1. Kerry treads on dangerous water.

2. Jasmine gets ticked.

3. "I know that I just (repeatedly) questioned the ethics and loyalty of

your future husband -- to say nothing of always looking for the worst

possible outcome there, brought up the subject of your Christmas

disenchantment, and slammed down hard on your view of Ascension, but still

... don't you think that was over-reacting?"

4. Jasmine calms down

5. "If only there were more Jasmines around to warn me when the other

Jasmines might become upset at me."

6. Ego stroking, and "Heh." "Wait, you're a bioengineer. No, uh-uh,

don't even THINK it."

7. "I am a being of infinite innocence."

8. "Do you have a girl in your closet?"

9. "I HAVE been wondering where my pencils have been getting off to." and

Kerry describes the link between himself and Ten.

Nobody ever does.

> I think we have a serious philosophical disconnect, there.

>

> The idea of perpetrating a fraud of that magnitude on a child strikes me,

> well, like a punch in the gut. Maybe just because I *am* a child who

> occasionally fears that the older people around me don't tell me

everything.

>

> The only justification I can see for the Santa Claus scam is if you wish

to

> encourage your child to develop good critical thinking and investigation

> skills by disproving the entity.

This is exactly what I mean. Don't you suppose that the world for the child

that believes in Santa Claus is infinitely better than the world of the

child that believes Santa Claus is a fraud, but that sexual abuse, drug

problems, drive by shootings, and similar problems are very much real?

Has it not occurred to you that The Claus Effect is not intended to deceive

... but rather simply to cause the child to have *fun* for awhile before

they have to be exposed to the world that the adults have built for

themselves? And no, I *don't* mean have fun trying to disprove it, either.

I also question whether you have really disproven anything ... or simply

fallen into the trap that "I think that Santa does not exist, therefore he

does not." At least not for YOU.

I believe I now see where certain aspects of your personality arise. You,

my friend, have a severe lack of Wonder in your life. As I've quoted

before, one way to life your life is though everything is a miracle. The

other is as though nothing is. You seem dangerously close to the latter.

That saddens me, and not in the least because it makes you apparently prime

recruiting material for the Technocracy.

> >Surely. But as those notes are about you, you could probably find the

> >results as easily as I can. Possibly easier. You just have to know how

to

> >look.

>

> Not sure that's true. I'd think your "bias" and "observer effect"

concerns

> would come into play, especially in the psychological tests.

True. However, that doesn't mean the answers wouldn't still be useful.

> Actually, most of them were nutty-as-a-fruitcake Technos or Nephandi, like

> Julia Dornfeld.

>

> But [OOC: she said defensively, again] that didn't necessarily have

> anything to do with the process itself.

Uh-huh. Well, you have to admit that statistically, if most of them WERE

like that, the odds of that being an outcome of the situation rather than a

pre-existing condition are increased.

> Hmm. Another test case, I guess. Have to say I hope you're wrong, but I

> haven't got anything to back that up right now.

Alright.

> But in a lot of ways, that body was just as alien as yours would be. Yet

I

> can still say *I* experienced that, because my mind was there.

Or it was here, in your body, and merely overlapped your future self akin to

what I described for short circuiting the perceptions with my body.

> On the other hand, when I talk about the woman who belonged in that body,

I

> don't usually say "me." I say "Future Jasmine," or "that other Jasmine,"

> or something like that -- because she was so *mentally* different from me

> or anyone I ever intend to be.

>

> See the distinction?

Yes. However, it is an artifical one. It exists precisely because we have

no clear definition of when a person is the SAME person.

> Well, that depends on what you mean by "in," and what connection the mind

> and body have to begin with. It would be equivalent to a VR hookup, in

> that case, and it's conventional to refer to that as being "in"

cyberspace.

Because we have no basis for referring to it as anything else, I would

think.

> But if we wanted a REAL test, we'd actually have to find a way to copy my

> "program" onto your brain, and vice versa. That way, the entire physical

> component, including any Weird Boy/Girl Brain Chemicals, would be

consistent.

Perhaps. I think that would be rather dangerous, but I'll consider the

problem.

> Not Caitlin. Screw Caitlin. Did you mean that you don't think TYLER will

> improve?

Ah.

I have my doubts about anyone whose stated goal in life is to actively cause

the end of other people's lives without their consent (with a wink and a

nudge toward "but only the BAD ones"). I mean, I know that he does

generally pick the bad ones. Or at least, I believe him on that, excepting

Caitlin, about whom there was some doubt. I have no compunctions with that

... I would do it myself if I felt that was necessary to protect someone I

cared about.

My point, however, is that he doesn't do anything ELSE in the meantime. Not

only is he a Euthanatos when fighting the bad people, but he's also a

Euthanatos when waiting for the bad people (ALL the time), and he's a

Euthanatos when eating dinner, and he's a Euthanatos when reading a book,

and he's a Euthanatos when kissing you.

I don't trust anyone who takes it upon themselves to act as Judge, Jury, and

Executioner. What if Tyler discovered my study? Would he automatically

label me a child molester and execute me without bothering to wait around

for a rebuttal? And what about you? Which is more important to him ... the

girl he loves (ostensibly), or being a Euthanatos? Would he execute *you*,

perhaps after hearing you describe your long-term plans and deciding they

were too dangerous to be allowed to continue? Or perhaps if your

relationship becomes secretly non-exclusive (which would provide you with a

motive for lying about it in the future, at least)?

So, no, I don't expect that anyone who pursues death that avidly will ever

be able to free themselves from the temptation to embrace it ... but yes,

I'm willing to allow him the chance to prove me wrong.

There's something to be said for pessimism. At the very least, I'm more

likely to be pleasantly surprised than I am horribly disappointed in him.

> >And furthermore, your description of your marital bliss (or lack thereof)

> >makes me question whether the arrangement at the time of conception was

> >exclusive.

>

> Hrmm. You're just SO good at making a girl feel good. If you ever

acquire

> a girlfriend yourself, you had BETTER invest in that ice-cream machine. .

.

> . ;)

You are more right than you could know.

K.

>

>Nobody ever does.

And what is THAT supposed to mean?

>This is exactly what I mean. Don't you suppose that the world for the

child

>that believes in Santa Claus is infinitely better than the world of the

>child that believes Santa Claus is a fraud, but that sexual abuse, drug

>problems, drive by shootings, and similar problems are very much real?

Better as in more comforting? Maybe. But not more accurate, or more

helpful in actually dealing with those Very Real Bad Things when they do

come up.

I've just recently lost a good bit of innocence, as you should know

perfectly well. Believing what I wanted to believe -- that things had

gotten better when they were only getting worse -- not only didn't help; it

was a large part of the problem.

>Has it not occurred to you that The Claus Effect is not intended to deceive

>... but rather simply to cause the child to have *fun* for awhile before

>they have to be exposed to the world that the adults have built for

>themselves? And no, I *don't* mean have fun trying to disprove it, either.

You think it's fun to be lied to? To embrace a fairy tale as real? Then

your idea of fun and mine are very different. Maybe we're not suited to be

friends after all.

>I also question whether you have really disproven anything ... or simply

>fallen into the trap that "I think that Santa does not exist, therefore he

>does not." At least not for YOU.

I cannot believe I'm having *this* discussion with someone who should know

better.

Fine. Produce the old codger, and I'll happily apologize to him *and* to

you, and proclaim the glories of His Clausness to all the children of the

world.

>I believe I now see where certain aspects of your personality arise. You,

>my friend, have a severe lack of Wonder in your life.

Huh? I wonder at *everything*. I've already told you that. It just

happens that my wonder is an impetus to know more about the wonderful

thing. And if it can't stand the scrutiny, well, that's hardly my fault,

and maybe it wasn't so damned wonderful in the first place.

As I've quoted

>before, one way to life your life is though everything is a miracle. The

>other is as though nothing is. You seem dangerously close to the latter.

Then you don't know me as well as you think. God, you're worse than my dad.

>That saddens me, and not in the least because it makes you apparently prime

>recruiting material for the Technocracy.

Oh, now I think like THEM? Thanks a lot. What did I ever do to you?

>I have my doubts about anyone whose stated goal in life is to actively

cause

>the end of other people's lives without their consent (with a wink and a

>nudge toward "but only the BAD ones"). I mean, I know that he does

>generally pick the bad ones. Or at least, I believe him on that, excepting

>Caitlin, about whom there was some doubt. I have no compunctions with that

>... I would do it myself if I felt that was necessary to protect someone I

>cared about.

And so would I? So what's the problem? Why single him out?

Hmph. I'd say something about how I'm probably going to be the one

researching his targets and compiling their dossiers in the future . . .

but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't trust my judgment,

either.

>My point, however, is that he doesn't do anything ELSE in the meantime.

Not

>only is he a Euthanatos when fighting the bad people, but he's also a

>Euthanatos when waiting for the bad people (ALL the time), and he's a

>Euthanatos when eating dinner, and he's a Euthanatos when reading a book,

>and he's a Euthanatos when kissing you.

All right, THIS is just wrong. The whole reason why he nearly went bad is

that he was trying to AVOID the truth about who he was, trying to separate

out the Killer from the rest of his personality. And that nearly got all

of *us* killed.

I hope he'll be a lot more balanced from now on, but it'll be because he's

accepted that he's Euthanatos IN ADDITION to everything else.

>I don't trust anyone who takes it upon themselves to act as Judge, Jury,

and

>Executioner. What if Tyler discovered my study? Would he automatically

>label me a child molester and execute me without bothering to wait around

>for a rebuttal? And what about you? Which is more important to him ...

the

>girl he loves (ostensibly), or being a Euthanatos? Would he execute *you*,

>perhaps after hearing you describe your long-term plans and deciding they

>were too dangerous to be allowed to continue? Or perhaps if your

>relationship becomes secretly non-exclusive (which would provide you with a

>motive for lying about it in the future, at least)?

This is all just insane. Yeah, if he found out about your study, he'd

probably kick your ass, but that'd be more because of his protective streak

(which, trust me, makes yours look like the slenderest thread) than any

kind of Official Business. I think my "long-term plans" would probably

terrify him, but again I don't think that has the first thing to do with

him being Euthanatos. And if we were dating, and I cheated on him? He'd

probably just never speak to me again (and in his case, I mean that

literally).

>So, no, I don't expect that anyone who pursues death that avidly will ever

>be able to free themselves from the temptation to embrace it ... but yes,

>I'm willing to allow him the chance to prove me wrong.

Really? You might like to think so, but somehow I doubt it.

>There's something to be said for pessimism. At the very least, I'm more

>likely to be pleasantly surprised than I am horribly disappointed in him.

I only wish I could say the same about you.

>> Hrmm. You're just SO good at making a girl feel good. If you ever

>acquire

>> a girlfriend yourself, you had BETTER invest in that ice-cream machine. .

>.

>> . ;)

>

>You are more right than you could know.

What? Now you expect YOURSELF to be a total screw-up? Have you considered

antidepressants?

Honestly, Kerry. For a while there I was thinking I had found a friend I

could really talk to, without being talked down to. Tyler used to be that,

but he hasn't been since school started, at least. Guess now my only hope

is for him to straighten himself out. It hurts me to say this, Kerry, but

I think maybe us working together isn't such a good idea. I'd thought our

work was something we had in common, but now we can't seem to agree on a

single thing. I do hope you find a colleague who's more to your liking.

It was nice talking to you, Professor . . . most of the time.

Jasmine

even further. Not sure which ;-) ]

> >> Well, I would never say "better" in some kind of "rule the world"

sense.

> >Nobody ever does.

> And what is THAT supposed to mean?

It means that nobody ever INTENDS to do that sort of thing (well, very few

people on our side, anyway). It just sort of happens that they wind up

thinking that way anyway. So I gather, at any rate.

> Better as in more comforting? Maybe. But not more accurate, or more

> helpful in actually dealing with those Very Real Bad Things when they do

> come up.

The purpose of Christmas is hardly to teach people how to deal with Very

Real Bad Things. Ergo, I'd not expect that as an outcome ... nor would I

regard it as a flaw of the holiday or its mascot that it failed to do so.

Sort of like I wouldn't call it a failure of your ninth birthday party that

it did not teach you about sexuality.

> You think it's fun to be lied to? To embrace a fairy tale as real? Then

> your idea of fun and mine are very different. Maybe we're not suited to

> be friends after all.

Err, isn't that a rather extreme reaction? Based on my (admittedly

restricted) prior experience, I had thought this concept of friendship

significantly more resilient than that. Was I mistaken?

Do keep in mind that both of us possess abilities that the vast majority of

the people on the planet would consider "fairy tales" ... yet we still have

them. As do our friends. As do several members of their families.

How do you know that the Santa Claus "fairy tale" didn't originate as an

actual occurrence? Exaggerated? Perhaps. Completely untrue? Who knows.

Without merit? I don't think so.

> I cannot believe I'm having *this* discussion with someone who should know

> better.

>

> Fine. Produce the old codger, and I'll happily apologize to him *and* to

> you, and proclaim the glories of His Clausness to all the children of the

> world.

Bitterness. Exactly the reaction I was expecting. I've never claimed to be

in contact with him. In fact, I never even claimed that he *was* actually

real (and I even explicitly stated that he might not be real in any

objective sense).

And even if he is NOT real *now* ... what is to prevent him from becoming

real, after a fashion? Let's see. He is puported to have ...

