>romance per se. Fascinating.

>

>Could you direct me at the appropriate legislation? I am curious as to

>whether it provides further insight into the proper means of obtaining

>Romance. For example, candlelight dinners are said to be romantic. Is

>there a certain amount of illumination which is above or below the legal

>limit? Is there a Recommended Dinner Angstrom? Or, perhaps a particular

>amount of nutritional intake is required at such dinners, to offset the

>caloric loss from the (presumed) later coital activity? Perhaps I had best

>ask Ivan and/or Corinna these questions.

OK, now you're just teasing. Nobody could be THAT much of a dork.

Umm, no offense. I mean, I only say that 'cause even I'M not that much of

a dork.

Of course romance isn't illegal. But anyone who would actually develop a

romantic interest in someone my age is generally sick enough to look

forward to "the (presumed) later coital activity," as you put it. And

THAT'S illegal.

>No, I've just had many opportunities to see you together and hear you refer

>to Mr. E in a manner that indicated you were attached in some fashion that

>wasn't immediately apparent from your mutual activities (or lack thereof).

Ahh. Well, we are close. Or at least we were, and I hope we will be

again. In fact, there's quite a lot of evidence that someday we'll be even

closer . . . as in married. But right now, much as I might like otherwise,

"paramour" isn't an accurate term. You HAVE noticed that he's dating Mel,

right? Not exactly paramour-like behavior, eh?

>I think that your Valentine's day study did not go over well because people

>tend to instantly mistrust attempts to codify such things. In other words,

>if you reduce a noble emotion such as love into a base equation, you are

>seen as diluting its purity.

But right now it doesn't seem very pure. It seems messy and confusing. Do

you know how many different romantic combinations and would-be combinations

we had just among the people at our lunch table, last semester of school

alone?

Purity is exactly what I want to get it -- purity divorced from fear or

shyness or ego or age or any of those other things that tend to get in the

way.

>If your intent was solely to acquire understanding, then that is a

different

>story, naturally.

Understanding, primarily, yeah. I wasn't planning on churning out love

potions (or mind-altering electronic transmitters, in my case, I guess).

The idea was to help people *find* love more easily and accurately, not to

create or control it. Of course, those capabilities might have been side

effects of the study.

>In any event, I could hardly have participated in your study, as I have a

>decided lack of such data to supply you with.

Oh, now I can't believe you don't have affection for *anybody*, Kerry. Or

did the Valentine's Day timing make you think I was only studying romantic

love? Actually, comparing, say, the readings between you and your sister

to, for example, the readings between Ivan and Corinna would likely provide

a contrast that might help me distinguish between different kinds or

components of love in human relationships.

>Conversing with you is always so interesting, Jasmine. You always use

>extremely fascinating (and colourful) metaphors. Horndog? Although the

>image of a horned canine (perhaps the "total" implies something more akin

to

>a porcupine?) is certainly amusing, I fear that I do not catch the

>allusion.

Sigh. Where did you grow up? Even *I* know this stuff.

You've heard the word "horny"? As in, sexually turned on, or desirous of

sex?

"Horndog" is one word for a horny person, especially a perpetually or

habitually horny one.

Tyler and Ivan are horndogs. Corinna is a girl horndog.

You, Simon, Vincent, and Mel are non-horndogs. At least, I assume so.

I don't think I fit the classification yet, being larval and all.

>My initial intent was to ask for the cooperation of those with whom I am

>most familiar: Yourself, Corinna, Melanie.

Jasmine's Predictions:

Corinna will give you a raised eyebrow and a smirk, and will say yes just

to see what you have in mind.

Mel will blush furiously and ask many pointed questions.

>I suppose I could include Kelli

>or the Rodochenko twins, but I fear that I would not get any useable data

>from either source, and I am not that familiar with them besides.

Hmm. Katya might actually be useful for an even earlier "larval" study.

Victor's not a girl, obviously, but might be useful for doing a boy-girl

comparison with Katya.

Of course, the twins aren't exactly an all-natural product. On the other

hand, each one was strongly based on the parent of the same sex, so you

could do an interesting comparison there, if Ryan and Doc would agree.

I can also provide you with accurate three-dimensional images (external

only, I'm afraid) of what the twins will look like fifteen years from now.

Myself too, actually. Would that help?

As for Kelli . . . well, the psychological study would be interesting,

mainly to determine if there's a psyche there to study. And if one of your

goals is to find out what causes different girls to attract guys

differently (another study I've worked on myself, come to think of it),

with Kelli you've got the mystery of just what she has that would cause a

guy to overlook . . . well, her entire personality, really.

>My methods, at least in this case, are merely a matter of encouraging the

>body to do what it would have done naturally, slightly in advance of

>schedule.

Sounds like the kind of thing I'm looking for, all right. Sign me up, Doc.

