.

-       Attempting to stir up emotions: For example by attempting to provoke- or excite me, or by attempting to evoke gaming behaviour: Fifi has a number of “games” that it seem fond of attempting to get me to play.

-         Negative promotion: A general trend that I have noticed has been of promoting negatively anything which I have expressed myself sympathetic about, and vice versa; and generally manifesting whatever trend (of public opinion, currency fluctuations, etc.) were in my disfavour at any given time.

-         Providing obstacles: One method Fifi has frequently used to obstruct my businesses has been to manifest itself in the form of numerous obstacles, such as things that suddenly need to be done before I can get on with what I was about to, or people or things (according to the nature of the situation) that suddenly get in the way to slow me down, or such as ominous or "magic" occurances that interfere with- and hamper my possibilities of acting in the concrete-world situation. - Note that such disturbances may be conceived of as a way of distracting attention.

-         Being "helpful": Another way of obstructing my businesses that Fifi has frequqently used has been to act presumably "helpful" in all sorts of obstructive ways.

-         Pro-vs-con enactment: This phenomenon consist in the emergence of two opposing positions on things I have been focusing on or have have habituated to, etc. The resulting polarization has tended to thus generate an agitated sentiment in which common sense reasoning and argumentation about it is hampered.

-         Attempting to get me in conflict with others: One of the ways in which Fifi has repeatedly attempted to obstruct my businesses has been by doing its utmost to bring me in conflict with others. Apart from being a method of obstruction this trend also ought to be viewed in light of Fifi's seemingly general fondness of "opposed positions" situations in general.

-         Giving my ideas away: Due to the phenomenon mentioned elsewhere; of manifesting asociations- or references to thought content which has been present in my consciousness prior to the manifestation, Fifi has on repeated occasions thus "distributed" misc. "intellectual valuables" such as product ideas, etc.

-         Attempting to prevent or hamper communication: One of the functions that Fifi has revealed itself to serve (or at least one of the effects that it seem to have had) has been to prevent or hamper communicaton: That seem to generally have been the case of any communication attempt on my part at all; though especially whenever I have been about to utter myself on any of a particular group of topics that Fifi seemingly especially didn’t want me to communicate about.

 

"There have been many close observations of these strange objects. In addition, physical traces of various kinds have been left behind, and witnesses have experienced physical and medical effects, including injury and death. \ ... \ If you think that only unreliable individuals are reporters of UFOs, then you are unaware of the tens of thousands of reports generated by responsible police officers, pilots, military personnel, and ordinary people who were going about their normal business when they were confronted with something they had never imagined or desired, and which, in a matter of minutes, left them confused, amazed, or terrified. \ ... When the same event is observed by multiple independent witnesses, the case is even stronger. And when traces such as burns, swirled grass, and indentations are left behind, it is possible to derive from direct measurement parameters such as weight and energy output." (source: http://www.temporaldoorway.com/mufonct/summary.htm)

 

 

Undermining words and concepts:

Fifi's frequent attributing secondary, associative, double-language meanings to words and concepts may perhaps not exactly be described as an obstruction "tactique" as such; as much as rather a basic modus operandi, in as much as the "metaphoric", or otherwise secondary, meaning potentials are usually the primary meanings in Fifi's mode of communication. Even so it's certainly very obstructive all the same, as it has implicitly functioned as an effective, even primary way of hindering my communication as well as my activities and access to places*. Hence also the reason to abstain from metaphorizing about the paranormal: Every time a new metaphor is introduced yet another little piece of vocabulary becomes a minefield of risky concepts "loaded" with secondary meaning potential; hazardous to traverse linguistically and cognitively.
As an example of this Fifi has within the past couple of days (May 31st 2010) demonstrated its tendency to attempt to enforce its unwanted "teaching" of particular frames-of-referance on me: In this case it was what appear to be the geographic rationale of some of the graffitis in the fotos section, which it was seemedingly attempting to embed into the context of a particular set of a myths and mysteries that it has seemingly been keen on in the past couple of days. -My point, in the context of obstruction by conceptual undermining, being that by attempting to enforce a secondary meaning content to the geography of my local area, Fifi is of course implicitly troubling my possibilities of moving around in my local neighbourhood at all, if I had to take into consideration secondary "parallel" meanings to the location of whatever route or place I intended to go.
Furthermore; when people implicitly lay down such a frame of reference, by marking up, and thereby actualizing, its key reference points, either by geographic visual markers, or by alternate use of language components, or otherwise, they are not merely passively describing a set of pre-existing correlations; but are in fact actively defining them. Thus, the attempt to "teach" me their geographic, spatial, or otherwise, frame of reference is not merely a question of showing me something that was already there in a pre-existing world, but more fundamentally of attempting to so-to-speak "re-program" my world so as to "install" such correlations. -And furthermore: Forcing or necessitating me to act in accordance with the presented model, reinforces the "re-programming"so as to become that much more difficult to "de-program".

Distracting attention:

One of the most frequently or consequently used methods by which Fifi attempt to obstruct my affairs consist of attempting to distract my attention away from whatever it was that I was in the process of doing. In some cases this effect appear to have been deliberately intended. Distractions of this kind may perhaps serve to illuminate what topics Fifi does not like to be scrutinized and which situations otherwise Fifi react against, and may thus serve to find out effective methods of punishing Fifi. - In other cases the distraction effect appear rather to have been simply a more or less unintended side effect of Fifi’s paranormal activities as such; as they tend to be generally distracting as such.

-         Attempting to generate confusion:
Such as by its “personality jump” illusion trick, described earlier. – A variation of which (of  particular significance as a tactic of confusion) is its trick of addressing communication at me as if intended to some other entity. This trick often draw on using (abusing) the personal pronouns of the speech stream or textual utterances of myself or others.  – Or Fifi may attempt to generate confusion by its trick of conceptualizing itself as multiple (typically three) entities and insisting on referring to itself- and being referred to- in that way. – I know of the latter mentioned two of these tricks that Fifi has frequently used as part of its “normal” behaviour, to have also been facilitated deliberately by people through psycholinguist formulae of the kind described in the index.

-         Attempting to stir up emotions:
For example by attempting to provoke- or excite me, or by attempting to evoke gaming behaviour: Fifi has a number of “games” that it seem fond of attempting to get me to play.
The team vs. team game: This distraction consist of generating a “team spirit” sentiment within a group, either by (some variation of) splitting up the group in two or more “teams”; thus generating a sort of “sports tournament” sentiment or quarrel. The splitting a group in halves is a trick also known to have been frequently used deliberately by people along the same line of tricks as described in the index.
The “Guess the thing” game: This distraction manifest itself in the form of associative hints which at some point turn out to be some particular thing: Fifi plays this rediculous, arse-wipe-worthy game in different variations: It may have the form of the "throw stuff out" game (see below); where the thing to be guessed is some arbitrary object in my appartment. Or it may be some particular person whome I know or have known (this would then typically be associated with Fifi starting to enact the "possessing spirit" theme, using associating hints at that person). In another variation the 'thing' to be guessed may be some narrative; eg. some story, movie, song, etc., or some real-life situation which I have experienced at some point in the past. Or occationally Fifi has also played this guessing game in a variation in which it is some particular brain structure or cortical area which turns out to be the "solution" to the "riddle" (which, in the case of that particular variation has had the form of puns - and in which case the "guessing the answer" has had the form of so called "aha-experiences"). Fifi has with some frequency; especially in cases of the throw-stuff-out variation and the "guess the brain area" variation, attempted to make this game appear to have some kind of "therapeutic" purpose. (Although of course the fact that the solving the riddles has so far never actually resulted in any significant improvements of course demonstrate that rationalization to be nothing but an illusion. The actual outcome of these "guessing games" (and hence a more plausible hypothesis of the actual purpose of them) has more frequently been to "teach" particular conceptual and associative models, while, by the "therapeutic" frame of reference and the "gaming hype" in general, attempting to sircumvene my awareness of the conceptual "installation" attempt and attempt to motivate me to keep on "playing" the "game". Thus the "therapeutic" explanation seem to have functioned mainly to attempt to distract attention from what appeared to actually be aimed at attempting to enforce on me particular models of interpretation and perception.).
The “throw stuff out” game: This game type which Fifi has frequently been playing out appear to be a learned behaviour that Fifi seem to have learned from the concepts of popular television shows where contestants are “voted out” or otherwise “de-selected” one by one as the show progress: Fifi has been playing this gaming model in several different variations: One variation of this “game” Fifi has played out publicly; manifested on posters, news-bulletins, and otherwise in the public semantic space, with slogans or phrases such as “xxx to go!” or “xxx out!”, etc. This variation of the “throw-out” game has at different times played out as more or less implicitly understood that the whatever-it-was to be thrown out implied double-language references to particular segments of the population. (And has as such functioned as paranoid induction). – In a different variation of the “throw stuff out” game it make appear to be a kind of “therapeutic” activity of “throwing out” of misc. mental stuff. Although such “throwing out” of some symbolic item or character has so far not appeared to have had any lasting effect in terms of ending the particular bother associated with it. Thus the actual purpose of that variation has hitherto appeared to be attempting to gain trust, as it has hitherto consequently led up to some attempt to lure me into something. – Finally, in a variation which Fifi has been playing out on with concrete physical objects; in as much as it has attempted to make me throw away stuff like misc. interior of my apartment, etc., this (although of course Fifi has consequently attempted to present it under the previously described “therapeutic” conceptualization) has in effect functioned as a method of draining me of finances, since obviously that has necessitated buying new stuff – as described in this entry of May 30th 2009:

May 30th 2009: Anyways Looser had been having the fix idea of playing a sort of "guess-the-object" game in which it would hint at some object or piece of inventory in my apartment, seemingly at random, that it apparently wanted me to get rid of (or attempted to taint with some associative jinx so that I'd had to get rid of it). Eventually it sort of casually mentioned the PC (which may be a couple of years old but which is functioning perfectly well - It seemed at the time to have some agenda of forcing me to upgrade*: it's also been picking on my cellphone - which likewise is a couple of years old but is functioning perfectly well - by getting the memory card destroyed and then did its worst to block my access to the few places where they still have the right kind of memory card on stock). *But don't let that fool you into believing it's out of concern for me having up-to-date equipment or anything like that: Rather it seem it was a reaction to the fact that I was so careless to express reluctancy to upgrade since I've no need to. -And of course; forcing me to upgrade would also be another way of attempting to drain my finances - as draining me of resources seem to have been a deliberate aim of any of Fifi's suggestions and interferences. So I reminded it of all the money it had already made me waste on futile endeavours and made it clear that I have absolutely no intention on investing any more money in any new expensive acquisitions unless it compensate me financially. Especially since I remember only too well how my previous purchase of a new PC went, and Fifi's particularly NOT funny sense of humour at that occasion, costing me two and a half thousand DKR (in addition to all the other expenses Fifi has been costing me ever since that pointless journey abroad it made me go on - all in all easily running up in appr. between twenty and thirty thousand DKR) of wasted money! (And that's just the up-front cash amounts that it has been costing me; then add lost revenue over the past ten years or so, due to having (asumingly absolutely deliberately) obstructed any attempt on my part of getting the basic necessities to establish myself on the job market, such as a diploma, a job, a drivers licence, having prevented me from selling creative products, etc., etc., and you can easily add a couple of zeroes to that amount of actual money which I could strictly speaking argue it owe me* in compensation... ** Not to speak of what Fifi; by its mere presence, has been costing me socially and personally - how could anyone possibly put a price tag on that?) -Though Fifi (of course -I wasn't actually expecting it to be) didn't seem to have any intent whatsoever of anything like compensating me financially, but responded in stead with what appeared to be an attempt to sound like a hypnotizer trying (not very convincingly) to command me: "forget"... So that's when I decided right there and then that as electronic devices go the television apparatus is one piece of machinery that I can definately do without! (Sigh! And to think all that fuzz was just because I refuse to produce any (significant amount or quality of) creative work, until I can expect actually getting payed anything useful and enjoyable in return... Such as money... Just imagine how much time would've not been wasted if only Fifi would've granted me that from the beginning...) - I did manage to "correct" it though, so that it finally worked perfectly normal, like any other absolutely ordinary television apparatus ...which has been worked over with an axe! *Not that I'm expecting to actually ever get any of that money back. -I'm just making the point. (Although I darn well ought to add to that amount ten years worth of RENT too (personally I think 100.000,- DKR per month sound about right; it's not like an enclosure of bricks and concrete or something like that, but my cognitive apparatus, it been trashing), due to Fifi having been using my perceptual field, vocabulary, and bandwidth off my spoken, written, and otherwise semantic, interface of communication and perception). - Again: Not that I'm actually expecting to ever get any of that money. I'm just making the point. **And let me at this point in particular point out - again - that any 1st person pronoun (words like "I", "me", "mine", etc.) on this entire website refer exclusively to Rasmus Palbo Nielsen; not to anything nor anybody else!

 

Negative promotion:

 

A general trend that I have noticed has been of promoting negatively anything which I have expressed myself sympathetic about, and vice versa. This trend appear to be an expression of Fifi's tendency to attempt to assert domination over me, since the primary purpose seem to be to force- or urge me to change my habits and (at least formally) my opinions. Which, mind you, is to say; regardless of whatever those habits or opinions has been: Thus this has not been a matter of selectively discarding of some elements as disfortunate (although of course it has been attempted rationalized in that way) while keeping others - but rather of wanting to discard of any habitual behaviour at all, or any opinion which I had expressed myself in favour of. - This ought propably be viewed as an expression of Fifi's tendency more generally, for attempting to assert domination over me by attempting to force- or urge me to change not only my habits and opinions, but often also the more immediately intended goals of my acting in everyday life, by interrupting with hinderances and disturbances. Regardless that Fifi occationally attempt to provide apparent "explanations" to these attempts to force or urge me to change my behaviours in some way, they do not appear to actually have any real purpose other than to attempt to assert domination over me* by demonstrating that it can spoil my plans and make me do something else than what I had intended.
*However, it ought to be noted in this context; given the fact that Fifi has occationally attempted to place other people or positions in the role of the "dominator" over me, that Fifi's attempts at dominating me may not primarily aim at being dominant, but that it may rather be the attempt to "pick me down" or make me "submit" which may be the primary purpose of Fifi's domination attempts.

To investigate this trend (though mostly to punish Fifi for its particularly bothersome behaviour prior to that time) I attempted the following test; first published here on February 18th 2009: The following lines contain two by two declarations (which I had included on the website in advance, without mentioning the test): Two of them positively declare my sympathy of something, whereas the other two negatively declare my antipathy of something. - Furthermore two of them (one positive and one negative) declare honestly how I actually feel about those things, whereas the other two declare sarcastically something which is not my actual opinion.