... obviously superior behavioral monitoring and intelligence-gathering

capabilities, which implies excellent computer skills or something of the

sort.

... the ability to travel from one location to another with extreme

rapidity, similar to your apportative abilities.

... an immense supply of resources, much like the Elliot family, though

rather more directed toward a single purpose.

... a de facto ability to handle the navigation and route-prioritization

mathematics that would be involved in visiting every child on the planet

within a single 24 hour period.

... a distinctive appearance and aesthetic, which is obviously relatively

trivial to implment, given the annual reccurrence of the Mall Santa fad.

If duplicating THAT list of traits is so far outside the boundaries of

plausibility that you refuse to even countenance the notion, then I

officially prostate myself at your feet and sincerely *beg* you to

reconsider your stated goal of attempting to achieve omniscience.

Because -- obviously -- if we cannot accept the possibility of something as

relatively comprehensible as Mr. Claus, and if we cannot aspire to obtain

the (finite) abilities required to give the beloved legend of his annual

nocturnal excursion some validity .... then we cannot *possibly* hope to

reach actual infinity. Or even to get particularly close to it.

Furthermore, if we cannot find it in our hearts to consider it worthwhile to

bring wonder into the lives of others -- even if it is something as

relatively minor (compared to godhood) as making a few billion children a

little bit happier for one day out of the year ... at the expense of

"accuracy" -- then I also have serious doubts about our ability to use this

vast knowledge for the benefit of others.

[OOC: He shoots .... ]

> >I believe I now see where certain aspects of your personality arise.

You,

> >my friend, have a severe lack of Wonder in your life.

>

> Huh? I wonder at *everything*. I've already told you that. It just

> happens that my wonder is an impetus to know more about the wonderful

> thing. And if it can't stand the scrutiny, well, that's hardly my fault,

> and maybe it wasn't so damned wonderful in the first place.

You seem to be confusing two different concepts. Or rather, the terminology

is confusing. When I speak of wonder, I am not speaking of being curious

about the answer to some puzzle. Curiousity is a good thing, and you well

know my feelings on that, but what I refer to is the appreciation of the

elegance, aesthetics, beauty ... and yes, the magic ... of a concept.

These things are potentially present REGARDLESS of the alleged "accuracy" of

that concept. Though I suspect that you associate the two concepts too

strongly to recognize that.

To quote somebody that you might be more inclined to listen to than one such

as myself...

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the

source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a

stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as

good as dead: his eyes are closed."

-- Albert Einstein

Hmm. Well, I don't mean to imply that you lack the *ability* to wonder so

much as the *willingess* to wonder *about certain things* ... such as Mr.

Claus.

> >before, one way to life your life is though everything is a miracle. The

> >other is as though nothing is. You seem dangerously close to the latter.

> Then you don't know me as well as you think. God, you're worse than my

dad.

Perhaps I don't. I have, after all, known you for barely more than two

months, and had serious discourse with you for a much shorter period. And

obviously, I never will if you terminate our friendship prematurely. Recall

that my original purpose was to understand you ... which obviously implies

that I do not do so in at least some respects.

[OOC: Hmm. I thought his original purpose was to understand females in

general, and Jasmine was just the first one he asked. Shrug. ]

I am not perfect, Jasmine. I realize that this must be disappointing to

you, but I am bound to make mistakes along the way. I had thought you

mature enough to understand that. My mistake.

[OOC: hi ho, hi ho, it's off to push buttons we go... ]

> >That saddens me, and not in the least because it makes you apparently

prime

> >recruiting material for the Technocracy.

>

> Oh, now I think like THEM? Thanks a lot. What did I ever do to you?

Not a thing. I did not say that you do think like them ... only that you

seem to be heading in that direction.

It was merely a warning of what I see ... given in the hopes that you might

at least attempt to consider whether it was helpful, rather than react out

of indignation ... and if it was a valid concern, to act upon it before it

became the actual truth.

There must be something seriously wrong with my concept of friendship; I

thought this sort of thing was acceptable.

> >I have no compunctions with that

> >... I would do it myself if I felt that was necessary to protect someone

> > I cared about.

>

> And so would I. So what's the problem? Why single him out?

How many other people our age do you know that make this their life's work?

> Hmph. I'd say something about how I'm probably going to be the one

> researching his targets and compiling their dossiers in the future . . .

> but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't trust my judgment,

> either.

Have I known you long enough to do so? Forgive me, but I don't have enough

experience in this area to know whether the short time we have really

interacted is sufficient. After all, we only just became friends at the

start of this correspondence. I was given to understand that such things as

trust generally take time to develop. Though I can see that some people

might be more or less quick to do so, sort of a innate inclination towards

one or the other behavior.

> >My point, however, is that he doesn't do anything ELSE in the meantime.

Not

> >only is he a Euthanatos when fighting the bad people, but he's also a

> >Euthanatos when waiting for the bad people (ALL the time), and he's a

> >Euthanatos when eating dinner, and he's a Euthanatos when reading a book,

> >and he's a Euthanatos when kissing you.

>

> All right, THIS is just wrong. The whole reason why he nearly went bad is

> that he was trying to AVOID the truth about who he was, trying to separate

> out the Killer from the rest of his personality. And that nearly got all

> of *us* killed.

I suspect that the only way for him to separate out that part of his

personality is for him to depart the Euthanatos, because the problem is not

in HIM, but in what he has been lead to. I don't, however, think it likely

that he will do so. If this "killer" is really the truth about "who he is",

then why was he even trying to get rid of it? Why did it bother him at all?

Surely not solely because he merely didn't accept "who he was".

No, I suspect that it is no more "who he is" than it is who I am. The only

reason that Tyler stays in the Euthanatos is because he has been pushed in

that direction ... possibly for years ... and more than likely hasn't

seriously considered that alternatives are available for most of that time.

The longer he stays -- the more accepting of it that he becomes -- the more

attractive it grows ... and being attracted to causing death is not a

concept that I, for one, care to contemplate. Certainly not one that I care

to "accept" as "who I am".

> I hope he'll be a lot more balanced from now on, but it'll be because he's

> accepted that he's Euthanatos IN ADDITION to everything else.

We apparently have a much different impression of the Tradition. I suppose

that I should notice that you have far more experience with them than I ...

but it didn't seem to help you (or them) see Tyler's problem coming. And

obviously I could not see it coming either ... I did not know him before he

*had* it. So, my question is, what makes you so certain you or anyone else

will see it in time the *next* time, which could be years down the road?

You seem all too willing to consider him all-but-cured *right now*.

> >I don't trust anyone who takes it upon themselves to act as Judge, Jury,

and

> >Executioner. What if Tyler discovered my study? Would he automatically

> >label me a child molester and execute me without bothering to wait around

> >for a rebuttal? And what about you? Which is more important to him ...

the

> >girl he loves (ostensibly), or being a Euthanatos? Would he execute

*you*,

> >perhaps after hearing you describe your long-term plans and deciding they

> >were too dangerous to be allowed to continue? Or perhaps if your

> >relationship becomes secretly non-exclusive (which would provide you with

a

> >motive for lying about it in the future, at least)?

>

> This is all just insane.

Is it? Personally, I find the fact that this even needs to be a concern in

our lives to be the insane part.

While I don't believe that the Euthanatos do not serve a purpose, I strongly

believe that it is hardly the place for a boy. He can't even decide which

girl he is in love with! How is he supposed to decide who is and isn't

sufficiently "bad" to require termination? I know you said you are to be

researching his victims, etc. ... in the future, AFTER he has either dealt

with it or not ... and what happens if you come into disagreement on the

issue, both stubbornly convinced that you are right?

Worse, how is he to decide what is and isn't a ploy by the Nephandi to lead

him into corruption? It obviously hasn't worked so far ... and no, I don't

particularly buy the idea that the only reason Tyler was vulnerable is

because he was not "accepting" himself.

> Yeah, if he found out about your study, he'd probably kick your ass

Tyler may have more skill in combat than I do (which should be obvious,

given his background), but I am by no means afraid of him ... as long as we

are leaving corruption and a taste for murder out of the issue. He knows

where to find me.

>, but that'd be more because of his protective streak

> (which, trust me, makes yours look like the slenderest thread)

On what evidence are you basing this derision of the strength of my

emotions? Because if you think you've gotten more than the barest hint of

_any_ of them to date, you are _very_ _gravely_ _mistaken_.

And I'll note that Tyler's streak of protectiveness didn't help *Miss

Summers* one whit ... in spite of the fact that protecting her was

precisely what he was *supposed* to be doing.

[OOC: alt.defensiveness.bristle.bristle.bristle. ]

> than any

> kind of Official Business. I think my "long-term plans" would probably

> terrify him, but again I don't think that has the first thing to do with

> him being Euthanatos.

Have you ever put the question to him?

> >So, no, I don't expect that anyone who pursues death that avidly will

ever

> >be able to free themselves from the temptation to embrace it ... but yes,

> >I'm willing to allow him the chance to prove me wrong.

>

> Really? You might like to think so, but somehow I doubt it.

Please clarify that statement. I'm not certain what part of my reply you

are referring to.

> >There's something to be said for pessimism. At the very least, I'm more

> >likely to be pleasantly surprised than I am horribly disappointed in him.

>

> I only wish I could say the same about you.

I see.

> What? Now you expect YOURSELF to be a total screw-up? Have you

considered

> antidepressants?

I have no desire to artificially mask any problem of that sort by

wallpapering over the symptoms with drugs. Besides, a dosage of some sort

of frolicking organism would produce the same effect without paying homage

to the Progenitors.

No, I do not consider myself a total screw up, but apparently my earnest

efforts at engaging your friendship have met with remarkably little success.

So, you must admit that my track record in this area is hardly worthy of

praise.

> Honestly, Kerry. For a while there I was thinking I had found a friend I

> could really talk to, without being talked down to.

That was never my intention. I'm not, however, sure what I could do to

change that impression.

> Tyler used to be that,

> but he hasn't been since school started, at least. Guess now my only hope

> is for him to straighten himself out. It hurts me to say this, Kerry, but

> I think maybe us working together isn't such a good idea. I'd thought our

> work was something we had in common, but now we can't seem to agree on a

> single thing. I do hope you find a colleague who's more to your liking.

Perhaps my interaction with the Sons of Ether has skewed my perceptions

somewhat ... I had always thought that debate and alternate perspectives

were valueable and desireable things in any relationship -- especially

scientific ones. Indeed, I suspect that even Ivan would agree with this --

though he'd probably insist on reminding us that it is related to the

concept of "Devil's Advocate".

By way of example as to how my perceptions seem skewed to me, I notice that

your disagreement with Tyler's current practice of dating all of these other

girls has not terminated your (currently rather passive) friendship with

*him*. Indeed, even the possibility that he could murder you in your sleep

has not ended -- or even reasonably slowed -- your adulation of him.

Furthermore, you are willing to consider the possibility of repairing your

relationship with Tyler ... yet my dissenting viewpoint on the Claus

platform and "once-bitten, twice-shy" stance on the issue of Mr. Elliot

(both of which I would've considered relatively minor) has apparently

damaged *my* (active) efforts irreparably.

This seems to be something of an inconsistent response. I can only conclude

that it is something to do with me personally. Possibly I am incapable of

any sort of normal relationship with members of your gender. I had hoped

for a better outcome than this, but I think that the best I can do at this

point is tender my apologies for inflicting my flawed friendship upon you.

> It was nice talking to you, Professor . . . most of the time.

Indeed. I thank you for a most interesting conversation ... and once again

I would like to thank you for your kind participation in my study. However,

I am sad to report that your recent decision to terminate our relationship

has unfortunately left me even more mystified than when the study began.

Still, I wish you luck -- and more importantly, happiness -- in your

pursuits, wherever they may take you.

K.

Yeah, it's an actual reply. Surprise.

Listen, I'm sorry. I got mad and overreacted. Heh. And here I thought I

was the rigidly rational one and you were the impassioned one. Guess I

really *did* overestimate our differences.

For what it's worth, I never *wanted* us to stop being friends, and I still

don't. I just thought maybe it would be healthier and happier for both of

us to stay away from each other if we were just going to argue like that.

Looks like I take after Tyler in my track record for picking the least

painful course of action in a situation. Maybe the reason he and I are

destined to get married is that we deserve each other.

Again, I'm sorry, and I hope you'll consider resuming our collaboration.

Well then. On to specifics:

>The purpose of Christmas is hardly to teach people how to deal with Very

>Real Bad Things. Ergo, I'd not expect that as an outcome ... nor would I

>regard it as a flaw of the holiday or its mascot that it failed to do so.

Tsk. You're changing the grounds of discussion, Professor. I was

responding to your comparison of two hypothetical children, one taught

about our Christmas mascot in place of the Evils Out There, and the other

taught about said Evils with no comforting Claus. You explicitly

contrasted them.

>Sort of like I wouldn't call it a failure of your ninth birthday party that

>it did not teach you about sexuality.

On the other hand, you have a gift for putting the most disturbing images

in my head that rivals Ivan's. And he uses telepathy, which is sort of

cheating. (By the way, if you'd like to know what it's like to have sex

with Corinna, I've got a couple of his transplanted memories I'd really

like to get rid of. 'Course, if you really plan to study Corinna next, I

suppose you could contrive to find that out in a much more interesting way.

. . .)