>> And your methods are likely to be less unusual than Vincent's, assuming I

>> could even get him to agree to interfere with "the natural order" or

>> whatever.

>

>"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with

>sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

>-- Gallileo

Amen, brother.

>I am certainly pleased that you take that commendable attitude towards such

>an inconvenient societal taboo; as it will make our study proceed that much

>smoother.

Uhh, Kerry? Are you saying what I think you're saying?

Remember that whole bit earlier about what's and what's not a felony?

We're getting borderline here, I think.

Still . . . this is for science. All professional. Like the doctor's

office.

It might be a good idea not to mention this study to anyone just yet,

though.

>However, I am certain that -- in the interests of politeness -- I could be

>convinced to arrange equal opportunity to satisfy your scientific

curiosity,

>if that is your desire. After all, life is all about learning, and

>curiosity is a thing to be encouraged.

[OOC: Oh God. No good can come of this.]

>I see no reason to make it resemble anything other than what such things

>look like now (i.e., the brain), at least for the time being.

Phrenological

>principles might actually constrain such a device into that shape anyway.

>Naturally, there would also need to be some sort of housing/support unit,

>for which I have no particular design in mind at the moment. Possibly a

>dome or sphere or some such shape.

>

>Oh yes, and of course the size would need to be increased several-fold for

>the initial prototypes. Neural anatomy is on such a fine scale that I

>cannot perform any direct manipulation of it with my current resources, and

>I do not think that indirect manipulation would be effective in this case.

>In the future the size could be brought back down to more manageable levels

>(and obviously this would be necessary for wide-scale acceptance).

[OOC: Heh. Giant brains!]

>I do receive a stipend from my grandfather's will, yes, supplemented by an

>allowance from home. As my actual needs are rather less than this total, I

>have mainly been saving the balance since I arrived here. I'd say I have

>probably accumulated $1600 or so.

Yeah. That should work. Tell you what. Lemme ask around, do some

checking, and I should be able to help you turn that into a whole lot more.

You don't have any aversion to gambling, do you?

>Impoliteness and crudity run rampant in our society, and I find it

>rather distasteful myself.

Wow, you must be hating junior high so far.

>> Ah. Again, I wasn't used to your style, and assumed formality =

distance.

>> You're still "the new guy," and I know The Boys can be hard to take at

>> first, what with "Mr. N" always trying to show you how Wicked he is and

>> "Mr. E" . . . well, the way he's been lately.

>

>Actually, the one I find it the hardest to relate to is this Russell

fellow.

>Fortunately, he hasn't been around of late, so it hasn't been an issue.

Y'know, I don't even think I've met him. What's he like?

>So you are saying that Mr. E has actually been different than he has been

>lately (aside from the obvious)? Hrm. Interesting.

Oh, yes, believe me. He wasn't always Darth Asshole. In hindsight, I'm

willing to admit to a *little* childish naivete, but I was never *that*

deluded. The *real* Tyler is sweet and brave and fun and . . . well, I'm

sure you don't want to hear any more of my sighs of juvenile adoration.

>As for discussing them in person, I am at your convenience. Although,

given

>the nature of my psychological and physiological study, that might perhaps

>be best performed at the Halfway House.

Agreed.

>Oh yes. I am thinking that we perhaps might wish to arrange some of what I

>believe are referred to as "fun group activities" for the upcoming Family

>Weekend. I'm sure that we cannot escape interacting with our respective

>parents entirely, nor would we wish to, but occasional pre-planned breaks

>from such might be called for.

Hmm. Well, my last real attempt at helping plan a "fun group activity"

ended up with me nearly getting carted off by a creepy old Marauder. Umm,

not that that was *part* of the plan or anything.

On the other hand, if I have to sit through another one of Ivan's parties .

. . well, people might come to regret that I know people who own guns, know

what I mean?

They're obviously fun for Ivan's intended audience, which admittedly is the

majority around here, but I really just don't think I'm part of that

audience. I don't drink, I don't like the idea of mind-altering drugs, I

don't dance, and I'm obviously not in a position to get into a Heavy

Makeout Session. So I usually wind up sitting against a wall, or if I'm

lucky (heh) running the sound system or some other Geek Task.

Which is a long-winded and probably annoying way of saying, yeah, let's

come up with something before Ivan does. Not sure what, though. Hannibal

has a mall, but everyplace has those. Sporting events aren't really my

bag. Gaaaaaah. I'll keep thinking, though, and you do the same.

All for now,

J.

That was merely one of my small attempts at humour. Not as successful as I

might have hoped, I fear.

> Of course romance isn't illegal. But anyone who would actually develop a

> romantic interest in someone my age is generally sick enough to look

> forward to "the (presumed) later coital activity," as you put it. And

> THAT'S illegal.

So I am given to understand. Although I'm not up on the particulars. It

doesn't seem to be swaying Mr. N or Mr. E or their various paramours one

whit, regardless.