Likes & Dislikes (Hint: I may be sarcastic - or I may not.) (Started August 5th 2008) My endorsement regarding the american election: I won't endorse any of the candidates. In stead I will express my sympathy and endorsement for the fundamental principle of choosing between the candidates as a popularity contest based on trendyness and smearing. Could there possibly be more relevant or democratic parameters of decision making?! One thing I definately dislike is the public annuisance of pop music being played in any shop anywhere at any time. Could I please NOT have to listen to music that I have not chosen to hear, everywhere I go?!! That would be so nice. Thank you. Something I actually like, though, is the rise in oil prices: Seriously I mean it: It's the privileged bastards, who are allowed to have jobs and take drivers licences so they can afford motorized vehicles, whome it hurts the most. And it even improves the quality of the air that I have to breethe because they can't afford to drive around so much. Let me also express my utter dislike of privacy and personal liberties! Where would we be if people didn't have a reason go amok with machine guns in heavily crowded places anymore because we have neglected to stress the public out and making them feel like hunted animals?! What'd be the entertainment in that?!   Conclusions: September 6th 2008: Conclusions: First and foremost it would appear that Fifi don't like to have its reaction patterns tested, and has, contrary to what has previously been the case, more or less ignored my explicit opinions on these issues. "More or less". Which is to say that: As for the "sarcastic" declarations: I have encountered almost no references to those topics at all, and from the exceptional few references to those topics that I have encountered nothing could be conclusively deduced from the responses. (Whereas previously what has seemed to matter to Fifi has simply been what I expressed, whereas it didn't seem to matter so much wether I honestly meant it or not.) As for the "honest" declarations: Also here the response to those topics have been sparse as compared to what used to be the case before I started this test. Although it has not been entirely absent, why some conclusions may be reached from the responses on these topics:    As would also appear to have, in general, been the case before I started this test, Fifi’s responses to these declarations have been generally negative, which is to say that the the thing I (ie. negatively) expressed my antipathy against has been promoted positively and thus increased in the public space around me, whereas the thing I (ie. positively) expressed my sympathy with has been promoted negatively and thus decreased in the public space around me.    My argumentation in these cases secondarily pointed out more than one specific phenomenon per paragraph, and closer scrutiny of the specific kind of response given by Fifi may allow for a more nuanced conclusion: In one of the two paragraphs the literal meaning of the words I used did not quite precisely express my sentiment exactly. In this case Fifi responded negatively to the underlying intent (ie. that which I had more precisely meant with the declaration), whereas the response to what the declaration, in a strictly literal sense was about (although references to that was made) was not of a particularly clear either positive or negative nature. In the other one of the two "truthful" paragraphs the literal words I had used harmonized well with what I actually meant, and in this case it was that which was responded to negatively. - So to sum up the conclusion of this paragraph: It seems that Fifi has been promoting positively those topics that I expressed my antipathy with; and negatively those topics that I expressed my sympathy with. And furthermore it appears as if Fifi has preferably aimed at promoting the oposite of what I meant with what I said rather than -of what I said. Which seems to be quite in line with the general trend of how Fifi appear to have been responding hitherto. (Although it ought to be mentioned in this connection (which, however, should perhaps be viewed more specificly as a response to something else in particular, of more immediate actuality at the time) that during the course of the testing; the position which would be of convenience to me on another, unrelated, topic (of which I have rarely made any statements about at all, and none at all in the recent past), was suddenly and surprisingly being promoted positively for a change. Although it was in the context of a pro-/con debate (where it was the, for myself convenient perspective which was being given the favourable treatment), and the commentator for some reason (although this topic has nothing to do with politics at all) labelled the perspective that I would be prone to agree with as "the position of" the opposite political side of the "left/right"-wing scale than the side I would usually be prone to sympathise more with. - Which particular aspect is again quite in line with the general trend of how Fifi appear to have been responding to my opinions hitherto.).    As mentioned before the reaction pattern of Fifi does seem to have been somewhat different during the testing than otherwise: Not so much with regard to what also before the test seemed to have been the general tendency of the responses, as it has rather been with regard to the amount and clarity of the responses; as if Fifi appear to have been reluctant to give away too much and too clear information about its reaction patterns. Whereas before the testing Fifi’ss responses would appear (although of course this is just my general impression, which I have no apparent means to test) to have been more generally aimed at whatever opinions I expressed; sarcastic or not, and at every aspect; literal as well as intended, of the phrasing I used to express it.    As a hypothesis (which is to say it is by no means certain that that is the case; it is merely a theory, the validity of which could be subject to further testing) to explain the specifics of this discrepancy I would like to suggest that Fifi may in fact not be capable of abstaining from responding to the test topics entirely; much the same way that a human is not capable of simply shutting off its sensory input on a particular part of the body or for a particular part of the sensory field: One may attempt to ignore a sensory input as best as one can, but one can not simply for example go temporarily deaf to a particular frequency, as a mere act of sheer will, or simply "decide on" being blind to a particular part of the visual field. (Or, as another; motoric analogy, which may perhaps be more relevant in this context: One may find a decision to negate the orientation reflex (ie. turning ones head in the direction of a sudden sound or movement), or to similarly abstain from some other reflex movement, at least extremely difficult to follow.*) Fifi’s reaction to testing seem to be reminiscent of how one react to a kind of discomfort; similar to how one avoids for example touching a part of the skin that hurts, or using an aching muscle. So my guess would be that Fifi’s may to some degree avoid responding to the topics being tested. Although it may not have succeeded in blocking out the most essential elements of this apparent "reflex behaviour", which might be expected (Hypothetically viewing Fifi’s response patterns as a product of something reminiscent of neuropsychologic processes; following the basic principles of neural processing) to make up the strongest impulse.   *A striking example that I experienced recently was a lady who started talking to me at the station one day. I was sitting in the wind shelter by myself trying to enjoy a cup of coffee and a bun in peace and quiet, so I told her I just wanted to sit in peace and quiet without having anybody taling to me. She said then she would keep quiet. But - much to her own surprise - she found it pretty much impossible to abstain from talking to me, however much she tried. And in the end she had to leave (or more like it; she literally fled) the wind shelter, visibly discomfortable with finding herself incapable of following her own conscious decision to not talk to me for more than a few seconds at the time. All this said, however, it would not be entirely unlike Fifi, as I have come to know of it, to alter its response patterns following this test, so the conclusions may not be valid henceforth.

 

More generally though, as viewed under the heading of "obstruction", Fifi has had a tendency of manifesting whatever trend (of public opinion, currency fluctuations, etc.) were in my disfavour at any given time. Thus described in the following example based on note of August 16th 2008, of how Fifi was obstructing, in that case, my attempts at currency investment at that time:

 

Thus for example any time I had attempted to invest in, for example, US$, or any other currency which was cheap at the moment, the tendency was up until now that immediately upon my ordering some amount of that currency; the value (and hence the price) of that currency temporarily started rising, until I received (and payed - thus a relatively higher price - for) the concrete money, at which point its value started dropping again. Of course the continuous drop of currency values WOULD BE profitable for me in the long turn, as the value must EVENTUALLY be expected to go back to something like before the economic crisis began and I started investing. However; dont underestimate The inventiveness Fifi has shown when it came to spoiling my endeavours: For as soon as I was about to have scraped together any amount of money worth mentioning, two things happened: 1: The food prices started rising (thus making the "real world" actual value (ie. the value of the money as measured in how much bread etc. I would actually be able to buy for them) of whatever hypothetic profit I might otherwise expect to eventually gain, started to drop. So that, in other words; any future profit I might otherwise have been expected to gain from my currency investments down the line was effectively countered by inflation. - And 2: It sent me off on that wild goose chase* (as also described here) where it had me spend half of the, actually not very much as it was, money I had managed to scrape together. *Referring to a journey abroad that Fifi managed to lure me into, which turned out to have no point to it at all; other than to drain me financially.

 

 

Providing obstacles:

One method Fifi has frequently used to obstruct my businesses has been to manifest itself in the form of numerous obstacles. Such as for example:

-         Things that suddenly need to be done before I can get on with what I was about to. - Such as suddenly emerging complications to the problem at hand, which require solutions to partial sub-problems, or suddenly emerging, more or less urgent, new problems.

-         People or things that suddenly get in the way to slow me down; according to the nature of the situation: Thus, situations when the manifestations are strongly present while I'm out in public, are often associated with the place around me being exceptionally crowded so as to fysically hamper my movements.

-         Ominous or "magic" occurances by which I may have to make side trips or change-of-plans to avert bad luck or other unwanted effects. Or by which my acting in the given situation gain a "magic" dimension as associatively relating to some "parallel" context. Which is of course extremely disruptive to my attempts at whatever objective I was primarily focusing on in the concrete-world context. Although (as of May 23rd 2010) recent situations of this kind appear to have been "reflecting" mental reflections in connection with my making entries to this page (apparently as a reaction to my recent description of such meta-temporal and "echo" phenomena, and as an attempt to discourage me from making these entries) these situations have overall appeared as if (although attempting to appear "therapeutic") to mainly serve the purpose of being generally disruptive and disturbing. Notice thus that situations of this kind may well be conceived of as an elaborate way of simply distracting attention, as previously described.

-         Intimidation by attempting to make whatever I intended to do appear as some kind of "lenience" or "submission" by demanding or urging me to do what, as I said, was what I would have done in the first place anyways. This has frequently occured in the context of me cleaning in my appartment, which activity Fifi has typically responded to by initiating the "throw-stuff-out" game with my inventory, and by "reminding" me of cleaning tasks that I was about to get around to or similar, so as to attempt to dominate me by trying to make the appearence of being "the one in charge" in my private home, and by attempting to make the appearance that doing the task in question (which, as mentioned, I intended anyways) would be the same as somehow "submitting" to its demand (see also "Negative promotion").

 

Being "helpful":

 

One way of obstructing my businesses that Fifi has frequqently used has been to act presumably "helpful" in all sorts of obstructive ways; such as to "promote" me and my work to the effect of generating animosity so that others would not want to cooperate with me, or to attempt to "provide" me with (or more to the point; enforce- or foist on me) ready-made solutions that I (otherwise) needed although with more or less obvious or inferable strings attached (as I would at this point of course be prone to asume in any case just by the mere fact of Fifi having had anything to do with providing t). Apart from that, of course; the mere fact of Fifi having had "tainted" any project by merely having had anything to do with it "helping" it along, at all, would in and by itself be ample reason to dump that project with no further ado.

November 30th 2009: Recently Fifi (had arranged to have) brought to my attention a tool with which I could presumably have solved the only trouble with that application again which I mentioned in the "Primo November" entry on the software page; of it being abit slow, plus otherwise attempted to motivate me to recreate it. Hence I asume that Fifi would like me to make the application again. However, not only do I not have any guarantee that I would earn any profit from it; but in fact any previous experience with Fifi's behaviour soforth constitutes a very good reason to strongly asume that I wouldn't, and that it would only be another instance of Fifi arranging to get my ideas stolen. Due to which fact I simply just have so much more reason that I will absolutely not create that-; nor any other, resource.