>

>> You think it's fun to be lied to? To embrace a fairy tale as real? Then

>> your idea of fun and mine are very different. Maybe we're not suited to

>> be friends after all.

>

>Err, isn't that a rather extreme reaction? Based on my (admittedly

>restricted) prior experience, I had thought this concept of friendship

>significantly more resilient than that. Was I mistaken?

No, no you weren't. Again, that was an overreaction. But in my defense, I

didn't tell you to go to hell. I just suggested that maybe we weren't

*suited* to be friends, since my entire mindset seems to disturb you and

put you in Lecture Mode (which, as we have seen, tends to rub me the wrong

way).

>Do keep in mind that both of us possess abilities that the vast majority of

>the people on the planet would consider "fairy tales" ... yet we still have

>them. As do our friends. As do several members of their families.

Well, yes, of course.

>How do you know that the Santa Claus "fairy tale" didn't originate as an

>actual occurrence? Exaggerated? Perhaps. Completely untrue? Who knows.

>Without merit? I don't think so.

Hey, I'll consider "legend based on truth" or even "conceptual entity made

real by the very belief in his existence." (Hmm, in which case it'd be

people like me who keep him from *being* real enough to perform as

advertised. Heh, irony.) I'm just saying that, despite publicity to the

contrary, no fat guy in a red suit ever delivered anything to my house.

>Bitterness. Exactly the reaction I was expecting. I've never claimed to

be

>in contact with him. In fact, I never even claimed that he *was* actually

>real (and I even explicitly stated that he might not be real in any

>objective sense).

True. Then why argue the point?

>And even if he is NOT real *now* ... what is to prevent him from becoming

>real, after a fashion?

> if we cannot aspire to obtain

>the (finite) abilities required to give the beloved legend of his annual

>nocturnal excursion some validity

>Furthermore, if we cannot find it in our hearts to consider it worthwhile

to

>bring wonder into the lives of others -- even if it is something as

>relatively minor (compared to godhood) as making a few billion children a

>little bit happier for one day out of the year

Um, Kerry . . . ?

Are you suggesting what I *think* you're suggesting?

*maniacal laugh*

Well, why didn't you SAY so, Professor?

Jeez, maybe you're right about my sense of wonder. I dunno if you're as

smart as I am, but you certainly seem to have all the good ideas.

What a brilliant compromise! If we can *make* the legend real, then all

the kiddies can keep that all-important sense of wonder *without* having to

be tricked into it. Maybe we can even give some of those self-assured

parents (and, er, perhaps even certain skeptical little girls) a surprise

dose of the Big W.

We have got to do this! I can't believe no other mage has tried it yet!

[OOC: Meanwhile, Stacy has images of all the previous Santas being taken

out by Technocratic strike teams. . . .]

>You seem to be confusing two different concepts. Or rather, the

terminology

>is confusing. When I speak of wonder, I am not speaking of being curious

>about the answer to some puzzle. Curiousity is a good thing, and you well

>know my feelings on that, but what I refer to is the appreciation of the

>elegance, aesthetics, beauty ... and yes, the magic ... of a concept.

>Hmm. Well, I don't mean to imply that you lack the *ability* to wonder so

>much as the *willingess* to wonder *about certain things* ... such as Mr.

>Claus.

Well, now you've converted me. Happy?

Heh. Who knew? Instead of a gut, a beard, and a red suit, the REAL Santa

Claus turns out to have a lab coat and a penchant for looking at naked

little girls.

(That was a joke, Professor. You may stop sputtering in outraged propriety

now.)

>I am not perfect, Jasmine. I realize that this must be disappointing to

>you, but I am bound to make mistakes along the way. I had thought you

>mature enough to understand that. My mistake.

*Ouch*. And I can't say it was undeserved.

I know you're not perfect, Kerry. If I occasionally seem to expect

otherwise, well, that just means I'm not perfect either.

What you are, is the nicest and most respectful person I've met since Tyler

went haring off on the Mother of All Adolescent Identity Crises. And what

I am, is an idiot for not appreciating that properly.

>Not a thing. I did not say that you do think like them ... only that you

>seem to be heading in that direction.

*Never*. Honestly, Kerry. You don't have to worry. I'd sooner kill

myself.

>It was merely a warning of what I see ... given in the hopes that you might

>at least attempt to consider whether it was helpful, rather than react out

>of indignation ... and if it was a valid concern, to act upon it before it

>became the actual truth. There must be something seriously wrong with my

>concept of friendship; I

>thought this sort of thing was acceptable.

[OOC: Insert flashback to Jasmine being smirked at and ignored while trying

to prevent Tyler's incipient alcoholism. . . .]

It is, it is. Unfortunately, it happens to be the most thankless duty of

friendship, if my experience (and now yours at my hands) is any guide.

>> >I have no compunctions with that

>> >... I would do it myself if I felt that was necessary to protect someone

>> > I cared about.

>>

>> And so would I. So what's the problem? Why single him out?

>

>How many other people our age do you know that make this their life's work?

Well, none. Of course, should/shouldn't distinctions based on age have to

be *really* persuasive to work on me. . . .

>> but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't trust my judgment,

>> either.

>

>Have I known you long enough to do so?

Well, probably not. But it sort of seemed you did, before.

>If this "killer" is really the truth about "who he is",

>then why was he even trying to get rid of it? Why did it bother him at

all?

See? See? This is what *I* tried to tell him, the stubborn prick.

>No, I suspect that it is no more "who he is" than it is who I am.

Again, I'm with you. But how to get *him* to accept that, especially now

that he's been through that whole "Parenting the Third World Interrogator's

Way" session with his mom?

>The only

>reason that Tyler stays in the Euthanatos is because he has been pushed in

>that direction ... possibly for years ... and more than likely hasn't

>seriously considered that alternatives are available for most of that time.

Actually, I'm pretty sure his mom (the only person who really could've been

"pushing" him) tried to talk him out of it, but *he* kept pushing until she

agreed to train him. Then he insisted on going with her after his

grandfather.

Up to that point, at least, he was completely right when he told me never

to blame anyone but him for what had been happening to him.

>So, my question is, what makes you so certain you or anyone else

>will see it in time the *next* time, which could be years down the road?

Certain? Ha! I wish.

>You seem all too willing to consider him all-but-cured *right now*.

That's just because I want my kids to have at least *one* sane parent. If

I kept thinking about all the things that might go wrong, when I can't do

anything more about them than I can about my allegedly-predestined

marriage, I'd go nuts.

Trust me, I spend enough time thinking about the bad possibilities. Heh, I

think I even managed to shock *him* when he asked Ivan to point him toward

"something to shoot" and I said "Not us." Good. Maybe he'll finally start

to get the idea that he's not the only one who suffers when he suffers,

y'know?

>Is it? Personally, I find the fact that this even needs to be a concern in

>our lives to be the insane part.

Welcome to the madhouse, Professor.

>While I don't believe that the Euthanatos do not serve a purpose, I

strongly

>believe that it is hardly the place for a boy.

I'm with you. And I think *he* is, too, or was. Right after he came back

from fighting Ryan Sr., he said he'd never have joined the Euthanatos if

he'd known what was really involved. Of course, he didn't quit then,

either. Blame the aforementioned "stubborn prick" factor. Of course, now

that he's been brain -- excuse me, has had a long talk with his mom on the

subject, I doubt he'll ever consider quitting.

>I know you said you are to be

>researching his victims, etc. ... in the future, AFTER he has either dealt

>with it or not ... and what happens if you come into disagreement on the

>issue, both stubbornly convinced that you are right?

>

>Worse, how is he to decide what is and isn't a ploy by the Nephandi to lead

>him into corruption?

Beats me. I'm willing to take suggestions, and I'm sure he is too.

And I said "targets," not "victims." "Victims" already implies innocence.

>> Yeah, if he found out about your study, he'd probably kick your ass

>

>Tyler may have more skill in combat than I do (which should be obvious,

>given his background), but I am by no means afraid of him ... as long as we

>are leaving corruption and a taste for murder out of the issue. He knows

>where to find me.

Oooh, the cultured professor and the macho man rolled into one.

Come on, Kerry, I *know* you're not stupid. Stop giving stupid

impressions. This is not something you want to invite.

>

>

>>, but that'd be more because of his protective streak

>> (which, trust me, makes yours look like the slenderest thread)

>

>On what evidence are you basing this derision of the strength of my

>emotions? Because if you think you've gotten more than the barest hint of

>_any_ of them to date, you are _very_ _gravely_ _mistaken_.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA. All right, I know I got mad first, and I'd probably made

you mad by the time you wrote that, but chill! For one thing, I wasn't

even trying to deride you. To me, "more protective" = "more obnoxious." I

was saying he's worse about that than you'll ever be . . . or at least, I

certainly hope so. I'm sorry if I offended you. You're right, I know very

little about your emotions, because between your writing style and your

musical brainwave modification, they've been damped down every time I've

come across them.

If it makes you feel better to think you're more protective than Tyler, be

my guest. But if that extends to *me*, understand that it's not

necessarily a good thing.

>And I'll note that Tyler's streak of protectiveness didn't help *Miss

>Summers* one whit ... in spite of the fact that protecting her was

>precisely what he was *supposed* to be doing.

Who the hell cares whether he protected Caitlin or not? She *used* him,

*lied* to him, and fed him to Mala and the rest of the damned cult . . .

and on some level, he *knew* it. *I* would have killed her if I'd known

what she was doing to him.

>[OOC: alt.defensiveness.bristle.bristle.bristle. ]

[OOC: Heh]

>

>> than any

>> kind of Official Business. I think my "long-term plans" would probably

>> terrify him, but again I don't think that has the first thing to do with

>> him being Euthanatos.

>

>Have you ever put the question to him?

Oh good God no! Like I said, when I told you, that was the first time I'd

ever really even put into words what I wanted to do.

Actually, I probably hinted at it a time or two, but he thought I was

joking. Probably I did, too.

>

>> >So, no, I don't expect that anyone who pursues death that avidly will

>ever

>> >be able to free themselves from the temptation to embrace it ... but

yes,

>> >I'm willing to allow him the chance to prove me wrong.

>>

>> Really? You might like to think so, but somehow I doubt it.

>

>Please clarify that statement. I'm not certain what part of my reply you

>are referring to.

Do I have to? I was hoping to be your friend again after this letter.

Oh well.

I meant, I don't think you're really "willing to allow him a chance," even

if you *think* you are. But remember, I was mad when I wrote that the

first time. Please, if you take it as anything, take it as one of those

thankless friendly warnings you gave me earlier. I know, you've never

really known any Tyler but the bad one. But you *do* know he has friends,

and surely we're not all nuts. Even if I can't be trusted to be rational

on the subject of Mr. Elliot, what about Ivan, or Mel, or Corinna, or

Brandon? You've been hurt by him least of all of us -- er, I assume,

before you accuse me of misjudging your feelings again -- yet you really

seem to have it in for him.

>> >There's something to be said for pessimism. At the very least, I'm more

>> >likely to be pleasantly surprised than I am horribly disappointed in

him.

>>

>> I only wish I could say the same about you.

>

>I see.

No, no you don't, because even I don't know what I was thinking when I

wrote that. I'm not sure it even deserves to be dignified with the term

"thinking." I'm sorry. Please, just forget I said that.

>> What? Now you expect YOURSELF to be a total screw-up? Have you

>considered

>> antidepressants?

>

>I have no desire to artificially mask any problem of that sort by

>wallpapering over the symptoms with drugs. Besides, a dosage of some sort

>of frolicking organism would produce the same effect without paying homage

>to the Progenitors.

"Frolicking organism"? Wow, maybe you should be my drug guru instead of

Ivan.

>No, I do not consider myself a total screw up, but apparently my earnest

>efforts at engaging your friendship have met with remarkably little

success.

>So, you must admit that my track record in this area is hardly worthy of

>praise.

That was at least as much my fault as yours, and probably more so.

>Perhaps my interaction with the Sons of Ether has skewed my perceptions

>somewhat ... I had always thought that debate and alternate perspectives

>were valueable and desireable things in any relationship -- especially

>scientific ones. Indeed, I suspect that even Ivan would agree with this --

>though he'd probably insist on reminding us that it is related to the

>concept of "Devil's Advocate".

Heh.

Really, I don't have anything against debate *or* alternate perspectives.

But -- and maybe I'm wrong -- for a bit there it was seeming as though my

role was to put forth an honest belief, then have you go into Lecture Mode

and tear it apart. Sure, friends can disagree . . . but it seemed like we

were so completely different on so many key points of our worldviews that I

just thought maybe it would be better to cut our losses now. I *did* say

it hurt me to say that, and it did.

>By way of example as to how my perceptions seem skewed to me, I notice that

>your disagreement with Tyler's current practice of dating all of these

other

>girls has not terminated your (currently rather passive) friendship with

>*him*. Indeed, even the possibility that he could murder you in your sleep

>has not ended -- or even reasonably slowed -- your adulation of him.

>

>Furthermore, you are willing to consider the possibility of repairing your

>relationship with Tyler ... yet my dissenting viewpoint on the Claus

>platform and "once-bitten, twice-shy" stance on the issue of Mr. Elliot

>(both of which I would've considered relatively minor) has apparently

>damaged *my* (active) efforts irreparably.

Obviously not irreparably.