Really, Jasmine, you speak as if the onset of your own puberty were not

right around the corner (and about to be accelerated). And as if you did

not possess an intellectual capacity far in excess of that of most adults;

certainly the equal of any of the other students at this school (including

myself and our other compatriots) for all of our higher age.

Having that intellect, you are likely to mature emotionally at a faster pace

simply by being exposed to an older peer group. I would even go so far as

to say that you have more maturity than many adults will ever possess, even

at this early stage.

As a biologist, I can tell you that such laws have very little to do with

when you are physically ready for such relationships. At best, they protect

you until you are able to RESIST unwanted attention. You will be physically

ready to actually participate in relatively short order, again, especially

with my help. The major benefit the law provides is to protect you --

mentally and emotionally -- from a relationship that you are not yet ready

for. And frankly, I consider you (especially you) a far more capable judge

of that than any dozen legislators you care to name.

Although it is inevitable that think of you as younger, I find that I cannot

think of you strictly as a child, at least in the sense of thinking you

"childish".

> Ahh. Well, we are close. Or at least we were, and I hope we will be

> again. In fact, there's quite a lot of evidence that someday we'll be

even

> closer . . . as in married. But right now, much as I might like

otherwise,

> "paramour" isn't an accurate term. You HAVE noticed that he's dating Mel,

> right? Not exactly paramour-like behavior, eh?

Well in the same span of time he has apparently been involved with Caitlin

and Mala, possibly others. I was unable to speculate whether this was

normal behavior I simply hadn't accustomed myself to.

> But right now it doesn't seem very pure. It seems messy and confusing.

Do

> you know how many different romantic combinations and would-be

combinations

> we had just among the people at our lunch table, last semester of school

> alone?

I'm sure I can't begin to guess.

> Purity is exactly what I want to get it -- purity divorced from fear or

> shyness or ego or age or any of those other things that tend to get in the

> way.

Alas, I fear that the only way to do that is through the good graces of

time.

> >In any event, I could hardly have participated in your study, as I have a

> >decided lack of such data to supply you with.

>

> Oh, now I can't believe you don't have affection for *anybody*, Kerry. Or

> did the Valentine's Day timing make you think I was only studying romantic

> love? Actually, comparing, say, the readings between you and your sister

> to, for example, the readings between Ivan and Corinna would likely

provide

> a contrast that might help me distinguish between different kinds or

> components of love in human relationships.

Aha. Well, I suspect that my overwhelming affection for Science would act

rather like interference in any data you might get from me. In fact, as I

recall, wasn't your experiment ridden by technical difficulties? Perhaps

others produced similar "interference"? In any event, could you not

similarly compare your own affection for (say) your father, and thereby get

nicely contrasting data with Ivan's relationship? Or (say) Tyler's

affection for his siblings?

> Sigh. Where did you grow up? Even *I* know this stuff.

>

> You've heard the word "horny"? As in, sexually turned on, or desirous of

sex?

Well, I have heard the term once or twice, I believe, but never with

sufficient clarity or with enough context for me to determine what it

referred to. As you know, my recent history has somewhat been devoid of

social activity, which is likely the reason I have been sent to this school.

Not having any association with that term and the subject at hand, I think

it should be obvious why I didn't recognize your variant.

> "Horndog" is one word for a horny person, especially a perpetually or

> habitually horny one.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

> Tyler and Ivan are horndogs. Corinna is a girl horndog.

> You, Simon, Vincent, and Mel are non-horndogs. At least, I assume so.

> I don't think I fit the classification yet, being larval and all.

Ah yes. Well, that is, after all, what you have asked me to change, in

essence.

> Jasmine's Predictions:

>

> Corinna will give you a raised eyebrow and a smirk, and will say yes just

> to see what you have in mind.

>

> Mel will blush furiously and ask many pointed questions.

Hmm. Interesting. Well, I suppose we shall see.

> Of course, the twins aren't exactly an all-natural product. On the other

> hand, each one was strongly based on the parent of the same sex, so you

> could do an interesting comparison there, if Ryan and Doc would agree.

I shall have to take that under consideration.

> I can also provide you with accurate three-dimensional images (external

> only, I'm afraid) of what the twins will look like fifteen years from now.

> Myself too, actually. Would that help?

Indeed it would. How did you come by such data?

> As for Kelli . . . well, the psychological study would be interesting,

> mainly to determine if there's a psyche there to study. And if one of

your

> goals is to find out what causes different girls to attract guys

> differently (another study I've worked on myself, come to think of it),

> with Kelli you've got the mystery of just what she has that would cause a

> guy to overlook . . . well, her entire personality, really.

If the initial study goes well, I will take this under advisement for the

second phase.