 

June 6th 2010: As another example of yesterday evening it would appear that Fifi; the rediculous little second rank blob of snot on the face of which I scornfully wipe my arse, had once again attempted (however discrete it had tried to be) to make itself "helpful" with regard to a female of my recent interest WITH WHOME THE SITUATION WAS GOING JUST FINE - up until that point, that is. - Though in response to my inevitable discovery of which attempted "helpfulness", though,* I can of course now only conclude that that woman can no longer be of any interest to me romantically. *Especially since the "helpfulness" had been tainted by association, seemingly, with something to do with a mediating person on my behalf referring to me, over the phone, as a "customer" of some kind. (However non-valid; since one can of course not be said to have the use of one's free will while in a dreaming state of being asleep! - Still; the mere idea of such kind of "arrangement" is of course more than sufficient to ruin the taste of it).

 

 

Attempting to get me in conflict with others:

Fifi has on several occasions appeared to try to get me in conflict with others. Apart from being a method of obstruction this trend also ought to be viewed in light of Fifi's seemingly general fondness of "opposed positions" situations in general. As f.ex. described in the following entry of March 23rd 2009:

I abstain from commenting on the particular trouble by which Looser had once again tried to get me into a fight, and just conclude that Looser's behaviour the last couple of days has been as stupid and disloyal as on any previous ocation, and that Looser (again) appeared to have attempted to foist so called “lessons” and "games" off on me (but I gave them back to the company from whence they came). - Looser; which is that which has hitherto caused-, effectuated-, and manifested itself as- (or, if it continue to do so in the present or in the future then Looser is that spirit which cause-, effectuate-, and manifest itself as-), paranormal occurances and correlations in my perceptual surroundings, is a rediculus little second rank blob of snot, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my feet!     (After the previous entry; just before this entry; Looser then apparently tried to treaten me with its "funny friends"... Well I don't dispute that Looser's friends are funny people who tend to get into "funny" situations and whome very "funny" things tend to happen to - I already experienced that*.. Have a wild guess why I don't conceive of Looser as any kind of friend anymore). *As also described in entry of May 5th 2009, so you can see exactly how (not) "helpful" the paranormal is, and exactly what kind of (lousy) "friend" it is!

 

 

Giving my ideas away:

Due to the phenomenon mentioned elsewhere; of manifesting asociations- or references to thought content which has been present in my consciousness prior to the manifestation, Fifi has on repeated occasions thus "distributed" misc. "intellectual valuables" such as product ideas, etc. As f.ex.described in the following entry of March 8th 2009:

“Yesterday evening Fifi - again - did one of its annoying "promotions" of ideas I conceived of: In this case it was the televized promotion corresponding with my first publication on my facebook account, of the little application that I had just made; which I posted on this site today. - It is not least that kind of annoying promotions which have made impossible any hope I may have had of actually making money on my ideas: For if that frickin' ghost give my ideas away in the public space to anyone, as soon as I even conceived of them, then how the heck should I possibly have any hope of developing them into any kind of sellable products before somebody else, who in advance have at their disposal the money and the staff of developers required to develope and patent the idea in no time?!... Then I'll rather not conceive of any new ideas at all. That way at least nobody else can make money on them either.”

 

 

Attempting to prevent or hamper communication:

 

One of the functions that Fifi has revealed itself to serve (or at least one of the effects that it seem to have had) has been to prevent or hamper communicaton: That seem to generally have been the case of any communication attempt on my part at all; though especially whenever I have been about to utter myself on any of a particular group of topics that Fifi seemingly especially didn’t want me to communicate about (especially reproduction as a socially sanctioned phenomenon, and the sociolinguist aspect of especially mental diagnostics appear to have been particularly effective “trigger” topics). Fifi has revealed a number of tricks which it has commonly used in order to serve that function and which I am more than happy to share with anyone. I have grouped these tricks into three main categories:

 

1: Attempts at preventing or hampering my access to channels of communication:

By far the most disruptive and hampering of Fifi’s methods of attempting to prevent me from communicate consist, of course, in the mere fact that by manifesting itself with its annoying narrative enactments etc., in the semantics of whichever communicative situation that I have entered, Fifi has thereby implicitly made any kind of in-depth participation on my part unbearable to me; thus in effect preventing-, or at least seriously hampering, my access to any channels of communicaton at all.

 

2: Attempts at intimidating me to not communicate the message:

One method that Fifi has used, aims at attempting to intimidate me:

-         For example by establishing a preceding context to reconceptualize (see the next category) whatever message it was that I intended, so that it would have caused harm to others that I'd care about if I had delivered it into that context.

-         Or by attempting to establishing a preceding context which attempt to make appear that delivering whatever message it was that I intended would somehow amount to “admitting defeat”; “accepting humiliation”, “being tricked” to give away information, letting myself “be manipulated”, or would otherwise somehow compromise my pride or personal integrity. The latest trend in this direction (as of May 25th 2010); seemingly inspired by my mentioning of the meta-temporal nature of Fifi's manifestations, has been a rediculous, albeit annoying, 'I-can-foresee-what-you-are-going-to-write'-notion (which, of course, isn't really much of a feat to a meta-temporal being whose perception extend into the near future) of these manifestations pre-cognizing my entries (or would-be-entries) to this page.

-         Another result of Fifi’s activities (wether direct or derived) to the effect of intimidating me to not communicate has been a phenomenon which has manifested itself in the form of the people within whichever group I have tried to communicate seemingly(!) treating me as if I had “fnat”:* For example by more or less consequently, immediately upon my directing any communication to someone, that person make some comment (though not at me) on something like, say, getting tattooed, or similar, or someone else jumping in; saying something like “coffee break” or “black out” or something else like that. - If-, or to what degree-, such remarks are actually intended (by the persons who make them) to be perceived in that way – or wether or not (or rather; to what extent) they are even aware of the possibility of such an interpretation – is not clear to me. In some cases it appear to be deliberate, though in other cases it don’t seem to be. This phenomenon may to some degree both find support in, and lend support to, a narrative of "infestation"; promoting or insinuating the notion that my ideas or utterances are somehow "poisonous" or "contageous", as a kind of conspiracy or plot to "infest" the group. This narrative, which I believe to have some public distribution as a general notion, in some form**, may of course serve not only as a means to intimmidate me from communicating with others (by attempting to induce the belief in me that by merely interacting with others I could be causing them harm), but also the other way around; as a means to attempt to intimmidate others from communicating with me.
*A childrens game, similar to “tag”, known in danish as “fnat” in which the person who “is it” has the “fnat” (actually the popular name of a skin disease; scabies/psoriasis) and runs around and “tag” the others (who, on their part, are shunning him/her as if he/she was very ‘yucky’) by touching them and saying “fnat”; by which the person who has thus been tagged has then been supposedly “infected” with the “fnat” and is either out of the game or is the new person who “is it” (I don’t remember exactly, or maybe there are more than one version – I haven’t been able to find any descriptions of it on the internet).
**Seemingly in the form of a more or less widespread, though somewhat diffuse notion which seem, to some degree, to have been inspired by the larger-scale, publicly oriented, manifestations of the "Throw-stuff-out game", (see "Distracting Attention" under "Obstruction" in general), and possibly also from some urband legendry which, in that case, however, I do not know of.

-         Finally may be mentioned, under this heading, that the general trend of paranormal manifestations occurring seemingly in correspondence to my uttering anything whatsoever, in and by itself function to keep me from communicating; knowing that I’d be bothered with some ridiculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot manifestation afterwards.

 

3: Attempts at reconceptualizing the content of the message:

Another, more frequently used method consist of quickly establishing a preceding context* that would somehow prevent the information I intended from being correctly interpreted and perceived by the recipients of whatever the message I was trying to communicate. This effect, of preventing the recipient from understanding the communicated message:

*This phenomenon becomes especially apparent with regard to attempts at participating in online forum discussions; where communication appear onscreen as a one-dimentional sequence of posts or topic-headlines: Thus for example; if I was considering to post something then at the time I was about to post it one or several new posts or topic-headlines (depending on which applies to the situation) would have appeared prior to the would-have-been entry of mine; being of such a nature that my entry would have appeared to be somehow (mis)interpretable in context of those.

-         F.ex. by suggesting or insinuating some particular “alterior motive” behind the message, in order to attempt diverting the recipients’ attention away from the content of the message and whatever context it was intended to relate to, in favour of focusing on endulging into hypothesizing about imagined “hidden knowledge” and “alterior motives” on my part.