But . . . even if we are friends (and I hope we are), don't go comparing

that to my friendship with Tyler. You yourself said that you and I barely

know each other, really. I've known him *so* much longer, it's just not

the same thing. Like I said before, I *love* him, not in the

boyfriend/girlfriend sense (though that would be nice), but the way you'd

love a member of your family. Like, I assume, the way *you* love your

parents, or your sister. How thoroughly, and how many times, would one of

them have to screw up before you completely stopped holding out hope that

things might get better?

If nothing else, take it as evidence of how different Tyler used to be, and

how close he and I were, that I *am* willing to stick around even when I'm

literally *afraid* of him. (You know, I hadn't even thought of "murdered

in my sleep" before. Thanks for another cheery thought, K-man. . . .)

>This seems to be something of an inconsistent response. I can only

conclude

>that it is something to do with me personally. Possibly I am incapable of

>any sort of normal relationship with members of your gender.

Do you have other evidence that this is so? That's the second time you've

said something that suggested you might. (Um, you don't have to tell me if

you don't want, of course.)

If you *don't*, that's an awfully big leap to make from one observation,

and I'm sure you know it.

>I had hoped

>for a better outcome than this, but I think that the best I can do at this

>point is tender my apologies for inflicting my flawed friendship upon you.

Sigh. And *I* give up on friendships too easily?

Apology is neither accepted, nor necessary.

I'll be happy to have your "flawed" friendship for as long as you can stand

mine.

>> It was nice talking to you, Professor . . . most of the time.

>

>Indeed. I thank you for a most interesting conversation ... and once again

>I would like to thank you for your kind participation in my study.

However,

>I am sad to report that your recent decision to terminate our relationship

>has unfortunately left me even more mystified than when the study began.

I keep telling you it was a suggestion, not a decision.

Anyway, if you can stand to be around me, I'd love to continue with the

study. It's going to help me as much as it helps you, remember.

Especially since -- in this case especially, it seems -- I'm more concerned

with the actual results than you are.

Feel free to consider this rather embarrassing episode as another dataset.

I'm told that people reveal a lot about themselves when they become

irrationally angry, and I can't deny I was just that.

>Still, I wish you luck -- and more importantly, happiness -- in your

>pursuits, wherever they may take you.

Even to the Secret Lair of a certain Mad Professor?

J.

>

> Yeah, it's an actual reply. Surprise.

>

> Listen, I'm sorry. I got mad and overreacted. Heh. And here I thought I

> was the rigidly rational one and you were the impassioned one. Guess I

> really *did* overestimate our differences.

>

> For what it's worth, I never *wanted* us to stop being friends, and I

still

> don't. I just thought maybe it would be healthier and happier for both of

> us to stay away from each other if we were just going to argue like that.

>

> Looks like I take after Tyler in my track record for picking the least

> painful course of action in a situation. Maybe the reason he and I are

> destined to get married is that we deserve each other.

>

> Again, I'm sorry, and I hope you'll consider resuming our collaboration.

I see. Well, overreaction is possibly the most immediately understandable

of reasons that we can expect to see, and if I am capable of mistakes then I

assume that you are as well. No apology is really necessary ... the fact

that you have not turned away is sufficient. Certainly I would like to

resume our collaboration; I never desired an end to it in the first place.

And I am steadfastly resisting the urge to lecture you on your comment about

"deserving" Tyler. ^_^

I want to interject something that I missed from a prior reply:

>You might guess from my

>mind/body stance that I'm almost more eager to try the old mind-meld

>someday than actual physical sex.

I see no reason they need be incompatible. Indeed, many people view sex as

an attempt to unify two people as close as possible (for most people).

Unifying their minds in addition (rather than instead of) would likely be

the next step in the progression. Often, we think of the mind as something

distinct from the body because the mind is not as readily identifiable.

Think of the mind as an organ. The organ of consciousness (not to be

confused with the brain). In your view of the world, the perceptual

framework of space and time HIDES the fact that the Mind is simply another,

biological part of the whole Body ... one that will die if surgically

removed (especially if ignorantly removed with the mental equivalent of a

chain saw).

I see no reason that the mind cannot function as a sex organ (indeed, many

other parts of the body can do so .. or so I gather). I believe there is a

concept favored by Adepts -- memes. Perhaps that may be the equivalent of

the reproductive cells. Obviously, the long-suspected development of

telepathic abilities in the species may be equivalent to the first real

"stirrings in the loins" so to speak. Up until this point, we have been ...

err .. engaging in solitary acitivites, and nothing more. It may be that we

are a race of mental virgins, and that the true evolution of the species

cannot begin until we start using ALL of our sex organs for interaction.

I wonder what sort of change in the species that might produce.

[OOC: Beware, little Jasmine, you tread dangerous ground. ^_^ ]

> Tsk. You're changing the grounds of discussion, Professor. I was

> responding to your comparison of two hypothetical children, one taught

> about our Christmas mascot in place of the Evils Out There, and the other

> taught about said Evils with no comforting Claus. You explicitly

> contrasted them.

True. I misread your statement that the holiday did NOT achieve these

things as a statement that they obviously *should* achieve these things.

> >Sort of like I wouldn't call it a failure of your ninth birthday party

that

> >it did not teach you about sexuality.

>

> On the other hand, you have a gift for putting the most disturbing images

> in my head that rivals Ivan's. And he uses telepathy, which is sort of

> cheating.

Heh.

[OOC: Heh]

> (By the way, if you'd like to know what it's like to have sex

> with Corinna, I've got a couple of his transplanted memories I'd really

> like to get rid of. 'Course, if you really plan to study Corinna next, I

> suppose you could contrive to find that out in a much more interesting

way.

> . . .)

Um. To be honest, I have no idea how to react to that. My immediate

instinct would be cuiousity, of course, but as for Miss Marks herself ... in

spite of her obvious charms, which are appropriately tempting, I am not

particularly interested in a relationship with her of that sort. I'm not

certain whether what you suggest would qualify as such ... and furthermore,

given the source of those memories, I'm not certain the experience would

enlighten me as to the standard form of such activity.

[OOC: In other words, Ivan is a perv. ;-) ]

However, I suppose that if you feel the need to get rid of them, curiousity

and the desireable benefit of helping you out will be dominant. Sure, I'll

take them off of your hands.

> >Err, isn't that a rather extreme reaction? Based on my (admittedly

> >restricted) prior experience, I had thought this concept of friendship

> >significantly more resilient than that. Was I mistaken?

>

> No, no you weren't. Again, that was an overreaction. But in my defense,

I

> didn't tell you to go to hell. I just suggested that maybe we weren't

> *suited* to be friends, since my entire mindset seems to disturb you and

> put you in Lecture Mode (which, as we have seen, tends to rub me the wrong

> way).

I see. Well, it is hard to resist the urge to go into Lecture Mode when the

term "Professor" is being bandied about. Not that I mind, of course.

Actually, I think it has a lot to do with this medium. I tend to associate

it with a debate more than do a conversation.

> >How do you know that the Santa Claus "fairy tale" didn't originate as an

> >actual occurrence? Exaggerated? Perhaps. Completely untrue? Who knows.

> >Without merit? I don't think so.

>

> Hey, I'll consider "legend based on truth" or even "conceptual entity made

> real by the very belief in his existence." (Hmm, in which case it'd be

> people like me who keep him from *being* real enough to perform as

> advertised. Heh, irony.) I'm just saying that, despite publicity to the

> contrary, no fat guy in a red suit ever delivered anything to my house.

Fair enough.

> >Bitterness. Exactly the reaction I was expecting. I've never claimed to

be

> >in contact with him. In fact, I never even claimed that he *was*

actually

> >real (and I even explicitly stated that he might not be real in any

> >objective sense).

>

> True. Then why argue the point?

Devil's Advocation, for one thing. For some others:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed

ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to

function.

-- F. Scott Fitzgerald

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a

profound truth may well be another profound truth.

-- Niels Bohr

[OOC: Such as the ability to discuss Santa Claus and simultaneously expound

upon the possible benefits of combining mental and physical boinking.

Without going fetal. ]

You will find, as we interact, that I often propose ideas or theories that

seem like a contradiction of others that I've proposed previously. More

often than not I am either attempting to consider all angles, or I have

revised my opinion.

> Jeez, maybe you're right about my sense of wonder. I dunno if you're as

> smart as I am, but you certainly seem to have all the good ideas.

Indeed. Creativity and Imagination are strengths of my Tradition. However,

never fear ... I don't feel that your sense of wonder is permanently

atrophied...merely submerged.

> What a brilliant compromise! If we can *make* the legend real, then all

> the kiddies can keep that all-important sense of wonder *without* having

to

> be tricked into it. Maybe we can even give some of those self-assured

> parents (and, er, perhaps even certain skeptical little girls) a surprise

> dose of the Big W.

Precisely!

> We have got to do this! I can't believe no other mage has tried it yet!

Hmm, perhaps they have, but not being us, they lacked some quality of

greatness that the combination of our talents does not.

> [OOC: Meanwhile, Stacy has images of all the previous Santas being taken

> out by Technocratic strike teams. . . .]

[OOC: Yup]

> >Hmm. Well, I don't mean to imply that you lack the *ability* to wonder

so

> >much as the *willingess* to wonder *about certain things* ... such as Mr.

> >Claus.

>

> Well, now you've converted me. Happy?

Quite so.

> Heh. Who knew? Instead of a gut, a beard, and a red suit, the REAL Santa

> Claus turns out to have a lab coat and a penchant for looking at naked

> little girls.

>

> (That was a joke, Professor. You may stop sputtering in outraged

propriety

> now.)

It seems I'm not the only one with a gift for disturbing imagery. However,

it may just be that the *real* Santa has rapidly developing breasts and

curves and other such interesting qualities ... to say nothing of an

inordinately intriguing psychology.

> I know you're not perfect, Kerry. If I occasionally seem to expect

> otherwise, well, that just means I'm not perfect either.

Well then, I suppose we shall both just have to make do with one another's

imperfections. ^_^

Indeed, I wouldn't have it any other way ... to desire perfection as an

attainable goal is the way of the Technocracy. As you may recall, my

philosophy is that there's nothing wrong with the direction of that path ...

indeed, the path itself is the important part. Not it's apparent terminus.

> What you are, is the nicest and most respectful person I've met since

Tyler

> went haring off on the Mother of All Adolescent Identity Crises. And what

> I am, is an idiot for not appreciating that properly.

I thank you

> >Not a thing. I did not say that you do think like them ... only that you

> >seem to be heading in that direction.

>

> *Never*. Honestly, Kerry. You don't have to worry. I'd sooner kill

myself.

I'm pretty sure you think that now. Really, I am. For all that it seems

that I do not yet completely trust your judgement, Jasmine, I also know that

you don't lack it entirely.

But I suspect that they can be awfully persuasive, even without resorting to

something as unsubtle as threats and violence. You may even come to feel

that it is your idea. I don't know if the Adepts keep any case records of

defectors, but researching that sort of thing might be useful for you ...

familiarising yourself with the reasons they left, and if possible, the

methods used to convert them may enable you to avoid falling into the same

situation.

> [OOC: Insert flashback to Jasmine being smirked at and ignored while

trying

> to prevent Tyler's incipient alcoholism. . . .]

[OOC: Heh, I wasnt even shooting for that]

> It is, it is. Unfortunately, it happens to be the most thankless duty of

> friendship, if my experience (and now yours at my hands) is any guide.

Ah. Well, if you will endeavor to remember that people being protective of

you stems not from a desire to hold you back, but a desire to not see you

get hurt unnecessarily, then I will endeavor to not expect any thanks for

performing this function.

> >How many other people our age do you know that make this their life's

work?

>

> Well, none. Of course, should/shouldn't distinctions based on age have to

> be *really* persuasive to work on me. . . .

Jasmine, we are not talking about being able to stay up as late as you want,

or being old enough to date, or being allowed to go to a dance, or kissing

somebody, or even just being allowed to do something that your parents feel

is too dangerous but you feel you can handle.

We are talking about *killing* people. Cold blooded, premeditated murder.

Furthermore, we are talking about expecting a young boy to possess the

knowledge of the consequences of his actions and resistance to temptation

that are necessary to perform this task responsibly. A young boy which,

whatever his other merits may be, has already shown himself to lack

consideration of the consequences of his actions (such as his steadfast

refusal to notice that his pursuit of other girls is likely to cause severe

emotional damage to his future wife, about whom he ostensibly cares) and I

won't even go into the latter bit.

In other words, we are talking about one of the most serious things it is

possible for one person to do to another, and he has *already* demonstrated

that he can't handle it. Yet we are still expecting him to continue on as

if he were deliviring newspapers. There is *no* room for error in what the

Euthanatos do -- the task is way too easy to screw up, and the results of

that screw up are all too permanent. Why are we pretending that there is

room for Tyler to mess up again?

I know you have lost a measure of innocence recently, but I seriously DOUBT

that a relationship with this sort of thing is what you would have wished

upon yourself.

>>> but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't trust my judgment,

>>> either.

>>Have I known you long enough to do so?

> Well, probably not. But it sort of seemed you did, before.

I do, to a degree. I just can't judge how far that extends (not yet, at any

rate) ... nor how far that SHOULD be extending at this point.

>>No, I suspect that it is no more "who he is" than it is who I am.

> Again, I'm with you. But how to get *him* to accept that, especially now

> that he's been through that whole "Parenting the Third World

Interrogator's

> Way" session with his mom?

Unfortunately, I have no answer to give you, which is why I said I didn't

see it likely. I will promise to consider it, however.