> >My methods, at least in this case, are merely a matter of encouraging the

> >body to do what it would have done naturally, slightly in advance of

> >schedule.

>

> Sounds like the kind of thing I'm looking for, all right. Sign me up,

Doc.

Certainly. We can begin the study at your convenience, and once I've gotten

the baseline data, we can begin the enhancement almost immediately. Being a

gradual process, I assume you will naturally want to begin as soon as

possible.

[OOC: Will we be playing out this study? I assume so; the outcome seems to

be rather too sensitive to the actual events to just gloss over it.]

> Uhh, Kerry? Are you saying what I think you're saying?

> Remember that whole bit earlier about what's and what's not a felony?

> We're getting borderline here, I think.

Jasmine. We have recently been involved in altercations (and in at least

one case, more intimate relations) with Nephandic individuals. We have all

been involved in at least two life-or-death situations involving

disease-ridden, possibly radioactive lupine mutations. You have alluded to

previous contact with our traditional foes. I gather there was also some

large degree of unpleasantness during the vacation prior to my arrival at

the start of the semester; possibly several such. Any one of these things

alone could potentially have dire consequences far in excess of anything any

"mere" felony could ever hope to hold over our heads.

However, be assured that I have only scientific curiosity in mind, and

nothing requiring the perpetration of illegal activity. Although you

appreciate, I trust, that all true pioneers walk the borderline, almost by

definition. In fact, we usually define it. As Shaw indicates, we must be

unreasonable in demanding the right to satisfy our curiosity, and thereby

persist in adapting the world to ourselves. This is the origin of all true

progress.

[OOC: "Relax. You are already implicated."]

> Still . . . this is for science. All professional. Like the doctor's

office.

Very much like that, in fact. Just think of me as your doctor. I imagine

that if we have a long and harmonious association (which is only to be hoped

for) that I would end up serving in that capacity to some degree regardless.

> It might be a good idea not to mention this study to anyone just yet,

though.

Certainly I have no problem with that. I don't tend to discuss my projects

with many people, regardless.

> >However, I am certain that -- in the interests of politeness -- I could

be

> >convinced to arrange equal opportunity to satisfy your scientific

curiosity,

> >if that is your desire. After all, life is all about learning, and

> >curiosity is a thing to be encouraged.

>

> [OOC: Oh God. No good can come of this.]

[OOC: Indeed.]

> Yeah. That should work. Tell you what. Lemme ask around, do some

> checking, and I should be able to help you turn that into a whole lot

more.

Excellent.

> You don't have any aversion to gambling, do you?

I have neither an aversion to it, nor a facility for it.

> >Impoliteness and crudity run rampant in our society, and I find it

> >rather distasteful myself.

>

> Wow, you must be hating junior high so far.

Basically, I find it a problem, but one with no immediate solution. The

only way to cause people to adopt a more respectful attitude is to lead by

example. I hold little hope for short-term success in this endeavor, but in

the long-term, anything is possible.

> >Actually, the one I find it the hardest to relate to is this Russell

fellow.

> >Fortunately, he hasn't been around of late, so it hasn't been an issue.

>

> Y'know, I don't even think I've met him. What's he like?

If I were to create a hybrid of Ivan and Tyler with the "agressiveness"

turned down and the "promiscuity" turned up, that might be close. Oh yes,

and the spider...

> Oh, yes, believe me. He wasn't always Darth Asshole. In hindsight, I'm

> willing to admit to a *little* childish naivete, but I was never *that*

> deluded. The *real* Tyler is sweet and brave and fun and . . . well, I'm

> sure you don't want to hear any more of my sighs of juvenile adoration.

Oh, feel free to adore all you like. It actually provides me with more data

to compare with. For example, how does the nature of Jasmine's adoration of

Tyler change over time? Obviously this study will rely on your subjective

impressions of the changes you are undergoing, as well as the outward

appearance of them.

> Hmm. Well, my last real attempt at helping plan a "fun group activity"

> ended up with me nearly getting carted off by a creepy old Marauder. Umm,

> not that that was *part* of the plan or anything.

You had me worried for a moment.

> On the other hand, if I have to sit through another one of Ivan's parties

> .. well, people might come to regret that I know people who own guns,

> know what I mean?

Yes, I empathize completely.

> They're obviously fun for Ivan's intended audience, which admittedly is

> the majority around here, but I really just don't think I'm part of that

> audience. I don't drink, I don't like the idea of mind-altering drugs, I

> don't dance, and I'm obviously not in a position to get into a Heavy

> Makeout Session. So I usually wind up sitting against a wall, or if I'm

> lucky (heh) running the sound system or some other Geek Task.

I see. Well, the next time we find ourselves forced to attend such, I

suppose we could entertain one another in some manner.

> Which is a long-winded and probably annoying way of saying, yeah, let's

> come up with something before Ivan does. Not sure what, though. Hannibal

> has a mall, but everyplace has those. Sporting events aren't really my

> bag. Gaaaaaah. I'll keep thinking, though, and you do the same.