-         Or, as another example, by making appear as if the message that I was attempting to communicate was to be interpreted as a comment on some other topic which actually it wasn’t intended to have anything to do with.

-         Another way of reconceptualizing what I attempt to communicate is by such a construction of situations that the involved parties have first names which are identical to the first names of other people close to me, so as to provide a basis for confusion about who is actually being referred to, and to make referring to the who-said-or-did-what within any given situation difficult or impossible without having to specify last names, since such descriptions would otherwise become prone to misinterpretations with respect to who they referred to; at the risk of insulting or making appear as if I was making acusations against others who had nothing to do with the situation I was attempting to describe.

 

4: Attempts to distract attention:

-         The method that Fifi has most frequently been using to attempt to distract attention consist in generating some kind of agitated emotional state among the would-be recipients of the message. In particular Fifi has frequently used stirring up animosity, or competitive enthusiasm (such as a sentiment reminiscent to that of a sports-event) among the recipients whome I have tried to communicate to.

-         Alternatively Fifi’s attempts to prevent communication may aim at distracting my attention away from whatever message it was that I was intending to communicate. Either by attempting to generate some emotional state; f.ex. by threats of more or less fictive “dangers” – riddles as a temptation to endulge into puzzle solving – or provocations, attempting to lure me into competition or arguments. (Although the provocations method is presumably not particularly effective on myself, on account of the fact that I have gotten used to it, it has none the less remained the preferred method of distraction that Fifi has most frequently attempted to distract me with. Presumably due, partly, to the fact that generating animosity otherwise seem to be one of Fifi’s main objectives.)
*With regard to these distraction attempts that Fifi has attempted to use on me (which manifest themselves paranormally), it would appear as if some of the concrete people within whichever group that I may be attempting to communicate – to some degree, obviously, as a result of Fifi’s influence - in addition also attempt to prevent my communication or create distractions, on their own; the nature of which is less foreseeable as their choices of methods with which they attempt to distract me need to depend on their previous experiences with what has been effective on others, and their guesses and hypotheses about me, rather than on my actual psychological constitution.

-         Another way of distracting attention away from the content of what I have attempted to communicate is by a “pro-vs.-con” enactment which consist in the emergence of two opposing positions on whatever topic I have recently uttered anything about. By thus polarizing the topic the possibility of any kind of common sound sense being applied in the interpretation of my utterances are obstructed.

-         Finally Fifi’s attempts to distract attention may consist in providing some kind of diversion; either in the form of some event external to the communicative situation, or by performing one of its enactments: These may consist of either acting out to some degree some narrative known among the partakers of the communication (such as the plot from some popular movie, or from some well known story or tale) – or the enactment may consist in a trick of making the illusion that personalities “jump“ from one person to another.* Thorough observation of this particular trick has revealed its perceived effect; however impressive and convincing it might appear at first glance, to be actually rather simple, in that it actually rely on nothing more than one person unknowingly utter one or two hints, such as a phrase or a simple piece of information associating to another person not known to him- or her-self – although, obviously, known by the observer, whose perception is of course projecting the illusion. In some respects this trick is reminiscent of the way one tease a cat by switching on and off a spot of light in different places.
*This illusion appear to be a learned trick, as Fifi has not used it until relatively recently. And needless to say of course neither of the involved persons (who are themselves of course completely unaware of the illusion) has undergone any change of personality at all.

 

 

"The type of UFO reports that are most intriguing are close-range sightings of machine-like objects of unconventional nature and unconventional performance characteristics, seen at low altitudes, and sometimes even on the ground. The general public is entirely unaware of the large number of such reports that are coming from credible witnesses... When one starts searching for such cases, their number are quite astonishing. Also, such sightings appear to be occurring all over the globe." Prof. James E. McDonald,"Are UFOs Extraterrestrial Surveillance Craft?", talk given at AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), 1968. (source: http://www.hyper.net/ufo/summary.html)

 

 

Effective Methods against Fifi:

 

Studying Fifi's behaviour and reactions:

Fifi don't seem to like being studied much, judging from the fact that it has been reacting against that with different kinds of punishments and attempts at distracting my attention. Studying Fifi's reactions, though, may reveal effective methods of sanction and other means against its influence.* Thus, studying what Fifi punish, may serve as a splendid rule of guidence to what it don't like. Lately, though, it seem to have attempted a tactique of even encouraging me to add entries to these studies, which I assume to be an example of a pattern of reactions of Fifi's, to being studied, that I believe to have observed more or less frequently; of altering its behavioural patterns, and of attempting to change my basis of expectation to attempt to cause me to change my behaviour. - Studying Fifi's reactions and behavioral patterns, though, may yield valuable insights into its functioning, and may, as mentioned, furthermore function as an option of sanction against it.
June 12th 2010: Although as a repellant and as a means of sanction, blocking out sensory input appear to be more effective, especially since Fifi; presumably as a result of being deprived of other creative activity from me (as well, propably, as a reaction to my using studies of it as a sanction), seem to some degree to have recently begun applying its tendency of attempting to be "helpful" (which it had hitherto been applying to my creative etc. projects) by reminding me of additions etc., onto the "project" of this page, as it now seem to have decided to conceive of it. - Still; whatever knowledge may be extracted from Fifi's activities about its behavioral patterns etc. may be considered to be of value and significance.

Feb. 2nd 2009: Whenever Fifi appear to be "punishing" me for something I can conclude, not without a certain amount of glee, that I must have done something right since I've thus apparently managed to piss it off that much: - Today it was the ever so often reoccuring insunuations about something or other rather unspecified about "little girls". -As a pretty much consequent rule that has always been asociated specifically with me either expanding or uploading the Superstitions-Index, or uttering myself about my notion of being "on strike" or expressing the rationale of this idea. (I ought to mention in this connection that the onset of Fifi’s harassment (and with it the more (ie. not super-)"naturally" based harassment by evidently more concretely fysical people*) as such came right after I first started considering what I was getting in return for my creative work; and uttering my dissatisfaction in that regard, and consequently the notion of ceasing to work creatively). - As the "little girls" and similar insinuations of that kind seem to be just about the worst punishment/threat (short of the treats that consist of hinting at people I care about; which has typically followed as the next step when nothing else worked) that Fifi seem prone to use, I can thereby conclude that the Superstitions-Index and the concept of creative/experiental strike appear to be the two single most damaging notions that I have managed to come up with against Fifi (specifically damaging, perhaps, as a means against its power of intimidation), so far. And since Fifi has evidently not, as of February 2nd 2009, stopped bothering me yet, I therefor feel strongly inclined to direct attention particularly towards those two ideas: The Superstitions-index, and the refusal to experience-, create-, or even conceive of anything interesting. *which phenomenon I conceive of as being subordinate to the broader context of- (or simply as a special case of-) the supernatural "haunting" or whatever you wanna call it.

By means of scientific method such studies could be systematized and the extraction of information accelerated: Consider every paranormal occurance as an observation of value as a source of observatio-material from which knowledge may be extracted. Not so much due to whatever implied or intended "message" each paranormal occurance may attempt to communicate (as such "messages" are merely momentary expressions relating to some immediate context). Nor is it of particular interest what the "vocabulary" of metaphoric, or symbolic, or otherwise, set of references, the paranormal (aka Fifi; the rediculoulous little second rank blob of snot, actually named Looser, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my arse) make use of to express the "message" implied in any given paranormal occurance (as the particular components of such a "vocabulary" are also variable and may change over time). Consider paranormal occurances of value to scientific scrutiny due to what information may be generalized from numerous observations: So the actual question one should be concerned with answering is not the question of what Fifi is attempting to communicate, nor what the semantic components by which it attempt to communicate it "means" - but rather: which are the universally applicable general rules governing the constitution and functionality of the "messages" Fifi attempt to communicate, and of the "vocabulary" by which it attempt to communicate them.

With regard to universally applicable rules the analysis of observation material may only be considered a reliable basis to the extend that it takes into consideration observations from many different sources, spanning over the many different ways in which the paranormal may manifest itself in the perceptual worlds of different people. Thus my own observations and analysis of them, as described on this page, may strictly speaking only be considered to be applicable to the way paranormal phenomena manifest themselves in the particular case of my own perceptual world. That is not to say that analyses which may be conducted based more or less exclusively on individual observation cases like this may not be of value to a generalized study, as such individual analyses and the hypotheses derived from them may be compared to each other and the hypotheses sought verified or falsified by controlling them against different sets of observations reported from the different perceptual worlds of different observers. That way we may find out such generalized regularities which are universally applicable across the different perceptual and cognitive constitutions of different people and the different perceptual and cognitive worlds in which they live.