> Actually, I'm pretty sure his mom (the only person who really could've

been

> "pushing" him) tried to talk him out of it, but *he* kept pushing until

she

> agreed to train him. Then he insisted on going with her after his

> grandfather.

I see. Well, in that case, either they've told him that once in, he can't

get out (doubtful), or he feels compelled to stay to "not let everyone

down". Hmm, there may be more alternatives, but those are the only ones I

can identify at the moment.

> Up to that point, at least, he was completely right when he told me never

> to blame anyone but him for what had been happening to him.

I see.

> >You seem all too willing to consider him all-but-cured *right now*.

>

> That's just because I want my kids to have at least *one* sane parent. If

> I kept thinking about all the things that might go wrong, when I can't do

> anything more about them than I can about my allegedly-predestined

> marriage, I'd go nuts.

If you want your kids to have at least one sane parent, why are you pursuing

someone who (apparently) may or may not be that? Predestination

notwithstanding.

And did you not state elsewhere in this message that you love him as a

family member? Isn't that a bit ... weird?

> Trust me, I spend enough time thinking about the bad possibilities. Heh,

I

> think I even managed to shock *him* when he asked Ivan to point him toward

> "something to shoot" and I said "Not us." Good. Maybe he'll finally

start

> to get the idea that he's not the only one who suffers when he suffers,

> y'know?

Yes, I understand. It would, indeed, be a good idea for him to understand

that other people have feelings. Such as the families of his targets, etc.

> >Is it? Personally, I find the fact that this even needs to be a concern

in

> >our lives to be the insane part.

>

> Welcome to the madhouse, Professor.

Hmm, indeed.

> >While I don't believe that the Euthanatos do not serve a purpose, I

strongly

> >believe that it is hardly the place for a boy.

>

> I'm with you. And I think *he* is, too, or was. Right after he came back

> from fighting Ryan Sr., he said he'd never have joined the Euthanatos if

> he'd known what was really involved. Of course, he didn't quit then,

> either. Blame the aforementioned "stubborn prick" factor.

Hrm, what might we do to overcome his stubbornness? A challenge to him,

perhaps?

It worries me that he is in the Euthanatos. It terrifies me that he is in

it and doesn't want to be. Both for him and for everyone else around him.

> Of course, now

> that he's been brain -- excuse me, has had a long talk with his mom on the

> subject, I doubt he'll ever consider quitting.

True. He may be as convinced as you seemed to be that, now that he has been

labeled "clean", he can't get that way again.

> >Worse, how is he to decide what is and isn't a ploy by the Nephandi to

lead

> >him into corruption?

>

> Beats me. I'm willing to take suggestions, and I'm sure he is too.

Unfortunately, I don't have many to give, aside from changing affiliation.

The only way to judge nephandic tactics is on a case-by-case basis ... and

if you are in a situation where *every* case disturbs you (such as I imagine

Tyler is, after you mentioned that he knows he never would have joined),

then there is no way you can hope to be able to tell. To put it in your

terms, there is too much noise to be able to recognize the signal.

> And I said "targets," not "victims." "Victims" already implies innocence.

Ah, sorry.

> Oooh, the cultured professor and the macho man rolled into one.

>

> Come on, Kerry, I *know* you're not stupid. Stop giving stupid

> impressions. This is not something you want to invite.

It is not something that I want to invite. It is also not something I will

flee. My point was simply that, all of his attempts at presenting an

intimidating appearance are completely lost on me. I know more about Tyler

than Tyler does about himself. The only thing about him that actively

scares me is the (more likely than usual) possibility of his betrayal or

misjudgement.

> Whoa, whoa, WHOA. All right, I know I got mad first, and I'd probably

made

> you mad by the time you wrote that, but chill! For one thing, I wasn't

> even trying to deride you. To me, "more protective" = "more obnoxious."

I

> was saying he's worse about that than you'll ever be . . . or at least, I

> certainly hope so. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Ah, I see. My apologies. I had not made the connection. See, we Etherites

are all about Passion -- Passion for Science, most obviously, but it also

applies to other areas of our lives. To accuse us of not caring or not

feeling strongly enough about something we should feel strongly about ...

this is basically equivalent to accusing us of being incompetent and a fraud

all at the same time.

> You're right, I know very

> little about your emotions, because between your writing style and your

> musical brainwave modification, they've been damped down every time I've

> come across them.

Musical...? Ah, I see ... my player. No, it isn't the music that has been

supressing my emotions, it's the low frequency sound waves that I encode on

top of the music. This is why I use an the Rio instead of a CD player ... I

can edit the music directly on my computer.

Very low frequency sound waves cause the brain's own electrical waves to

synchronize to that rate. This tends to produce altered states of

consciousness (in many respects simiar to a trance state, only more

conscious) and -- depending on the particular frequencies and harmonics

involved -- allow one to manipulate one's own psychology. It also tends to

prevent casual telepathic eavesdropping ... by virtue of making the

eavesdropee's brain "out of phase" with that of the eavesdropper's brain.

[OOC: Translation - It's Kerry's focus for Mind ]

> If it makes you feel better to think you're more protective than Tyler, be

> my guest. But if that extends to *me*, understand that it's not

> necessarily a good thing.

I think it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing in and of itself. The

proof is in the application.

> >And I'll note that Tyler's streak of protectiveness didn't help *Miss

> >Summers* one whit ... in spite of the fact that protecting her was

> >precisely what he was *supposed* to be doing.

>

> Who the hell cares whether he protected Caitlin or not?

I would suspect that Caitlin might have cared, once free of the influence

and manipulation of that cult.

> She *used* him,

> *lied* to him, and fed him to Mala and the rest of the damned cult . . .

> and on some level, he *knew* it. *I* would have killed her if I'd known

> what she was doing to him.

I hope you don't mean that seriously. This is exactly why I haven't yet

come to trust your judgement implicitly when you say that you will be

helping Tyler choose his targets. Are you unbiased in the matter of Caitlin

Summers ... or did you want revenge on her for dating Tyler? Was your

reaction a responsible one? I'm not accusing you, I'm merely wondering if

the thought has even crossed your mind. Because if it hasn't, it should.

And even the fact she used him, lied to him, etc ... that cult, aside for

the particular individuals that were born corrupt (whatever that means),

were victims of manipulation and bad circumstance as much as Tyler was.

Certainly, Caitlin's crimes were far less serious on my personal register

than the crime of betrayal (which, before you ask, is very near to the top).

I'm not even slightly convinced that they warranted her death. Now,

possibly if you know of some OTHER crimes of hers that jusitified you

desiring her death, that would be a different story. I have not seen the

"dossier" you have compiled on her; so I cannot say.

Perhaps she was corrupted by the cult ... but I don't feel that she couldn't

have changed. She wasn't irredeemably evil, as far as I know. So why did

she deserve to die?

> >Have you ever put the question to him?

>

> Oh good God no! Like I said, when I told you, that was the first time I'd

> ever really even put into words what I wanted to do.

>

> Actually, I probably hinted at it a time or two, but he thought I was

> joking. Probably I did, too.

That is not the question of which I speak. I meant, have you ever asked

Tyler whether he would kill you?

>>Please clarify that statement. I'm not certain what part of my reply you

>>are referring to.

> Do I have to? I was hoping to be your friend again after this letter.

Jasmine, I am willing to be your friend as long as you are willing to be

mine. The burden of being or not being friends lies entirely with you.

[OOC: probably an exaggeration, but it'd take a lot of determined

offensiveness (or somewhat less of poking at the wrong wounds) to get him to

dump a friend, once he's decided they are.]

> I meant, I don't think you're really "willing to allow him a chance," even

> if you *think* you are. But remember, I was mad when I wrote that the

> first time.

I see.

> Please, if you take it as anything, take it as one of those

> thankless friendly warnings you gave me earlier. I know, you've never

> really known any Tyler but the bad one. But you *do* know he has friends,

> and surely we're not all nuts.

Yes, this is definitely a point of evidence in your favor.

> Even if I can't be trusted to be rational

> on the subject of Mr. Elliot, what about Ivan, or Mel, or Corinna, or

> Brandon? You've been hurt by him least of all of us -- er, I assume,

> before you accuse me of misjudging your feelings again -- yet you really

> seem to have it in for him.

I'm the only one of this group that has come in *during* his problem. That

means that I've had no basis for comparison, but it also means that I'm not

quite as inclinced to, as you put it, believe that things are getting better

when they are only getting worse. I tend to think that these balance out in

some respects.

But you may be right. I will consider the notion. In fact, I am writing it

in on my note pad right now.

> >> I only wish I could say the same about you.

> >I see.

> No, no you don't, because even I don't know what I was thinking when I

> wrote that. I'm not sure it even deserves to be dignified with the term

> "thinking." I'm sorry. Please, just forget I said that.

Consider it forgotten.

> "Frolicking organism"? Wow, maybe you should be my drug guru instead of

Ivan.

Certainly, although the term "drug guru" is probably misapplied.

[OOC: I was actually going to mention puppies until realized that they are

probably too complex for Kerry to affect -- shrink -- directly. And I'm not

sure whether he WOULD do that.]

> Really, I don't have anything against debate *or* alternate perspectives.

> But -- and maybe I'm wrong -- for a bit there it was seeming as though my

> role was to put forth an honest belief, then have you go into Lecture Mode

> and tear it apart.

Well, reallly, how else are you going to see flaws in your plan? My

"Everything is Happy and Fun" mode didn't seem to be helping you much. If

perhaps I see flaws that are not actually there, I would think this balanced

by the fact that you might miss one or more if left to your own devices.

And given the scale of your ambitions, that could be disastarous (personally

or on a wider scale).

Perhaps I have not been putting enough emotion into listening to you ...

which I tend to do better in person regardless. As I said above, this

medium puts me in mind of a debate more than a conversation.

> Sure, friends can disagree . . . but it seemed like we

> were so completely different on so many key points of our worldviews that

I

> just thought maybe it would be better to cut our losses now. I *did* say

> it hurt me to say that, and it did.

I don't think we differ THAT much. Certainly, I think that there is less

distance between us than between me and Tyler or Ivan. Or, for that matter,

between you and Tyler or Ivan. Vincent is something of an unknown. So

close in many respects, so far in others.

> Obviously not irreparably.

Good news.

> But . . . even if we are friends (and I hope we are), don't go comparing

> that to my friendship with Tyler. You yourself said that you and I barely

> know each other, really.

True. I am at odds between feeling that I understand you, and not knowing

whether that should be normal at this point.

> I've known him *so* much longer, it's just not

> the same thing. Like I said before, I *love* him, not in the

> boyfriend/girlfriend sense (though that would be nice), but the way you'd

> love a member of your family. Like, I assume, the way *you* love your

> parents, or your sister. How thoroughly, and how many times, would one of

> them have to screw up before you completely stopped holding out hope that

> things might get better?

Touché, Jasmine, touché.

> If nothing else, take it as evidence of how different Tyler used to be,

and

> how close he and I were, that I *am* willing to stick around even when I'm

> literally *afraid* of him. (You know, I hadn't even thought of "murdered

> in my sleep" before. Thanks for another cheery thought, K-man. . . .)

Sorry.

> >I can only conclude

> >that it is something to do with me personally. Possibly I am incapable

of

> >any sort of normal relationship with members of your gender.

> Do you have other evidence that this is so? That's the second time you've

> said something that suggested you might. (Um, you don't have to tell me

if

> you don't want, of course.)

>

> If you *don't*, that's an awfully big leap to make from one observation,

> and I'm sure you know it.

Aha. Well. Call it a induction drawn from my lack of success in forming

such to date. Possibly it is a bit of a leap. I cannot be certain.

> >I had hoped

> >for a better outcome than this, but I think that the best I can do at

this

> >point is tender my apologies for inflicting my flawed friendship upon

you.

>

> Sigh. And *I* give up on friendships too easily?

"I'm more likely to be pleasantly surprised", et cetera.

> Apology is neither accepted, nor necessary.

>

> I'll be happy to have your "flawed" friendship for as long as you can

stand

> mine.

Likewise.

> I keep telling you it was a suggestion, not a decision.

Right, but in this message, which I only just got.

> Anyway, if you can stand to be around me, I'd love to continue with the

> study. It's going to help me as much as it helps you, remember.

> Especially since -- in this case especially, it seems -- I'm more

concerned

> with the actual results than you are.

Well, we can certainly continue.

> Feel free to consider this rather embarrassing episode as another dataset.

> I'm told that people reveal a lot about themselves when they become

> irrationally angry, and I can't deny I was just that.

All right. I suppose this is on the order of "smacking" that I might have

received, had you not warned me of that possibility. If only there were

more Jasmines around to warn me of when the other Jasmines might become

upset at me.

> >Still, I wish you luck -- and more importantly, happiness -- in your

> >pursuits, wherever they may take you.

>

> Even to the Secret Lair of a certain Mad Professor?

Even then. Although I have somewhat more direct control over your luck and

happiness than wishing for it, in that case.

K.

about

>"deserving" Tyler. ^_^

Thank you. ;)

>I see no reason they need be incompatible. Indeed, many people view sex as

>an attempt to unify two people as close as possible (for most people).

>Unifying their minds in addition (rather than instead of) would likely be

>the next step in the progression.

Well, I certainly have no objection to doing *both* (umm, not right NOW,

obviously).