I will do that. Your tastes don't seem different from my own, at least so

far.

K.

>might have hoped, I fear.

Oh, it was funny. Your deadpan is impeccable, even in print.

>So I am given to understand. Although I'm not up on the particulars. It

>doesn't seem to be swaying Mr. N or Mr. E or their various paramours one

>whit, regardless.

That is true. Though I think teen sex is more socially disapproved than

actually illegal. It's the adult/teen and post-pubescent/pre-pubescent

matches that generally cause an uproar.

>Really, Jasmine, you speak as if the onset of your own puberty were not

>right around the corner (and about to be accelerated).

That may be so (and I certainly hope it is), but it doesn't *feel* that way

from this end. Tyler (the older kid I've observed most) only started with

the whole dating business this year, at 13. That's four years away for me,

acceleration or not. Plus, as you mention later, I'm probably more similar

in personality to someone like you -- and you, already 14, claim to have

"no data in that area." From my perspective right now, four to five years

is half my *life*.

>Having that intellect, you are likely to mature emotionally at a faster

pace

>simply by being exposed to an older peer group. I would even go so far as

>to say that you have more maturity than many adults will ever possess, even

>at this early stage.

(Beam.) Thanks, really.

>As a biologist, I can tell you that such laws have very little to do with

>when you are physically ready for such relationships.

Well, yeah, obviously. I wasn't citing the law as gospel, just as an

indication of general attitudes and one piece of evidence for the claim

that it is *very unusual* to find kids my age with romantic attachments,

especially with older people.

>Although it is inevitable that think of you as younger, I find that I

cannot

>think of you strictly as a child, at least in the sense of thinking you

>"childish".

Wow, you're just racking up the Nice Guy Points today, Kerry. Thanks again.

I don't think of myself as a child either, and I hate it when other people

do. Honestly, if I could be 13, or 18, or 25 *tomorrow*, without making

anyone mad or having to completely change my life around, I would. But

right now, I'm nine -- *almost* ten, though -- and I was surprised when you

seemed to think it completely normal that I might be "attached." That's

all.

>Well in the same span of time he has apparently been involved with Caitlin

>and Mala, possibly others. I was unable to speculate whether this was

>normal behavior I simply hadn't accustomed myself to.

Well, that gets into the whole edge-of-corruption thing that I don't like

to think about.

But basically, here's the scoop as I know it:

Tyler has dated: Kelli, Caitlin, Mel, in that order, with only mild overlaps

Tyler has had sex with: Mel, Caitlin, Mala, most of the female cultists

(interspersed with the dating)

Tyler loves: Mel, me

Geez, maybe you should do a study of *him*. It'd have gunfights, booze,

and babes. You could probably get a TV-movie out of it. Well, now I'm

depressed. Ice cream. Need ice cream.

>> Purity is exactly what I want to get it -- purity divorced from fear or

>> shyness or ego or age or any of those other things that tend to get in

the

>> way.

>

>Alas, I fear that the only way to do that is through the good graces of

>time.

Sigh. Maybe so. But can't hurt to apply a little math too, eh?

>> I can also provide you with accurate three-dimensional images (external

>> only, I'm afraid) of what the twins will look like fifteen years from

now.

>> Myself too, actually. Would that help?

>

>Indeed it would. How did you come by such data?

Brief visit to the future last year. Freakiest two days of my life, and

that's saying a lot. There's a lot about that future we intend to change,

but I don't think anyone's basic physical appearance should change all that

much. Actually, I can do images of myself, Tyler, Ivan, Mel, Corinna, the

Rodochenko twins, the Cabrell twins . . . and my own (hypothetical)

daughter, actually, if you want another generational comparison. No you,

oddly enough.

>Certainly. We can begin the study at your convenience, and once I've

gotten

>the baseline data, we can begin the enhancement almost immediately. Being

a

>gradual process, I assume you will naturally want to begin as soon as

>possible.

Yup.

>[OOC: Will we be playing out this study? I assume so; the outcome seems to

>be rather too sensitive to the actual events to just gloss over it.]

[Indeed. Well, the whole thing will likely take *years* (and presumably

Kerry will want to update his initial data periodically, since he has the

perfect candidate for a longitudinal study of development at hand). So

goodly portions of it should intersect with games we actually play,

assuming (as I strongly hope) there are future iterations of the Huntington

Academy game.]

> Any one of these things

>alone could potentially have dire consequences far in excess of anything

any

>"mere" felony could ever hope to hold over our heads.

Right, right. But there are the times we *have* to bend the rules, because

of who we are, and then there are unnecessary risks. I know we've both

dealt with worse things. But just like I avoid computer-crime that doesn't

target the Bad Guys -- because I want to have a proper career someday, not

live as an outlaw under some stupid fake name -- I don't want you getting

arrested and having your Brilliant Future ruined because somebody comes

along and misinterprets what we're doing.