Given the fact that the paranormal (aka Fifi; the rediculous little second rank blob of snot, on the face of which I scornfully wipe my arse) has been draining me and other humans of our resources and ruined my prospects, and the prospects of others, of ever getting a normal life, I can obviously only find it to be reasonable that humans should suck the paranormal (aka Fifi - the actual name of which is of course Looser) dry of every last drop of information about its functioning and behavioral patterns that may anyhow be squeezed out of it. Personally though I haven't been payed money for teaching anybody anything, so that'd be against my principle. But there's a quite sufficient amount of literature on the topic, so if you can find your way to your local library and look for "theory of science", as well as some basic knowledge on statistics, as that might in particular come in handy, then you should be well on your way. As for those who seem to have the particular urge that seem to be implied with regard to the "donkey poop" situation; well then if those people want to wast their time and efforts on getting themselves lost in the pursuit of what I have come to conceive of as basically an elaborate hoax* and a waste of time, then I can't really see that as my problem.
*And that also goes of the fact that the mere presence of a (in all likelyhood self-invented - which there is of course not in and by itself anything wrong with - except if you claim you got it from an anonymous "group of researchers" to give your cover story a shine of believability and a sort of "altmodish" scent of something antique and respectable) so called "axiomatic system" does not make something a "science": Any game of solitaire, for example, is an "axiomatic system", yet that does not make playing solitaire any the more "scientific" for that reason... And just to make sure that's perfectly clear: Those people weren't the ones who were doing the con; they were the ones who were, as myself, being conned.

Scorning & redicule have proven to be effective:
May 30th 2009: … What DOES seem to be more permanently effective [rather than playing along with Fifi’s “werewolf-” or “vampire-” etc. narratives, by using the traditional “repellents” (such as silver, or sharpened wooden sticks, etc.) which are part of the narrative models themselves] - and what appear to be the actual cause of the significant drop in paranormal activity in my perceptual world, which admittedly has occurred lately, - is the naming that I have started using, plus, I should add;] the "ornamentation" with which I equipped Fifi (or, more precisely, its preferred place of manifestation; namely the television). So that hint has hereby been passed on.

Refusing to provide experience and creative work:
This is the original statement or "manifesto" from which the “About The Natrix” page evolved:

While I was writing Quonquerah I was using, with some succes, a method of deleting backup copies one at the time as a means of punishment. Although eventually Quonquerah ended up being deleted the method did prove effective in that paranormal activities did cease to a significant degree while I was applying it:

Feb. 26th 2009: Compromising my decision of not to create anything, I have been working on a new Commodore 64 game; Quonquerah (pronounced like the word "conqueror", like a twelve year old boy would shout it when he and his buddies, armed with plastic swords, storm forth against another group of boys armed with plastic swords out in the local forest.. except it's with a "Q" in stead of a "C"). -However, as I obviously don't expect making a profit off it I don't see any reason why others should have the option to enjoy it, so I never intended to upload- or otherwise distribute it in any way; but in stead it has been my intention from day one of the project to just delete the game again as soon as it'm done with it. Never the less it's fun making it. - However, I have lately been practicing a new policy of whenever the Natrix (or "haunting spirit" - whatever) place irregularities* in my way; to delete one backup copy of an earlier version of Quonquerah. -That way; if or when I reach the point of deleting the Conquerah program diskette itself, then it is goodnight to the Quonquerah project - and thus also to that "the-little-man-prevailing-against-all-kinds-of-obstacles-and-in-the-end-showing-that-he-can-make-it" narrative that this very annoying creature seem to be so fond of (hence all the obstacles) - because then there is not going to be any finished Quonquerah at all! *I have started using this term about the kind of occurances by which the Natrix manifest itself, as I have found it to be the most applicable.

Mar. 12th 2009: Tonight I finally got to the deletion of the last backup copy of earlier iterations of Quonquerah. Meaning that all that remain now is the work diskette itself! When I delete that (if I delete that - though it seems very likely to happen) there will not remain any part of the Quonquerah program at all. Only the memory of Quonquerah and the documentation, consisting of the screencaptures and video files of it, that such a game once existed. - I did manage to make a video of about one and a half hours of playing it (boiled down to 14 minutes), though the video file is too large for me to upload here, so I had to split it up into two sections that I uploaded to YouTube: This is the debug video I recorded of the latest version of Quonquerah, where I have finally implemented the battle-routine too so that I can show the game in action including the players' units battling each other (or rather: mostly it's player 1 who battle down the other players, sinch I haven't gotten to the point of adjusting or rewriting the decision rules of the simulated players yet, so they're just behaving according to the initially loosely drafted decision rules, which in concrete playing of the game prove somewhat lacking. - Generally there are still a handful of bugs and other details that need to be corrected, and I would also have liked to add sound and music, and improve the graphics too. - I "cheated" abit with the video, in that I edited away all but one second of "thinking time" per simulated player per round, since that is one routine which is much too slow and that I should convert into machine language (if I ever expected the project to still exist when I got to that point). And I also edited away the reoccuring instances of changing into- and outof- emulated "warp mode". Though I hope then that should give an approximated impression of what it would be like to play it once the time consuming routines had been converted into machine language. Even though chances are I'll never get to that point, given that I have at this point no more backup copies left to delete, so next goes the work diskette itself. Mar. 14th 2009: Quonquerah is no more! Admittedly the behaviour of the haunting spirit had improved significantly. Though evidently not enough. And because of further misbehaviour; in addition to deleting the game I also edited away all the battles from the video since I know how fond that haunting spirit seem to be of that kind of stuff. Som en trøst til den eller de som gerne havde set Quonquerah færdigudviklet... Nej, jeg lægger altså ikke en bar røv op på siden her. Men det skal man ikke være ked af, for dem her kan man også trutte i.

Repellents:

 

Scorning and redicule, as mentioned before, is one method which has proven to be an effective repellent against Fifi.(see f.ex the equipment I came up with for the television, which Fifi obviously had been using as a preferred channel of manifestation). Other than scorning and redicule the only thing that in my experience has proven to function effectively to repell Fifi is systematically studying and recording its reaction patterns. It definitely don’t seem to like that, so it tend to work reasonably well as a method of sanction too. -With regard to systematic testing my experience in that regard seem to suggest that such testing appear to at least cause Fifi to back off a bit and react less consequently with regard to the specific topics under scrutiny. Although it also appeared to result in Fifi just turned up the intrusions and manipulation attempts on other fronts in stead; and generally attempt to distract me with riddles and challenges and other kinds of tasks: And that even in ways that appeared a bit more mean spirited than usual. Still; on an overall the knowledge gained outweighs the discomforts of Fifi’s reaction. Especially if the discomforts of the treatment Fifi was already given you in the first place wasn't leaving much margin for the possibility of it getting worse anyways.

Though in case self-fulfillment of utterances has been a problem of relevance to you it'll be a good idea to consequently use the past and pre past, rather than the present, grammatic tense (ie: writing what "happened" or "has happened" - rather than what "happens" or "is happening") to express your findings.

Apart from these methods, which in my experience have hitherto only been able to repell Fifi temporarily (although some observations seem to indicate that they may in a longer-term perspective be causing actual damage to Fifi, of a more durable nature), another, more effective way of avoiding Fifi’s intrusions and manipulations consist in simply blocking out its possibility of manifesting itself:

 

 

How to block out Fifi’s influence:

 

Generally: Remember that whereever you are NOT looking, and whatever you are NOT listening to; Fifi will not use to communicate (at least not to you); so you're not missing anything anyways. So generally decrease the amount of communication access points to your perceptive field as much as anyhow possible. - First and foremost: To reduce Fifi’s influence to a minimum generally avoid perceiving the semantics in the public space at all: - 1) Get used to resist the habit of reading newspaper headlines, advertisements, graffitis, etc. - 2) If you wear glasses you can take them off so as to reduce the amount of written text and other semantics in your surroundings that you can decipher. Or buy a pair of cheap glasses for using outdoors, with lenses of (preferably high) opposite strength of whatever your eyes are specialized for (ie. If you are near sighted then use strong far-sighted lenses, or vice versa) so as to blur vision as much as possible. - 3) Use earplugs (I recommend the wax type) to reduce the amount of music, conversations, etc. from outside. The advantage of wax to other kinds of earplugs is that they can be cut in halves or quarters to get them small enough to not be too visible to others. Alternatively you can collect "non-semantic" music (ie. instrumental music, or music in a language you don’t understand) to listen to when you're outdoors.

