Well, I was speaking to both of you.

He made assumptions. You made assumptions.

I appreciate your efforts to keep the peace, Kolya.
I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I'm not sure what assumptions I made in this instance.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote:I appreciate your efforts to keep the peace, Kolya.
I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I'm not sure what assumptions I made in this instance.

First, pardon my English. It is not my first language. I might misunderstand people from time to time.

Perhaps not assumed, but comments like "I probably have had more X in Y then you will in a lifetime" is at least a tiny bit presumptuous.

You assume that he is wreckless and will endnager innocents. You never worked with him; you do not know if he is wreckless or otherwise not careful.

Good luck with your friend.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: How many innocents have you endangered with your 'shoot first' mentality?

I don't shoot first. I locate a target, establish that it is a justified target an then shoot. I also make sure to establish my zone of fire has the least possible chance of including an innocent person.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: As I have stated in other messages, sir, no loss of human life is acceptable.

You're right, no loss of human life is acceptable. So why do you put creatures that hunt and kill humans in reasearch situations where they will inevitably escape or try to medicate them with drugs that they will inevitably grow to resist? No matter how unlikely it is to happen, sooner or later, the laws of Probability and Murphy will ensure that your tame and pet monsters will escape the mechanism you have created to controll them and will kill humans and it will all be your fault for not eliminating the danger when you had the chance.

So far I've seen you express more compassion for your teammates and the very monsters that will one day kill innocent people than you have expressed for those innocent people.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: I stand by that. But some day, Mr. Caliburn, you are going to have to wake up and realize that your narrow-minded view and a pull of the trigger will not solve all the world's problems.

I ain't trying to solve the world's problems. I'm just trying to save lives when I get the chance to.

Kolya wrote:

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote:I appreciate your efforts to keep the peace, Kolya.
I'm not trying to be stubborn, but I'm not sure what assumptions I made in this instance.

First, pardon my English. It is not my first language. I might misunderstand people from time to time.

Perhaps not assumed, but comments like "I probably have had more X in Y then you will in a lifetime" is at least a tiny bit presumptuous.

You assume that he is wreckless and will endnager innocents. You never worked with him; you do not know if he is wreckless or otherwise not careful.

Good luck with your friend.

Ah. Well, I must admit, you make a valid point. Yes, I have made assumptions, assumptions that were made based on my own experiences, what I have read of other's experiences, and by the 'kill it, kill it' point of view expressed by Mr. Caliburn. Admittedly, I may have been quick to judge, but no more so than Mr. Caliburn. At any rate, I shall address this issue further in a reply to him.

And thanks.

No matter how unlikely it is to happen, sooner or later, the laws of Probability and Murphy will ensure that your tame and pet monsters will escape the mechanism you have created to controll them and will kill humans and it will all be your fault for not eliminating the danger when you had the chance.

You know, I have read theories that the historical Beowulf was actually a werebear, and that the Romano-Celt who inspired the King Arthur legends was himself 'dragon-born'...they, and other historical heroes, are all what you might call 'monsters' and yet they all were staunch defenders of humanity against evil predatory creatures...

Should Kay have spilled Arthur's guts as a boy, or should King Hroðgar have had Beowulf killed when he first stepped foot in his great hall? If they had, many innocent lives would have been lost...

So far I've seen you express more compassion for your teammates and the very monsters that will one day kill innocent people than you have expressed for those innocent people.

Not true...Anderson and our entire team have put ourselves on the line in Canada and abroad, defending civilians against the horrors of the night...some of us have lost limbs (or, as in Anderson's case, an eye), others have had limbs mangled (like my right leg), suffered neurological trauma, mental damage, insitutuionalization or other such damage (physical, mental and even spiritual)...some of us have paid with our lives...all so that John and Jane Doe can go to Burger King and a movie without becoming prey to a daemon...

If we didn't care, we wouldn't do it...

Father Arden

I don't shoot first. I locate a target, establish that it is a justified target an then shoot. I also make sure to establish my zone of fire has the least possible chance of including an innocent person.

That's commendable. Would it be of any interest to you to know that I follow the same procedure? Or is it too far outside the realm of possibility because I happen to care for the safety and wellbeing of my fellow officers as well as the innocents I protect?