>[OOC: Relax. You are already implicated.]

[OOC: Heh.]

>> Still . . . this is for science. All professional. Like the doctor's

>office.

>

>Very much like that, in fact. Just think of me as your doctor. I imagine

>that if we have a long and harmonious association (which is only to be

hoped

>for) that I would end up serving in that capacity to some degree

regardless.

All right then. I'm all yours, Doc.

>> You don't have any aversion to gambling, do you?

>

>I have neither an aversion to it, nor a facility for it.

Well, you shouldn't need one. In fact, it won't really be gambling.

Remember that brief visit to the future I mentioned. Ivan took notes, see,

and shared them in return for my help with his plans.

>If I were to create a hybrid of Ivan and Tyler with the "agressiveness"

>turned down and the "promiscuity" turned up, that might be close. Oh yes,

>and the spider...

Gaaah. I don't wanna know any more.

>Oh, feel free to adore all you like. It actually provides me with more

data

>to compare with. For example, how does the nature of Jasmine's adoration

of

>Tyler change over time?

Hmm. I happen to have a sort of pre-packaged telepathic ZIP file of

"Jasmine on Tyler." You want it?

>Obviously this study will rely on your subjective

>impressions of the changes you are undergoing, as well as the outward

>appearance of them.

Hmm. Maybe I should start keeping a journal or something.

>I see. Well, the next time we find ourselves forced to attend such, I

>suppose we could entertain one another in some manner.

I'm willing to take suggestions, believe me.

Heck, all these projects of yours could provide us both with convenient

excuses for skipping parties.

>> Which is a long-winded and probably annoying way of saying, yeah, let's

>> come up with something before Ivan does. Not sure what, though.

Hannibal

>> has a mall, but everyplace has those. Sporting events aren't really my

>> bag. Gaaaaaah. I'll keep thinking, though, and you do the same.

>

>I will do that. Your tastes don't seem different from my own, at least so

>far.

Well, they *do* say great minds think alike. . . . ;)

J.

> actually illegal. It's the adult/teen and post-pubescent/pre-pubescent

> matches that generally cause an uproar.

Undoubtedly an accurate statement..

> >Really, Jasmine, you speak as if the onset of your own puberty were not

> >right around the corner (and about to be accelerated).

>

> That may be so (and I certainly hope it is), but it doesn't *feel* that

way

> from this end. Tyler (the older kid I've observed most) only started with

> the whole dating business this year, at 13. That's four years away for

> me, acceleration or not. Plus, as you mention later, I'm probably more

similar

> in personality to someone like you -- and you, already 14, claim to have

> "no data in that area." From my perspective right now, four to five years

> is half my *life*.

Ah. Well, I am given to understand that the process takes place somewhat

sooner for females than males, though the veracity of this claim is

something I plan to explore in my later studies. I also suspect that most

people don't actually begin changing their lifestyles (dating) until after

the process has been underway for some time. To give them time to adapt

mentally and emotionally, undoubtedly. Most people don't consciously

*choose* to undergo these changes ahead of time ... they just start

happening without warning, which is most often unsettling.

And of course, with the acceleration, I should hope that it would occur

rather sooner than it otherwise might. I imagine we can reduce your four or

five years to at least half that, hopefully significantly less. If the

early development of the female is indeed upheld, that moves the schedule up

even further. This is for the physical aspect, of course. I shall endeavor

to help you with the mental aspect to the extent I am able, if you wish, but

I'm not certain how effective I can actually be on that score. It is likely

dependent on your own adaptability. As you seem rather better prepared

going into it than most do coming out, I suspect you will adjust fairly

rapidly.

As for my lack of relevant data, lack of social activity (and also social

aptitude, no doubt) has naturally interfered, along with several other

contraindications (such as my frequent and unpredictable relocation).

> (Beam.) Thanks, really.

You are welcome. Though I am merely stating things as I see them.

> >As a biologist, I can tell you that such laws have very little to do with

> >when you are physically ready for such relationships.

>

> Well, yeah, obviously. I wasn't citing the law as gospel, just as an

> indication of general attitudes and one piece of evidence for the claim

> that it is *very unusual* to find kids my age with romantic attachments,

> especially with older people.

Ah, I see. Yes, you are probably correct, it probably is unusual. Probably

not unheard of, however.

> >Although it is inevitable that think of you as younger, I find that I

cannot

> >think of you strictly as a child, at least in the sense of thinking you

> >"childish".

>

> Wow, you're just racking up the Nice Guy Points today, Kerry. Thanks

again.

My pleasure.

> Geez, maybe you should do a study of *him*. It'd have gunfights, booze,

> and babes. You could probably get a TV-movie out of it. Well, now I'm

> depressed. Ice cream. Need ice cream.