 

If you have access to watching television in languages you don't understand (if you absolutely have to watch television) then that too is a good way to get rid of Fifi’s attempts at communication. Though obviously not watching television at all would be even better. Personally I have thrown away my own television set in favour of watching the slideshow with non-semantic music in stead.

May 30th 2009: Since I threw the television apparatus away a bit more than a week ago I've to a significant degree been delightfully liberated from Fifi's comments and suggestions. After all the television was Fifi's preferred place of manifestation within my home, with the result that I wasn't watching much television anyways, except the couple of channels that was broadcasting in languages I don't understand. And even on those channels Looser (as is of course actually the name of the paranormal, although I scornfully refer to it by the mock name "Fifi") eventually managed to find ways to get semantics across.

 

March 26th 2010: Blocking out visual and auditive semantics has proven to be very effective. After awhile of that the rediculous little second rank blob of snot named Looser (scornfully also called Fifi) that the paranormal is, tend to decrease its level of activity in terms of frequency and intensity of paranormal occurances (at least with regard to my visual and auditive surroundings). Even if I remove the blurring glasses after visual occurances have dropped visually-semantic paranormal activity does not return immediately. However such occurances have in such cases returned gradually or "sneaking", after a while. (ie. a few days to about a week). As a hypothesis, though, it may appear as if the phenomenon is somehow "weakened" by being deprived of perceptual- or experiental input, and require abit of time to recover.

 

June 15th 2010: A remark on Fifi's frequent attempts to "push" newspapers on me, by leaving newspapers at the table where I would sit, when I have blocked my visual input.

If or when Fifi attempt to apply its communications through the commonly known "music on the mind" phenomenon, or similar, a way to stop that is by learning as a reflex reaction to have f.ex. a particular melody to be set off every time music as much as think about starting off in your mind, to block it out. Or a phrase like “shut up, Looser!” might be effective as well.

 

And secondly: If Fifi attempt to interfere with your choices or course of action then; as a rule of thumb: just take a mental step back and recall whatever it was you would have chosen in the first place. - Generally: IGNORE Fifi’s communication attempts as far as anyhow possible!

 

 

Observations suggesting that Fifi may be impaired or damaged:

 

As previously mentioned (in context with Fifi’s attempts to distract attention) observations suggest that paranormal entities (ie. Fifi) might be impaired or damaged. Thus I made a note of this on January 25th 2009; that “supernatural entities may apparently become defective and cease to function optimally: For it appears that the haunting spirit's (ie. Fifi's, ie. Looser's) ability to create and uphold those deceitful narrative enactments by which it has attempted to motivate people to turn against each other, and to effectively disguise that motive, has become impaired. - This observation; that supernatural entities may become "broken" is of significance, as it demonstrate that such entities are not indestructable, but can be harmed, and consequently even terminated.” - And on Mar. 29th 2009 I published further a couple of notes on this topic: “Since Fifi (ie. Looser…) has still not managed to NOT make its existence noticable within my perception, I publish today outtakes of the two entries from my private notes on which the previous entry on this webpage is based”:

 

December 27th: I conclude from the recent events ... that Fifi apparently has had some fondness of- or tendency towards- the "wandering spirit" model, which it has generally used in the attempt to provoke people against each other - and not least attempted to bring me in conflict with others ... However, I notice that ... the before mentioned references, did not appear nearly as effectful and convincing as Fifi’s previous manipulation attempts. As if Fifi has just about given up the treats-/scare-tactics method, or even (what I hardly dare hope for, though) is on the verge of dying... -Objectively considered the difference is that the utterances this time have been fewer and neither as unambiguous nor as manifest as has hitherto been the case. January 25th: ...However, I notice in particular that the mentioned clumsiness is reminiscent of the 'unmotivated' appearance of the previously mentioned attempt of illuding a "jump". Could this be a general-, perhaps more permanent-, "pathologic", deterioration of my haunting spirit's ability to camouflage its manipulation attempts? And in that case what might be the cause of it? I have never heard of spirits simply 'tirering out', and that does not appear to me to be a particularly plausible explanation either. Perhaps it might be hypothesized to be the effect of some kind of damage? That is, if the apparent clumbsiness is not intentional, as part of a more elaborate manipulation attempt. Whatever might be the case, the possibility that a spirit might become 'damaged' and 'break' is an interesting perspective - ESPECIALLY if one is plagued by a ridiculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot like Fifi. Slightly edited Apr.10th 2010

 

 

 

“While it is true that rumor, speculation and tabloid sensationalism surround the UFO subject, it is with the collection, analysis and verification, as far as possible, of sober reports like the above that MUFON and other responsible UFO organizations are most concerned. The phenomenon can and should be approched dispassionately and scientifically from a variety of angles, perceptual, psychological and sociological, to name but a few.” From “A Short Introduction to Ufology” by Dennis Stacy, Editor MUFON UFO Journal (source: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc365.htm)

 

 

 

Other entries / misc complaining:

 

December 25th: Although I removed the note I used to have in a box on the front page of this website since august, so as not to cause unnecessary distress, my decision as was expressed in it still stands: Personally I would rather die than become a 'forty year old virgin', which appear unavoidable given that I live until my fortieth birthday. So it is settled: I am going to commit suicide on September 16th 2010, if not sooner. Of course this absolutely guarantee that I am never going to have sex ever again and that I am never going to produce any biological decedents. - Not only does the mere presence of paranormal activity implicitly make normal social and romantic interactions impossible, but the mere awareness that emotions and behaviour has frequently been induced or staged by the paranormal (ie. Looser - a.k.a. Fifi) implicitly makes impossible the satisfaction of my romantic and sexual needs at all; since such needs regard genuine emotions; not staged simulation or the induced product of something akin to drug rape. Thus it is the mere presence of paranormal activity which makes my decision, as expressed here, unavoidable.

July 21st 2010: I could go on adding entries to this page about now this and now that type of disturbance that the rediculous little second rank blob of snot that the paranormal (which I scornfully mock by the nickname Fifi, although its actual name is Looser) manifest itself through at different times, by which I would achieve little other than feeding its apparent lust for playing the "throw out" game and the "spirits leaving" enactments. Admittedly paranormal activity in my perceptual surroundings has generally decreased significantly lately (seemingly the prospect of the now more or less immanent death of its host organism has had some effect). Still paranormal phenomena has not ceased to occur entirely and completely; and for that reason remain a reason (just one out of several reasons) why I can not have any hope of ever being able to rebuild my life. (And apart from the fact that at this point it's too late anyways). So due to (not least) the fact that any paranormal phenomena are going on around me at all, my committing suicide about September 1st (yup, that'd be in just about 40 days from this date at the time of writing this) remain unavoidable.

Regarding a Colorizer tutorial
and other dead end ideas

27/12-2009: I was considering to write a colorizer tutorial. - However - wether as a paranormal result of the activities of my annoying paranormal wannabe-"partner-in-crime" (Fifi), or wether as a deliberate attempt to "help" (or, in that case maybe more likely, to appear to "help") by that or those persons who have been harassing me (for it is harassment regardless of the intention) through using ad-hoc profiles on misc. internet fora, and evidently in my local area too - either way a highlighting of a particular word emerged, which, (given my previous experience with the way my stalkers; paranormal or otherwise, seem to prefer to communicate) seemed much too much like an attempt at handing me a "helpful" suggestion under-the-table.

Wether the entity who intended it as such is the fysical person who wrote that post, or wether it be a paranormal entity communicating through hijacking that person's choise of words, I will not write that tutorial now, since I do not accept favours under-the-table! Not only is it dishonest (which, for that matter, is reason enough), but I will not accept anything from people or other entities in whome I have no better faith than I strongly suspect it might later be used as an argument to attempt to enslave me. - Even though, as mentioned, I already had the idea of making the colorizer tutorial BEFORE this presumed suggestion: If I wrote it now it would still look too much like I was accepting this help under-the-table.

I don't mind anyone making suggestions or otherwise sincerely trying to be helpful. Quite the contrary. as long as such helpfulness is delivered in an honest and trustworthy way that does not make me asociate to cheating on the scale, or expect that my submission or obedience, or counter-favours of a more or less dubious nature may later be demanded of me in return.

Conclusively the notion of a colorizer tutorial is now dead as a door knob! Exactly because of this presumed attempt to "help". - Hopefully that'll teach anyone and anything, who might be under the mistaken impression that they can be anyhow helpful as long as they insist on using this very annoying, and very much not trustworthy, way of communicating, and generally of behaving, just how wrong they are about that.