But if I *had* to choose one, I'd think the mental unity would actually be

*more* intimate than the physical.

>Often, we think of the mind as something

>distinct from the body because the mind is not as readily identifiable.

>Think of the mind as an organ. The organ of consciousness (not to be

>confused with the brain). In your view of the world, the perceptual

>framework of space and time HIDES the fact that the Mind is simply another,

>biological part of the whole Body ... one that will die if surgically

>removed (especially if ignorantly removed with the mental equivalent of a

>chain saw).

Hmm. I think you're trying to slip past me an earlier point that has yet

to be settled.

But I'll let it pass for the moment.

>However, I suppose that if you feel the need to get rid of them, curiousity

>and the desireable benefit of helping you out will be dominant. Sure, I'll

>take them off of your hands.

I'll package 'em up alongside the Tyler ZIP, then.

Anything else you wanna see?

[OOC: Hmm, perhaps the reason why Jasmine is more enthusiastic about the

possibility of mental sex than physical sex is that she's much less uptight

about "nudity" in the mental realm. . . .]

>Actually, I think it has a lot to do with this medium. I tend to associate

>it with a debate more than do a conversation.

Hmm, well, maybe we should talk more in person.

I'm pretty sure your ice-cream debt has been cleared just by putting up

with my recent outburst, but I wouldn't mind keeping that "date," still, if

you'd like.

>The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed

>ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to

>function.

>

>-- F. Scott Fitzgerald

>

>

>The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a

>profound truth may well be another profound truth.

>

>-- Niels Bohr

And touche to YOU, Professor.

>[OOC: Such as the ability to discuss Santa Claus and simultaneously expound

>upon the possible benefits of combining mental and physical boinking.

>Without going fetal. ]

[OOC: *LOL*]

>Hmm, perhaps they have, but not being us, they lacked some quality of

>greatness that the combination of our talents does not.

I *do* like the way you think.

Neither of us will ever lack for ego-stroking as long as this partnership

continues.

>It seems I'm not the only one with a gift for disturbing imagery. However,

>it may just be that the *real* Santa has rapidly developing breasts and

>curves and other such interesting qualities ... to say nothing of an

>inordinately intriguing psychology.

Why Kerry, are you keeping a girl in your closet? Perhaps a voluptuous

North Pole vixen? 'Cause otherwise, I can't imagine who you might be

talking about. The geography you describe certainly doesn't match any

terrain *I'm* familiar with.

>I thank you

You're welcome.

>I don't know if the Adepts keep any case records of

>defectors, but researching that sort of thing might be useful for you ...

>familiarising yourself with the reasons they left, and if possible, the

>methods used to convert them may enable you to avoid falling into the same

>situation.

That does sound like a good idea.

>Ah. Well, if you will endeavor to remember that people being protective of

>you stems not from a desire to hold you back, but a desire to not see you

>get hurt unnecessarily, then I will endeavor to not expect any thanks for

>performing this function.

Agreed.

>

>> >How many other people our age do you know that make this their life's

>work?

>>

>> Well, none. Of course, should/shouldn't distinctions based on age have

to

>> be *really* persuasive to work on me. . . .

>

>Jasmine, we are not talking about being able to stay up as late as you

want,

>or being old enough to date, or being allowed to go to a dance, or kissing

>somebody, or even just being allowed to do something that your parents feel

>is too dangerous but you feel you can handle.

>

>We are talking about *killing* people. Cold blooded, premeditated murder.

>

>Furthermore, we are talking about expecting a young boy to possess the

>knowledge of the consequences of his actions and resistance to temptation

>that are necessary to perform this task responsibly. A young boy which,

>whatever his other merits may be, has already shown himself to lack

>consideration of the consequences of his actions (such as his steadfast

>refusal to notice that his pursuit of other girls is likely to cause severe

>emotional damage to his future wife, about whom he ostensibly cares) and I

>won't even go into the latter bit.

>

>In other words, we are talking about one of the most serious things it is

>possible for one person to do to another, and he has *already* demonstrated

>that he can't handle it. Yet we are still expecting him to continue on as

>if he were deliviring newspapers. There is *no* room for error in what the

>Euthanatos do -- the task is way too easy to screw up, and the results of

>that screw up are all too permanent. Why are we pretending that there is

>room for Tyler to mess up again?

Well, what else are we gonna do? His mom steam-cleaned his soul and sent

him back. She's the one who's supposed to be watching over his development

as a Euthanatos, and she apparently thinks he's OK to be out on his own

again. Of course, she apparently thought that before . . . but surely she

wouldn't make the *same* mistake again. She doesn't miss much.

>I know you have lost a measure of innocence recently, but I seriously DOUBT

>that a relationship with this sort of thing is what you would have wished

>upon yourself.

No. No, it's not.

(And I won't even growl at you for saying "thing." Well, maybe a *small*

growl.)

>I see. Well, in that case, either they've told him that once in, he can't

>get out (doubtful), or he feels compelled to stay to "not let everyone

>down".

I think it's that second one. He doesn't like quitting once he's said he's

going to do something.

Of course, he also told me that the reason he wound up practically

splitting into Good and Bad Tyler like that was that he'd been trying to

hard to live up to everyone's expectations -- his mom's, Ivan's, mine, and

apparently even his grandfather's -- and that he *wasn't* going to do that

anymore, and therefore I might not like him as much as I thought. So he

shouldn't be worried about letting other people down any more.

>If you want your kids to have at least one sane parent, why are you

pursuing

>someone who (apparently) may or may not be that? Predestination

>notwithstanding.

I meant that I wanted to be the one sane parent, at least. It was supposed

to be a joke, sort of. Gallows humor, I guess.

And once again, I'm not "pursuing" anyone right now. I'm NINE. And he's

dating someone I consider a friend.

Ultimately, though, yeah, I want to be the most important person in his

life, because he's the most important person in mine. Seems fair, right?

>And did you not state elsewhere in this message that you love him as a

family member? Isn't that a bit ... >weird?

It's weird to love someone as a family member? Do you love your family

members as pets?

Oh -- you mean, isn't it weird to have romantic designs (sort of) on

someone you love as a family member.

Well, if we were really related, yeah. But we're not . . . so why not?

When you were younger (or even now, I guess), did you ever imagine what it

would be like to be grown up and married? When I used to, it was always

Tyler I was married to. Who else? He was my best friend . . . pretty much

my *only* friend close to my age. That was long before he ever told me

he'd already seen us married in the future.

After awhile, I developed a crush on him. How could I not, in that

situation? Here was another kid -- older and a boy, no less -- who let me

hang around with him all the time, took me seriously, looked after and

defended me at school . . . even liked to sleep with me cuddled up next to

him. Not to mention that, quite frankly, he was seriously cute, especially

in those little soccer shorts.

Oops, sorry, more adoration there. Anyway, what I meant when I said I love

him like a family member, is that I don't really think it's a *choice* any

more. I may not always agree with him, or even like him very much, but I

can't *not* love him. I could decide I can't stand the way he is, call him

every name in the book, and tell him never to come near me again . . . but

if after that I found out somehow that he needed my help, I'd be there.

And if he were hurt or . . . worse, I'd track whoever did it to the ends of

the earth, and make them VERY sorry.

>Hrm, what might we do to overcome his stubbornness? A challenge to him,

>perhaps?

You have another clever idea? What kind of challenge?

>True. He may be as convinced as you seemed to be that, now that he has

been

>labeled "clean", he can't get that way again.

He does seem to be a lot more comfortable with himself now. Of course, I

had been thinking that was a good thing.

>It is not something that I want to invite. It is also not something I will

>flee. My point was simply that, all of his attempts at presenting an

>intimidating appearance are completely lost on me. I know more about Tyler

>than Tyler does about himself. The only thing about him that actively

>scares me is the (more likely than usual) possibility of his betrayal or

>misjudgement.

What about the possibility that he will, in the vernacular, "mess you up"?

Kerry, if he found out about your study, and reacted the way I *imagine* he

would (meaning, if I weren't there to talk him out of it, or if I did not

succeed in doing so), he would not be looking for a fair fight. He would

be looking to dispense punishment. I don't *think* he would kill you . . .

but I don't think he'd care much whether you got a chance to fight back,

either. There was a kid here once named Damien Mefford. He hadn't done

much of anything except choose the wrong friends, but the boys wanted to

send a message to the guy who pulled his strings, and Tyler needed to work

off some stress that day. Tyler beat Damien up at soccer practice, in

front of adults. He was stopped before he could finish. Damien could

barely *move* for a long time afterward. Am I making an impression, Kerry?

You don't have to react with *fear*, but you should certainly react with

*caution*.

>To accuse us of not caring or not

>feeling strongly enough about something we should feel strongly about ...

>this is basically equivalent to accusing us of being incompetent and a

fraud

>all at the same time.

Ah. Apologies again.

>Very low frequency sound waves cause the brain's own electrical waves to

>synchronize to that rate. This tends to produce altered states of

>consciousness (in many respects simiar to a trance state, only more

>conscious) and -- depending on the particular frequencies and harmonics

>involved -- allow one to manipulate one's own psychology.

Hmm. I might have to try that out sometime. Would you mind?

>Are you unbiased in the matter of Caitlin

>Summers ... or did you want revenge on her for dating Tyler?

It's not like that, Kerry. Honestly. I hated her before, sure, just for

dating him, but I wouldn't have *done* anything. I *didn't* do anything,

for the month and a half they dated until he took up with Mel (well, except

encourage the taking-up-with-Mel thing a bit).

But . . . she was a willing participant in a string of events that led to

Tyler's trying to kill all of us and his mother's nearly having to kill

him. That doesn't exactly put me in a forgiving mood.

>Certainly, Caitlin's crimes were far less serious on my personal register

>than the crime of betrayal (which, before you ask, is very near to the

top).

>I'm not even slightly convinced that they warranted her death.

Playing all lost and vulnerable so that a guy "rescues" you, drawing him

into a romantic relationship, then slowly handing him over to your evil

cultist friends ISN'T betrayal? Isn't that pretty similar to your

worst-case scenario for what Tyler might do to *me* in the future? I'd

certainly call it betrayal, in that case.

>Now,

>possibly if you know of some OTHER crimes of hers that jusitified you

>desiring her death, that would be a different story. I have not seen the

>"dossier" you have compiled on her; so I cannot say.

You know everything I know about her. The only crime of hers I'm concerned

with is helping to hurt someone I love very much.

>Perhaps she was corrupted by the cult ... but I don't feel that she

couldn't

>have changed. She wasn't irredeemably evil, as far as I know. So why did

>she deserve to die?

All right, maybe she didn't. You're right; if I were really researching

her as a target Tyler hadn't already killed, I imagine I would look at her

background and the surrounding circumstances, and try to suggest something

short of actual execution.

If I'd been left alone with her, knowing what she'd done but with no

immediate threat to Tyler, I probably wouldn't really have killed her.

I've never killed anyone before and I don't look forward to it -- though,

as you said, if I wind up having to do it in defense of my friends or

family, that's another thing. I'm pretty sure I would have done some

nasty, ugly things to her, though. I doubt anybody would have looked at

cute little Jasmine quite the same way afterward . . . including cute

little Jasmine, now that I think of it.

>That is not the question of which I speak. I meant, have you ever asked

>Tyler whether he would kill you?

Well . . . no.

He once said that he would, though. You know, if I turned evil or

something. I figured if it came down to that, I'd want him to.

>Touché, Jasmine, touché.

Ah, good. That did have the desired effect. You begin to see now, perhaps?

>Aha. Well. Call it a induction drawn from my lack of success in forming

>such to date. Possibly it is a bit of a leap. I cannot be certain.

Well, what other examples do you have? If you've been isolated from most

social contact for years, I can't imagine that you've TRIED very many

times. Did you get along poorly with your mother? Your sister? Friends

at school when you were younger? Lady Etherites you've met? From what

pool of experience, besides a single altercation with me, are you drawing

this conclusion?

>> I keep telling you it was a suggestion, not a decision.

>

>Right, but in this message, which I only just got.

But it *was* just a suggestion, in the orig -- oh, never mind. It doesn't

matter.

>All right. I suppose this is on the order of "smacking" that I might have

>received, had you not warned me of that possibility. If only there were

>more Jasmines around to warn me of when the other Jasmines might become

>upset at me.

Heh.

Wait, you're a bioengineer.

Make that "No. Uh-uh. Don't even think it."

>> Even to the Secret Lair of a certain Mad Professor?

>

>Even then. Although I have somewhat more direct control over your luck and

>happiness than wishing for it, in that case.

I dunno. Experience indicates that the Secret Lair inspires more

Nervousness and Self-Consciousness than either Happiness or Luck. In all

parties involved. . . .

I'm glad we're friends again, Professor. Let me know when you've recruited

Corinna, and we'll go get that ice cream, and I'll try to help you at least

*classify* the things she did just to shock you. ;)

J.

>obviously).

Well, obviously. Though it might please you to know that, as far as I'm

aware, there is no legislation that covers your age in that arena.

>But if I *had* to choose one, I'd think the mental unity would actually be

>*more* intimate than the physical.

Possibly. Depends on if you associate intimicy more with your physical or

your mental "space". Likely to vary with the individual, I guess.

>Hmm. I think you're trying to slip past me an earlier point that has yet

>to be settled.

Not really. I was thinking out loud, so to speak.