My apologies. I have inadvertently brought up a subject with negative

associations. In hindsight, I should have recognized that likelihood ahead

of time.

I am going to resist the urge to speculate on your sudden need for ice

cream. However, I assure you that the things that you mention sarcastically

as if I would find them *more* interesting than your own situation, actually

mean that I would find them *less* so. I have little interest in "booze"

(aside from intellectual curiosity that has been mostly satisfied by the

first and only Ivan Party I attended). I have even less interest in the

sort of person usually referred to by "babes" (puts me in mind of Kelli

actually), and very close to none at all in gunfights. Unless they are of

the "ray" variety.

> >> Purity is exactly what I want to get it -- purity divorced from fear or

> >> shyness or ego or age or any of those other things that tend to get in

the

> >> way.

> >

> >Alas, I fear that the only way to do that is through the good graces of

> >time.

>

> Sigh. Maybe so. But can't hurt to apply a little math too, eh?

A little math couldn't hurt; you are correct. But sometimes I wonder if

trying to understand love might not be the wrong way to go about it.

Perhaps simply experiencing it -- in whatever form it takes in our lives --

is the only real way to truly understand it. And that takes time (to

clarify my original response).

> >Indeed it would. How did you come by such data?

>

> Brief visit to the future last year. Freakiest two days of my life, and

> that's saying a lot. There's a lot about that future we intend to change,

> but I don't think anyone's basic physical appearance should change all

that

> much. Actually, I can do images of myself, Tyler, Ivan, Mel, Corinna, the

> Rodochenko twins, the Cabrell twins . . . and my own (hypothetical)

> daughter, actually, if you want another generational comparison. No you,

> oddly enough.

Hmm. Interesting. As this episode was prior to my own entry into the

situation, it may well be that this has some bearing on my absence. But my

knowledge of Temporal Science is currently limited to intuition, at best.

This amounts to speculation on my part, nothing more. Perhaps I was simply

indisposed during the two days you mention, and you wouldn't have known to

look for me -- as you didn't actually know me yet in your personal history.

Perhaps something less innocuous lies in wait. I shall not concern myself

with it overmuch, either way, as I do not believe the future to be fixed.

[OOC: Perhaps the sudden appearance of large numbers of twins and quasi

twins in the world of darkness is a Portent of some flavor.... ^_^ ]

> [Indeed. Well, the whole thing will likely take *years* (and presumably

> Kerry will want to update his initial data periodically, since he has the

> perfect candidate for a longitudinal study of development at hand). So

> goodly portions of it should intersect with games we actually play,

> assuming (as I strongly hope) there are future iterations of the

Huntington

> Academy game.]

[OOC: Yes. But by the question, I specifically meant the initial study.

Which is, btw, the Evil Thing I was plotting earlier. Sigh. This would be

so much more effective as a subplot if there were an actual ongoing game

plot to sub. Ah well. Damn the Hiatus, full speed ahead!

I told Pete that I wouldn't be especially surprised if either Kerry or

Jasmine contacted him at some point (probably by letter). If for no other

reason than leading up to Family Weekend, which was something like a bit

over three weeks away from when I dated the email that Kerry sent out

originally -- the middle of March or so.]

> Right, right. But there are the times we *have* to bend the rules,

because

> of who we are, and then there are unnecessary risks. I know we've both

> dealt with worse things. But just like I avoid computer-crime that

doesn't

> target the Bad Guys -- because I want to have a proper career someday, not

> live as an outlaw under some stupid fake name -- I don't want you getting

> arrested and having your Brilliant Future ruined because somebody comes

> along and misinterprets what we're doing.

Ah, I see. Yes, I thank you for your concern. That would indeed be an

outcome best avoided, but I think by moving this off-campus, we will

eliminate the greatest risk of unwarranted attention, and also serve the

needs of solitude as well. The thing that concerns me is that a certain

nemesis of ours has full knowledge of our facility and (possibly) of the

security measures we have instituted. However, I suspect that she is

presently more concerned with staying low than with Causing Trouble.

> >> You don't have any aversion to gambling, do you?

> >

> >I have neither an aversion to it, nor a facility for it.

>

> Well, you shouldn't need one. In fact, it won't really be gambling.

> Remember that brief visit to the future I mentioned. Ivan took notes,

see,

> and shared them in return for my help with his plans.

I see. Well, I shall leave it in your hands.

> >Oh, feel free to adore all you like. It actually provides me with more

data

> >to compare with. For example, how does the nature of Jasmine's adoration

of

> >Tyler change over time?

>

> Hmm. I happen to have a sort of pre-packaged telepathic ZIP file of

> "Jasmine on Tyler." You want it?

