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?