>However, I suppose that if you feel the need to get rid of them, curiousity

>and the desireable benefit of helping you out will be dominant. Sure, I'll

>take them off of your hands.

>I'll package 'em up alongside the Tyler ZIP, then.

>Anything else you wanna see?

Jasmine, I'd be quite intrigued to see *everything*. In spite of the fact

that I have other pursuits and motivations BESIDES curiosity, my curiosity

is still pretty all-pervading. Not on the scale of yours, perhaps, and

tempered a bit more, but it's pretty high up there.

However, that seems far too big a step at this point. Indeed, it may be

very near to the mental intercourse that we were just discussing, although

somewhat distinct in that it is not interactive or conscious. If you see

anything in there that looks interesting to me, feel free to toss it in. I

can't think of any event in particular that stands out, but I'll let you

know if I do.

>[OOC: Hmm, perhaps the reason why Jasmine is more enthusiastic about the

>possibility of mental sex than physical sex is that she's much less uptight

>about "nudity" in the mental realm. . . .]

[OOC: Possibly. Of course she's never really been "naked" in the mental

sense as far as I know. She might like it LESS once she tries that ...

after all, naked = vulnerable to many people, and Jasmine is more worried

about her mind than her body as far as I can tell.

> Hmm, well, maybe we should talk more in person.

Indeed.

> I'm pretty sure your ice-cream debt has been cleared just by putting up

> with my recent outburst, but I wouldn't mind keeping that "date," still,

if

> you'd like.

No, putting up with that outburst is simply part of friendship. I think.

Thus, I still owe you some Ice Cream. Even if I didn't, I'd still buy you

some.

>I *do* like the way you think.

>Neither of us will ever lack for ego-stroking as long as this partnership

>continues.

Oh dear. Ego stroking, indeed. I am most amused. Excellent double

entendre, Jasmine.

>Why Kerry, are you keeping a girl in your closet? Perhaps a voluptuous

>North Pole vixen? 'Cause otherwise, I can't imagine who you might be

>talking about. The geography you describe certainly doesn't match any

>terrain *I'm* familiar with.

I was thinking of the near future, should the Female Enhancement Project

prove helpful.

[OOC: BTW, the FEP term comes from Evangelion's "Human Enhancement Project"]

>Well, what else are we gonna do? His mom steam-cleaned his soul and sent

>him back. She's the one who's supposed to be watching over his development

>as a Euthanatos, and she apparently thinks he's OK to be out on his own

>again. Of course, she apparently thought that before . . . but surely she

>wouldn't make the *same* mistake again. She doesn't miss much.

You know her far better than I ...

>No. No, it's not.

>(And I won't even growl at you for saying "thing." Well, maybe a *small*

>growl.)

Heh. I can envision you doing this and the image is a cute one, but it is

not necessary. By the phrase "this sort of thing" I was not referring to

Tyler specifically, but the situation itself.

>I think it's that second one. He doesn't like quitting once he's said he's

>going to do something.

Well, in that case, we should probably point out that him STAYING in the

Euthanatos would be far more likely to cause him to fail to live up to our

expectations (by the likely outcome) than him LEAVING would. I don't think

quitting is anywhere near as bad as "losing one's soul to the forces of

corruption", or whatever.

>Of course, he also told me that the reason he wound up practically

splitting into Good and Bad Tyler like that was that he'd been trying to

hard to live up to everyone's expectations -- his mom's, Ivan's, mine, and

apparently even his grandfather's -- and that he *wasn't* going to do that

anymore, and therefore I might not like him as much as I thought. So he

shouldn't be worried about letting other people down any more.

Hrm. I'm not sure that I like that ... it sounds like going from one

extreme to the other, but I will refrain from lecturing further.

>And once again, I'm not "pursuing" anyone right now. I'm NINE. And he's

>dating someone I consider a friend.

I meant in a long-term connotation.

>Ultimately, though, yeah, I want to be the most important person in his

>life, because he's the most important person in mine. Seems fair, right?

Yes. It makes a lot of sense to me.

>>And did you not state elsewhere in this message that you love him as a

>> family member? Isn't that a bit ... weird?

>Oh -- you mean, isn't it weird to have romantic designs (sort of) on

>someone you love as a family member.

Yes.

> Well, if we were really related, yeah. But we're not . . . so why not?

Ah, I see. Yes, I had forgotten that you are not really related ... though

I knew you grew up together.

>When you were younger (or even now, I guess), did you ever imagine what it

>would be like to be grown up and married? When I used to, it was always

>Tyler I was married to. Who else? He was my best friend . . . pretty much

>my *only* friend close to my age. That was long before he ever told me

>he'd already seen us married in the future.

>After awhile, I developed a crush on him. How could I not, in that

>situation? Here was another kid -- older and a boy, no less -- who let me

>hang around with him all the time, took me seriously, looked after and

>defended me at school . . . even liked to sleep with me cuddled up next to

>him. Not to mention that, quite frankly, he was seriously cute, especially

>in those little soccer shorts.

>Oops, sorry, more adoration there. Anyway, what I meant when I said I love

>him like a family member, is that I don't really think it's a *choice* any

>more. I may not always agree with him, or even like him very much, but I

>can't *not* love him. I could decide I can't stand the way he is, call him

>every name in the book, and tell him never to come near me again . . . but

>if after that I found out somehow that he needed my help, I'd be there.

>And if he were hurt or . . . worse, I'd track whoever did it to the ends of

>the earth, and make them VERY sorry.

I understand all of this perfectly.

> You have another clever idea? What kind of challenge?

Not at this point. Thinking out loud again.

>True. He may be as convinced as you seemed to be that, now that he has

been

>labeled "clean", he can't get that way again.

>He does seem to be a lot more comfortable with himself now. Of course, I

>had been thinking that was a good thing.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I don't know.

>It is not something that I want to invite. It is also not something I will

>flee. My point was simply that, all of his attempts at presenting an

>intimidating appearance are completely lost on me. I know more about Tyler

>than Tyler does about himself. The only thing about him that actively

>scares me is the (more likely than usual) possibility of his betrayal or

>misjudgement.

> What about the possibility that he will, in the vernacular, "mess you up"?

I'm not particularly concerned about that. I can repair any minor damage

that he can do to me short of actual fatality, to say nothing of several

forms of major damage. Can he say the same?

>Kerry, if he found out about your study, and reacted the way I *imagine* he

>would (meaning, if I weren't there to talk him out of it, or if I did not

>succeed in doing so), he would not be looking for a fair fight.

No, I wouldn't be expecting him to.

>He would

>be looking to dispense punishment. I don't *think* he would kill you . . .

>but I don't think he'd care much whether you got a chance to fight back,

>either.

Again, I wouldn't expect him to.

>There was a kid here once named Damien Mefford. He hadn't done

>much of anything except choose the wrong friends, but the boys wanted to

>send a message to the guy who pulled his strings, and Tyler needed to work

>off some stress that day. Tyler beat Damien up at soccer practice, in

>front of adults. He was stopped before he could finish. Damien could

>barely *move* for a long time afterward. Am I making an impression, Kerry?

Not the one that you intended, if you intended to reassure me as to Tyler's

good judgement.

>You don't have to react with *fear*, but you should certainly react with

>*caution*.

I am cautious by nature Jasmine. Remember my pessimism? [OOC: snicker]

> >Very low frequency sound waves ...

> Hmm. I might have to try that out sometime. Would you mind?

Not at all. It's really very simple to accomplish. Although the music

should be something conducive to those altered states of consciousness ... I

doubt some of the alleged music people listen to these days would be

effacious

>But . . . she was a willing participant in a string of events that led to

>Tyler's trying to kill all of us and his mother's nearly having to kill

>him. That doesn't exactly put me in a forgiving mood.

Understandable.

>Playing all lost and vulnerable so that a guy "rescues" you, drawing him

>into a romantic relationship, then slowly handing him over to your evil

>cultist friends ISN'T betrayal? Isn't that pretty similar to your

>worst-case scenario for what Tyler might do to *me* in the future? I'd

>certainly call it betrayal, in that case.

You raise a disturbing point, but I could also see it as Caitlin seeming

lost and vulnerable while doing these things under the manipulation of

others ... and actually BEING lost and vulnerable, inside.

>All right, maybe she didn't. You're right; if I were really researching

>her as a target Tyler hadn't already killed, I imagine I would look at her

>background and the surrounding circumstances, and try to suggest something

>short of actual execution.

Your judgement has been increased in my eyes, Jasmine, and my trust in it

undoubtedly follows.

>That is not the question of which I speak. I meant, have you ever asked

>Tyler whether he would kill you?

Well . . . no.

>He once said that he would, though. You know, if I turned evil or

>something. I figured if it came down to that, I'd want him to.

Sure. But what if he were told to (or asked to). Say, by another

Euthanatos he respected.

> Ah, good. That did have the desired effect. You begin to see now,

perhaps?

Yes.

>Well, what other examples do you have? If you've been isolated from most

>social contact for years, I can't imagine that you've TRIED very many

>times. From what pool of experience, besides a single altercation with me,

are you drawing this conclusion?

Not really, no. Call it a hunch. Possibly unfounded, but not currently

exhibiting much likelihood of being unfounded. However, with your help, I

may come to understand females better, and thereby increase my chances.

> Did you get along poorly with your mother?

No. My relationship with both of my parents is functional. Obviously

somewhat distant; we live on opposite sides of the country and I move around

periodically, but it suffices.

> Your sister?

Certainly not. Ten and I are twins. I get along better with her than I do

anybody else on the planet. It is my sincere hope that nothing can cause

problems with that relationship.

Although we have been apart since we were your age. There is a slight

possibility that one or both of us has changed too much ... but as we are

linked in a manner that I can't even begin to explain, I would tend to think

not.

> Friends at school when you were younger?

Few and far between. None of particular import, and none that were female.

"Classmates" might be closer to accurate.

> Lady Etherites you've met?

Mostly adults in their 30's and 40's.

>>If only there were

>>more Jasmines around to warn me of when the other Jasmines might become

>>upset at me.

> Heh.

> Wait, you're a bioengineer.

> Make that "No. Uh-uh. Don't even think it."

I am a being of infinite innocence.

>I dunno. Experience indicates that the Secret Lair inspires more

>Nervousness and Self-Consciousness than either Happiness or Luck. In all

>parties involved. . . .

Probably temporary though. A problem arising from imperfect trust and

unfamiliarity. Certainly my GOAL is not to inspire Nervousness and

Self-Consciousness.

>I'm glad we're friends again, Professor. Let me know when you've recruited

>Corinna, and we'll go get that ice cream, and I'll try to help you at least

>*classify* the things she did just to shock you. ;)

OK. I will endeavor to do so with all expediency.

K.

>>Neither of us will ever lack for ego-stroking as long as this partnership

>>continues.

>

>Oh dear. Ego stroking, indeed. I am most amused. Excellent double

>entendre, Jasmine.

Huh?

>>Why Kerry, are you keeping a girl in your closet? Perhaps a voluptuous

>>North Pole vixen? 'Cause otherwise, I can't imagine who you might be

>>talking about. The geography you describe certainly doesn't match any

>>terrain *I'm* familiar with.

>

>I was thinking of the near future, should the Female Enhancement Project

>prove helpful.

Ah, yes. That.

Not to sound unenthusiastic about the FEP; I am, er, pre-emptively

flattered.

But it would be a lot funnier if you had a girl in your closet. :)

>>Well, what else are we gonna do? His mom steam-cleaned his soul and sent

>>him back. She's the one who's supposed to be watching over his

development

>>as a Euthanatos, and she apparently thinks he's OK to be out on his own

>>again. Of course, she apparently thought that before . . . but surely she

>>wouldn't make the *same* mistake again. She doesn't miss much.

>

>You know her far better than I ...

While true, this is approximately equivalent to saying that you, being

older, are far closer to living forever than I am. Meaning, not many

people know her very well. But maybe I'll see if she'll talk to me about

her reasons for certain things.

[OOC: That would of course require getting Jenna actively involved again.

Thus it may not actually occur. Indeed, many of our proposed "projects"

are likely to be most amusing only when there is an actual game going on.

With Werewolf now replaced, I suddenly fear the Dread Hiatus may be longer

than previously thought.]

>>I think it's that second one. He doesn't like quitting once he's said

he's

>>going to do something.

>

>Well, in that case, we should probably point out that him STAYING in the

>Euthanatos would be far more likely to cause him to fail to live up to our

>expectations (by the likely outcome) than him LEAVING would. I don't think

>quitting is anywhere near as bad as "losing one's soul to the forces of

>corruption", or whatever.

True. I suppose I'm automatically elected to that Highly Desirable Post,

being his best friend and all.

>>Of course, he also told me that the reason he wound up practically

>splitting into Good and Bad Tyler like that was that he'd been trying to

>hard to live up to everyone's expectations -- his mom's, Ivan's, mine, and

>apparently even his grandfather's -- and that he *wasn't* going to do that

>anymore, and therefore I might not like him as much as I thought. So he

>shouldn't be worried about letting other people down any more.

>

>Hrm. I'm not sure that I like that ... it sounds like going from one

>extreme to the other, but I will refrain from lecturing further.

Oh, you can lecture HIM all you want. ;)

>I understand all of this perfectly.

Oh good. Sometimes I wonder if *he* does.

>> What about the possibility that he will, in the vernacular, "mess you

up"?