Well, as you are the only one of us with knowledge of the contents, I must

rely on your judgement as to whether it will be useful for my studies or

not. I assume you have already decided it would be, else you would not have

brought it up. It certainly sounds fascinating, I must admit. It's not

often that we literally get to see things from someone else's perspective,

and even then the view is usually dim at best. So if you judge it

appropriate to send me such a thing, I am sure I will be honored to receive

it.

> >Obviously this study will rely on your subjective

> >impressions of the changes you are undergoing, as well as the outward

> >appearance of them.

>

> Hmm. Maybe I should start keeping a journal or something.

That would be helpful, for both of us.

> Heck, all these projects of yours could provide us both with convenient

> excuses for skipping parties.

Indeed.

[OOC: Nope, *that's* not gonna give anyone the wrong idea ... especially

once they actually decide to spy on Agents J & K to see what's up. ^_^ ]

> >I will do that. Your tastes don't seem different from my own, at least

so

> >far.

>

> Well, they *do* say great minds think alike. . . . ;)

Very true. Which gives me a number of ideas, actually. Nothing coherent

yet, however.

Well, whenever you are ready to undertake the first part of the study, we

should convene at the Halfway House. I have taken advantage of the pauses

in our discourse to assemble some necessary materials and such, so I am

ready whenever you are.

[OOC: It might be better to do that part on IRC or something, since Kerry

intends on some "interview" style stuff.]

K.

>rather sooner than it otherwise might. I imagine we can reduce your four

or

>five years to at least half that, hopefully significantly less.

Maybe so, but I was talking more about the actual chronological age --

which does seem to be a factor, among people who know about it, whether it

should be or not. During that visit to the future, I got to wear my adult

body -- which I'll show you sometime for your study, and I think you'll

agree it's not bad looking. But even though we were physically grown up

and legally married in that future, Tyler would barely even look at me,

though he obviously wanted to. Apparently he was afraid something

"disgusting" would happen. And this is a guy who has no problem having

ACTUAL SEX with demonically influenced and/or recently suicidal girls, so

"full and free consent" isn't a regular concern for him.

Then again, this is also the same guy who won't let me sleep with him (even

though he doesn't have his nightmares when I do) just because some silly

old lady told him I "might get damaged." What, like he hits puberty and

becomes radioactive? So maybe it's just him.

>I am going to resist the urge to speculate on your sudden need for ice

>cream.

Corinna calls the it the universal medicine for emotional pain. Maybe you

should study its properties sometime. Do a brand comparison. (She favors

Haagen-Dasz.)

However, I assure you that the things that you mention sarcastically

>as if I would find them *more* interesting than your own situation,

actually

>mean that I would find them *less* so.

Actually, I meant that most people would find them more interesting, and

that you might be able to break into the world of tabloid TV with such a

study. But maybe that's not among your ambitions.

>[OOC: Perhaps the sudden appearance of large numbers of twins and quasi

>twins in the world of darkness is a Portent of some flavor.... ^_^ ]

[Mebbe.]

>[OOC: Yes. But by the question, I specifically meant the initial study.

>Which is, btw, the Evil Thing I was plotting earlier. Sigh. This would be

>so much more effective as a subplot if there were an actual ongoing game

>plot to sub. Ah well. Damn the Hiatus, full speed ahead!

[Ha!]

>I told Pete that I wouldn't be especially surprised if either Kerry or

>Jasmine contacted him at some point (probably by letter). If for no other

>reason than leading up to Family Weekend, which was something like a bit

>over three weeks away from when I dated the email that Kerry sent out

>originally -- the middle of March or so.]

[Works for me.]

>So if you judge it appropriate to send me such a thing, I am sure I will

be honored to receive

>it.

Very well. Some of it *is* kinda personal, and I wouldn't want it spread

around, but since you're the Doctor's Office, I figure it's safe enough.

>> >Obviously this study will rely on your subjective

>> >impressions of the changes you are undergoing, as well as the outward

>> >appearance of them.

>>

>> Hmm. Maybe I should start keeping a journal or something.

>

>That would be helpful, for both of us.

Will do.

>> Heck, all these projects of yours could provide us both with convenient

>> excuses for skipping parties.

>

>Indeed.

>

>[OOC: Nope, *that's* not gonna give anyone the wrong idea ... especially

>once they actually decide to spy on Agents J & K to see what's up. ^_^ ]

[Heh. Oh my God, we're Agents J and K! I hadn't even thought of that!]

>> >I will do that. Your tastes don't seem different from my own, at least

>so

>> >far.

>>

>> Well, they *do* say great minds think alike. . . . ;)

>

>Very true. Which gives me a number of ideas, actually. Nothing coherent

>yet, however.

Well, let me know when they lase.

J.

>[OOC: It might be better to do that part on IRC or something, since Kerry

>intends on some "interview" style stuff.]

[Sounds good. Anytime you wish.]