I was briefly considering the argument that sine I DID in fact come up with the idea on my own; of a making a Colorizer tutorial, before the apparent suggestion appeared, and sine in fact I never asked for any special favours (quite the contrary in fact I have repeatedly asked that Fifi et al. would STOP attempting to "help" and just mind their own business), then it would be alright of me to write the tutorial after all, and just express my protest as articulated in the previous paragraphs. However, since that would in a way be the same as "rewarding" this dishonest and untrustworthy way of behaving and communicating, I shall maintain my decision to not write it.

And the same applies to the elsewhere mentioned tool which would undoubtedly have been enormously helpful, not only, but not least, with regard to solving the speed problem of the Colorizer. - Had it not been because of the fact that exactly because it was seemingly provided via the intervention of my annoying paranormal wannabe-parner-in-crime there is no way in Hell or anyhow else that I'm ever gonna as much as touch that programming tool. So now I'm just gonna have to find a different solution. And hopefully then Fifi, and possibly other annoying wannabe-"helpful" persons, will then have learned to be so helpfull as to NOT INTERVENE AT ALL!

January 8th 2010: Fortunately I did find an alternative option to create a much faster implementation of the conversion routine, so now the image conversion works as quickly as it need to be. Without the suspiciously-smelling "help" of that other tool which was suggested.

As for the PayPal "Buy Now" button (just to get ahead of that argument); I had been of the intention to get that button, all along ever since I got my PayPal account: I don't see it as Fifi's doing that that button has finally bacome accessible to me, but rather as Fifi's doing that it had remained inaccessible to me up until now. - Not (anymore) preventing someone from getting something is not the same as "giving" that person that something.

January 29th: Along the same line of argumentation: Lately I had been considering replacing, or adding as an alternative option to the control panel array of textboxes, a new kind of control which would have made manual value adjustments simpler, and reading the values immedeately visually conceiveable, and which would in addition also have made exceeding the sum maximum implicitly impossibile. Such a control would have been beneficial to the colorizer application, as well as, I believe, to the programming community as such, which would have thus gained an easily conceivable way of implementing the control of value arrays into the GUI. - However, because Fifi seemingly had an urge to utter anything at all even remotely asociative to the makeup of this new control, which might be interpreted as some kind of precognition, or an attempt to preceed my implementing it by some asociation which could then have been constructed as a kind of suggestible "helpfulness", there is now absolutely no way that I am ever going to create that new control. 'Just too bad. I suppose it might be somewhat likely that someone else is gonna get the same idea, since it appear to me now as a pretty obvious possibility. In which case I could of course just 'borrow' the idea from them once someone else has created it. But at least until then the colorizer application is just gonna have to do with the textbox array. - So conclusively: If Fifi is trying to be "helpful" then it really ought to just stay off and mind its own business!

February 6th 2009: I did finish version 1.07.1, which allow loading and converting up to 344 images at once. However, the annoying paranormal phenomenon which has time and again demonstrated its lack of ability to mind its own business and abstain from trying to be helpful (or trying to appear to be helpful), suggested that this feat should somehow be an occasion to gloat, while seeming to imply a view on the colorizer application as being involved in some kind of "competing" of some sort. - Resultingly I have, as of today, deleted all the sourcecode of the Colorizer application. That's what happens when paranormal phenomena are disrupting my daily routines, or making redicuous double-language "predictions" of features that it was obvious that I intended to implement anyways, or anyhow trying to make me or my work an object of competing or gloating or showing off. (And if I had a copy of that C.S.Lewis novel about the wardrobe closet that Fifi - the rediculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot - now, in its eager to turn people against each other, seem so keen to cast, then I would use its pages to wipe my arse! And the same goes for that dumbass story about some dumbass sword of some dumbass king! Toilet paper! Arsewipe!) -So there is not going to be any more updates - ever! And I'm not so sure I even intend to publish version 1.07.1: If it's gonna be viewed on as some kind of competition then I much prefer to "let the other guy win" (or more likely perhaps: to let him/her remain under the delusion that being mindraped and robbed of his/her freedom of choice to access a useful resource is somehow a kind of "victory" on his/her part - go figure) - over the alternative of playing along with that whole "sports show" thing. (I'm telling you the so-called "competition" is rigged anyways.) The match has just been cancelled! Besides I haven't had time to test the finished version 1.07.2 on Vista yet. 'Might turn out to not be not publishable at all. But at least now I have that application for manipulating image color properties that I wanted in the first place. - February 10th: Nope. 'Just found a bug in v.1.07.1 with the sizing of the full-size display when converting multiple images. Not a very big problem and could've propably been easily fixed if the sourse code had still existed. But absolutely not publishable..
February 18th: Oh, and btw. I just thought I'd also mention that Fifi, just after the February 6th entry when I'd just deleted the sourcecode, did attempt a "last-minute rescue" in the form of the .bak backup copy and a leftover copy of the NDPn9vml03.exe sourcecode that also just so happened to have been leftover in the bin folder - After letting me find some insignificant pieces of psycholinguist formulae, as if discarding of those would change (or diverte my attention from) the fact of Fifi having fundamentally and irreversibly polluted the features that I was about to implement by its mere interest in my working on them. Of course I immediately just deleted the backup and the leftover exe sourcecode too. And it's also been attempting to encourage me to resume other software ideas I have been considering some time ago. Just too bad. So as for its apparent eager to see wether I could solve certain remaining problems regarding the features I implemented in 1.07.1: I very likely would have solved those problems if I had kept working on it, but as of now I'm not even giving it a chance to find out. That's how it goes when some rediculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot named Looser, or anyone else, for that matter, try to make some kind of competing of my work; then the only "sport" I'll play is spoilsport and ruin the "competition" in response! So (apart from the minute detail about having the actual - other than purely hypothetic, and seemingly somehow "conditioned" - possibility of - not just "almost", but actually - earning money from my work) if some paranormal phenomenon is so eager to see what I can accomplish of anything at all, or come up with of new ideas, or anyhow want any kind of creative work out of me, then it should have stayed the heck off of my business and let me work on it my way. Since that does not seem to be possible I shall not create any more software or anything else at all; but focus my attention on commiting suicide. Then it can try and see how much entertainment or other experiences of any kind it can leach from a dead person. (February 19th: As for the suggestion I should play dead: Here's another dead end idea: How about thus renaming "online games" as such! It's not my fourtieth yet, so cool it, huh!)
February 18th: Just the other day there was one of the images that I downloaded for the slideshow application that I considered could be converted with another conversion rule that I could have made for the colorizer if the source code had still existed. It's not a conversion rule that I've ever heard about any other graphics application have, so I suppose it would have been a completely new invention. Good thing I'll never implement it now. That way at leat noone else will benefit from the idea, and as for Fifi's apparent - very annoying and disruptive - eager to attempt to make me show off what I can do: Ha ha! Now I just threw that idea away without even giving it a chance.
March 14th: I just had an idea of yet another conversion method that could have been used by the Colorizer application. Again something that I haven't heard of any other graphics application that has - still; in this case, given how obviously useful that function would be, I'd imagine it to be likely that at least some professional graphics software would have a function like that. Anyways, it's not gonna be availeable for only 10,- euro bucks as part of the Colorizer, that's for sure. As for the other idea of the February 18th entry; I forgot what it was. That's good. I'll try to forget this idea again too.

March 26th 2010: Rasmus Palbo Nielsen obviously has any right to give away those of his own creative works as a present, which Rasmus Palbo Nielsen himself deem it to suitable to give away, to other persons or to common benefice and use, since it is Rasmus Palbo Nielsen who himself is the rightful owner of the intellectual rights over each of his own creative works, unless-, or until the time when-, Rasmus Palbo Nielsen himself transfer the intellectual rights over this or that of his own creative works. - Any attempt on part of a certain reduculous little paranormal second rank blob of snot named Looser (scornfully also called Fifi) at claiming any kind of payment for anything which Rasmus Palbo Nielsen has created, is thus not valid, and may be ignored as the unbelievable nonsense that it is.

*Any instance of the words "I", "Me", and any other 1st person pronoun on this entire website, as well as in any document which was actually
written by Rasmus Palbo Nielsen, anywhere else on the web, refer (except in such cases in which it appear in a quotation from a different
source) only to the concrete fysical person Rasmus Palbo Nielsen, and thus NOT to anybody nor to anything else.
And likewise: Any instance of any other personal pronoun (ie. words like "you", "he", "she", etc.) on this entire website, as well as in any document which
was actually written by Rasmus Palbo Nielsen, anywhere else on the web, refer (except in such cases in which it appear in a quotation from a
different source) only to the concrete fysical person of whome it was intended, and thus NOT to anybody nor to anything else.