>

>I'm not particularly concerned about that. I can repair any minor damage

>that he can do to me short of actual fatality, to say nothing of several

>forms of major damage. Can he say the same?

Personally, I don't think so. If he were willing to go home and let Doc do

it? Oh yeah.

>Again, I wouldn't expect him to.

Yet you're not at all concerned about getting hurt? Even if you could fix

it, it would still *hurt*, and most likely he'd promise to keep doing it

again and again if you ever came anywhere near me.

>>There was a kid here once named Damien Mefford. He hadn't done

>>much of anything except choose the wrong friends, but the boys wanted to

>>send a message to the guy who pulled his strings, and Tyler needed to work

>>off some stress that day. Tyler beat Damien up at soccer practice, in

>>front of adults. He was stopped before he could finish. Damien could

>>barely *move* for a long time afterward. Am I making an impression,

Kerry?

>

>Not the one that you intended, if you intended to reassure me as to Tyler's

>good judgement.

D'OH! Hadn't even thought of that.

I was just trying to point out that, even though it was someone he didn't

have anything personally against, and even though he was forcibly stopped,

he did quite a number on ol' Damien. I'd rather not see you in that state,

especially since it would probably be partly my fault.

>You raise a disturbing point, but I could also see it as Caitlin seeming

>lost and vulnerable while doing these things under the manipulation of

>others ... and actually BEING lost and vulnerable, inside.

Hmm. That is troubling.

You know, when she was still alive and dating Tyler, I occasionally thought

about actually talking to Caitlin -- getting to know her, instead of always

just having her be That Woman(tm). In hindsight, I wonder if that would

have been fruitful . . . or incredibly unwise?

>>All right, maybe she didn't. You're right; if I were really researching

>>her as a target Tyler hadn't already killed, I imagine I would look at her

>>background and the surrounding circumstances, and try to suggest something

>>short of actual execution.

>

>Your judgement has been increased in my eyes, Jasmine, and my trust in it

>undoubtedly follows.

Why, thank you, sir.

>Sure. But what if he were told to (or asked to). Say, by another

>Euthanatos he respected.

He wouldn't do it without being personally convinced. I don't think.

Actually, if my name came up for the Good Death for some reason, and I

wasn't obviously, irredeemably evil to any thinking person, I'd imagine

that I would be assigned just about any assassin *but* him. The Euthanatos

presumably aren't stupid.

Of course, if he *were* convinced, he'd want to do it himself, the same way

Ryan meant to kill *him* if she'd had to.

You know, pondering these possibilities disturbs me a lot less than it

probably should. Maybe I'm just pretty sure that I'm not evil.

>Not really, no. Call it a hunch. Possibly unfounded, but not currently

>exhibiting much likelihood of being unfounded. However, with your help, I

>may come to understand females better, and thereby increase my chances.

Sounds like I'm not the only one who needs enhanced self-confidence in that

arena.

I will be happy to help if I can, naturally.

>Certainly not. Ten and I are twins. I get along better with her than I do

>anybody else on the planet. It is my sincere hope that nothing can cause

>problems with that relationship.

Uh, you know, I thought that about somebody once.

Not trying to scare you, there; just encouraging you not to let your hope

become an assumption.

>Although we have been apart since we were your age. There is a slight

>possibility that one or both of us has changed too much ... but as we are

>linked in a manner that I can't even begin to explain, I would tend to

think

>not.

Linked?

You sure you can't even begin to explain?

I'm intrigued.

I mean, if it's not just unspeakably private.

>I am a being of infinite innocence.

You'd better be. I've got my eye on you, Mister. . . .

>Probably temporary though. A problem arising from imperfect trust and

>unfamiliarity. Certainly my GOAL is not to inspire Nervousness and

>Self-Consciousness.

Well, I would hope not.

Later, Professor.

J.

> >entendre, Jasmine.

>

> Huh?

Ah, an unintentional double entendre. Erm... The ego is a part of the mind.

And thus ego *stroking* would be ...?

On the other hand, for it to work properly as a double entendre, you would

have to be implying that we would be engaging in no small amount of that

activity at some point in the future, in addition to the literal meaning of

your statement.

[OOC: And Kerry fails to specify whether he thought that Jasmine was hinting

at that.]

> Ah, yes. That.

> Not to sound unenthusiastic about the FEP; I am, er, pre-emptively

flattered.

> But it would be a lot funnier if you had a girl in your closet. :)

Hmm. But rather surprising ... although ... I *HAVE* been wondering where

all of my pencils run off to.

> [OOC: That would of course require getting Jenna actively involved again.

> Thus it may not actually occur. Indeed, many of our proposed "projects"

> are likely to be most amusing only when there is an actual game going on.

> With Werewolf now replaced, I suddenly fear the Dread Hiatus may be longer

> than previously thought.]

[OOC: We must be proactive! If Jenna won't run it, maybe we can run it

ourselves (the projects, like the summer job, I mean)? Didn't Jenna and

Pete used to run games for one another when there were no other players? I

don't know how well that would work, but it seems to be going well enough so

far. ]

> True. I suppose I'm automatically elected to that Highly Desirable Post,

> being his best friend and all.

I knew you were a bright girl, Jasmine.

> Personally, I don't think so. If he were willing to go home and let Doc

> do it? Oh yeah.

There is that. On the other hand, I suspect Tyler is rather too concerned

with macho appearances -- and too stubborn -- to be willing to do such a

thing.

> Yet you're not at all concerned about getting hurt? Even if you could fix

> it, it would still *hurt*

I can fix that as well. Or even prevent it. Altered states of

consciouness, et cetera.

> and most likely he'd promise to keep doing it

> again and again if you ever came anywhere near me.

In that situation, I would be forced to take preemptive measures. Honestly,

do you think I am without skills of my own? I've already said that I do not

fear Tyler, and I *am* cautious in dealing with him, as you seem to have

forgotten.

> >Not the one that you intended, if you intended to reassure me as to

Tyler's

> >good judgement.

>

> D'OH! Hadn't even thought of that.

Exactly.

> I was just trying to point out that, even though it was someone he didn't

> have anything personally against, and even though he was forcibly stopped,

> he did quite a number on ol' Damien. I'd rather not see you in that

state,

> especially since it would probably be partly my fault.

But Jasmine ... you aren't doing anything wrong! Not unless you buy into

the idea that you have something to be ashamed of. If Tyler reacted in such

a fashion, then the only one to blame would be Tyler. Or rather, his lack

of judgement for not being able to stop and SEE that there is nothing wrong

with it, and his lack of respect for you in denying you the thing that you

desire when you aren't being harmed.

> You know, when she was still alive and dating Tyler, I occasionally

> thought about actually talking to Caitlin -- getting to know her, instead

of

> always just having her be That Woman(tm). In hindsight, I wonder if that

would

> have been fruitful . . . or incredibly unwise?

I cannot say for certain, but I think that at the least it would have given

you the opportunity to learn about Tyler's problem somewhat sooner.

> >Sure. But what if he were told to (or asked to). Say, by another

> >Euthanatos he respected.

>

> He wouldn't do it without being personally convinced. I don't think.

The Nephandi are, I am told, awfully persuasive. Rather like the

Technocracy in that regard.

> Actually, if my name came up for the Good Death for some reason, and I

> wasn't obviously, irredeemably evil to any thinking person, I'd imagine

> that I would be assigned just about any assassin *but* him. The

Euthanatos

> presumably aren't stupid.

>

> Of course, if he *were* convinced, he'd want to do it himself, the same

> way Ryan meant to kill *him* if she'd had to.

I don't suspect that they are stupid. It may be a lot more complicated than

that, but I will refrain from speculating further.

Really, I hope we can soon move on to another topic. The more we discuss

Tyler, the less I find myself liking him. Therefore, the odds are good that

unless we stop talking about him, I never WILL come to see the side of him

that you do.

> You know, pondering these possibilities disturbs me a lot less than it

> probably should. Maybe I'm just pretty sure that I'm not evil.

I don't think you are evil, Jasmine. I also don't think it as as simple as

whether you are Evil or not.

> Sounds like I'm not the only one who needs enhanced self-confidence in

that

> arena.

>

> I will be happy to help if I can, naturally.

What are you proposing?

> Uh, you know, I thought that about somebody once.

> Not trying to scare you, there; just encouraging you not to let your hope

> become an assumption.

Unlikely. I worry about it constantly. It is one reason that I dislike

being apart from her. Although there are other reasons ... as I said, we

are linked . I would tend to think that this can mitigate many things that

would otherwise damage our relationship ... misunderstandings, etc.

> Linked?

> You sure you can't even begin to explain?

> I'm intrigued.

> I mean, if it's not just unspeakably private.

Hmm. Well, it *is* private, after a fashion, but then again, so are your

body and your memories. I'm not unwilling to explain it to you ... I'm just

not certain I convey the full impact of my bond with Ten. I've never tried.

I suppose I should start with what it is like to be a twin in the first

place, because otherwise you may not have a basis for comparison. Not all

twins have all of these qualities, mind you, but Ten and I do. Indeed,

two-gender identical twin pairs are supposedly impossible ... by definition.

I think we are either a new category somewhere between dizygotic (fraternal)

and monozygotic (identical) twins, or else we are the living disproof of

large chunks of Progenitor-espoused mainstream biology, such as XX/XY

chromosomes determining gender.

OK.

Imagine there is a person who is, mentally and physically, identical to you

in many respects. You have a similar voice (allowing for gender). You

possess similar habits. You tend to eat, sleep, and get hungry at the same

time. You use the same gestures. When shopping at the store you will, more

often than not, attempt to grab the same package from the shelf at the same

time. You complete each other's sentences, sometimes. Other times, you

know EXACTLY what the other person is going to say before they say it,

sometimes even before *they* know. As children, you were fluent in a

language spoken by exactly two people on the planet ... you and th other

person. When offered lollipops, you both wanted the same one (which can be

a problem if it's the only one of that flavor).

Yet this person is also (simultaneously) fascinatingly different from you.

Little things ... The mole that you have on your left shoulder is on the

other person's right shoulder. You have the same finger prints, only they

are mirrored. On the occasions when you can't tell what the other person is

going to say, sometimes what they say is quite stunning ... coming at you

from an angle you had never expected; blindsiding you, basically. (Not

necessarily in a bad way, either). Big things. You are opposite genders.

You write with opposite hands, although your handwriting is very close to

identical. Though you share skills to a certain degree, they are aligned

along different interests: I have a gift for all things scientific, and she

has a gift for ...

... well, it's better to let you find *that* out for yourself, when you meet

her at the upcoming Family Weekend. I shall be most curious to see how long

it will take you to identify her particular talent. Without cheating. ^_^

Now. Imagine that you are linked, from birth, to this person.

I can feel her in the back of my mind, right now. I know that my sister is

presently in excellent physical health, and apparently rather bored with

whatever is going on around her at the moment. Knowing the time difference

between the east and west coast, I'd guess that she is probably still in

classes. Which certainly explains her boredom.

If I wanted to, I could probably talk to her ... though I have never really

tested it, and it would almost certainly startle her. She is not, as far as

I know, aware of people such as you and I, so that raises certain issues:

Is this link something related to our gifts? I do not know, but I do know

it would have lead to questions, and for the longest time I couldn't decide

whether to tell her or not. Recent events have conspired to convince me

that NOT telling her very well could get her killed. Now that I have

decided to do so, I obviously want to do it in person. That will be one of

the things I must do at the Family Weekend.

At any rate, I have not tested this, but I believe that it is possible. I

know that I *have* sent her impressions ... sort of a mental nudging ... and

let her think it was her idea (stuff like reminding her of our father's

birthday coming up, etc.).

I could probably also listen in on her thoughts. Actually, I can hear them

right now, like a sort of mental background noise. I'm sure you've had the

experience of sitting at your computer, totally absorbed in a project -- and

somebody comes in, talks to you, and leaves, leaving you barely aware they

were there? It's sort of like that ... [OOC: Thanks for the analogy ^_^ ]

I don't often actively listen to her thoughts, mostly for concerns of

privacy and manners; it would be impolite. What I usually do instead is

sort of mentally dip my toe in the water and reassure myself that everything

is going well with her.

And sometimes ... sometimes we even share the same dreams ... and not

always from the same perspective.

As I implied with my summary above, I can also tell how she is feeling,

physically. In some ways, I can tell how healthy she is more readily than I

can tell how healthy I am, or how healthy you are. I always call her when

she is feeling sick (or lonely, for that matter). And there is one thing

that I *do* understand about females, Jasmine. One that even you have not

yet had the dubious pleasure of experiencing.

These perceptions only manifested when I awakened to my potential as a

scientist, and they basically amount to parlor tricks. The link itself goes

far beyond them, and I suspect that I have barely scratched the surface of

its possibilities.

It took me almost 11 years to consciously find it, but it has been there all

of our lives ... tying the two of us together.

[OOC: And no mention of the polarity reversal yet ]

This is why I proposed my project, Agent J. I believe that all twins (and

possibly other multiples, though there may be an upper limit of stability)

have some measure of this link. Reflecting on how psychically disturbing it

is for me to be apart from my sister, I shudder to think how these other

separated twins -- who often have only the merest hunch that they even ARE

twins -- must feel.

I offer my congratulations as well, Jasmine. You now have more hard

information about the link between my sister and I than Ten herself does.

Do try to keep it to yourself, however. I'm not at all certain that it

can't be used against us in some fashion.

K.