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: As I have stated in other messages, sir, no loss of human life is acceptable.

You're right, no loss of human life is acceptable. So why do you put creatures that hunt and kill humans in reasearch situations where they will inevitably escape or try to medicate them with drugs that they will inevitably grow to resist? No matter how unlikely it is to happen, sooner or later, the laws of Probability and Murphy will ensure that your tame and pet monsters will escape the mechanism you have created to controll them and will kill humans and it will all be your fault for not eliminating the danger when you had the chance.

I spoke of one individual, one, who was infected with lycanthrium and was controlling it with an inhibitor. There is no cache of 'pet' monsters that I am researching. I study the compound secreted by these creatures, the Lycanthrium samples retreived from crime scenes and, in the unhappy instances, from those victims of lycanthrope attack. Why do I research what I do? To help find ways to prevent the loss of innocent life. That innocent life could include suvivors of lycanthrope attacks, innocent people who's only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sorry, but I can't condemn them to death without fighting for their lives. Yet neither do I endanger innocents in my pursuit of such knowledge. My first and foremost priority is to preseve lives.


So far I've seen you express more compassion for your teammates and the very monsters that will one day kill innocent people than you have expressed for those innocent people.

Why do you hunt these creatures, Mr. Caliburn? Is it truely to protect innocents, or is this some sort of personal vendetta you're on, a one-man crusade against the monsters? You do work alone, don't you? Have you ever worked with anyone else, shared the bond that only partners can share? Known that you would give your life for him or her in an instant to save them? This commitment between partners seems to be what you are confusing for my lack of caring for the innocent bystander. While I will gladly give my life for my partner, I am no less willing to sacrifice for the 'unknowing masses' that I have sworn to protect. I have sacrificed; my team has sacrificed. With all due respect, Mr. Caliburn, you know nothing about me, my organization, or what we have been through to keep the public safe. I am not here to 'boast' of my exploits, to pat myself on the back because I saved a bus load of kids or a gaggle of nuns on their way to mass. I was under the impression that we are all in defence of mankind. I didn't think it was necessary to broadcast the fact that I protect civilians who have no other defence against the darkness. What I did come here to share was the knowledge, expertise and experience of myself and my fellow officers. If you truely do what you claim, then I'm sure you can understand how one would not want to wish this 'job' on anyone. I fail to see why showing a little compassion to those who share our duty is so wrong?

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: I stand by that. But some day, Mr. Caliburn, you are going to have to wake up and realize that your narrow-minded view and a pull of the trigger will not solve all the world's problems

I ain't trying to solve the world's problems. I'm just trying to save lives when I get the chance to.

So am I. I just don't believe it has to include killing innocent victims.

Father Arden wrote:You know, I have read theories that the historical Beowulf was actually a werebear, and that the Romano-Celt who inspired the King Arthur legends was himself 'dragon-born'...they, and other historical heroes, are all what you might call 'monsters' and yet they all were staunch defenders of humanity against evil predatory creatures...

Should Kay have spilled Arthur's guts as a boy, or should King Hroðgar have had Beowulf killed when he first stepped foot in his great hall? If they had, many innocent lives would have been lost...

Do you happen to have an example from the last 1500 years?

Ignoring the whole different times/different methods debate and the fact that both individuals have never been proven to be anything other than fictional you may have found the exceptions that proove the rule.

If both of those are indeed part or more monster (Merlin was also half demon I beleive) they proove that the monsters are indeed powerful and dangerous. How many died in the battles and quests that Arthur initiated? How many great heroes of England were enthralled by the glory of his Camelot and kept busy out in the countryside rather than rooting out the evil on the throne? I've busted up plenty of cults lead by "once and future Kings" allready. Perhaps the Arthurian trick is an old one they have been playing on us for centuries?

I'm not saying it is, but we know only so much about the alleged King Arthur, and none of it really contradicts that.

I'm not very familiar with the Beowulf legends, but I get the impression that the guy was a thug and a brute who happened to get into a feud with some monsters.Who knows how many people he also killed that weren't in the story?

So, as for the should haves back then? I don't know.

I do know I've taken down people who have claimed to be Arthur and Merlin because they were abusing and killing innocent people. I do know that if I found a werebear, my prefered option would be to get rid of it before it killed an innocent person.

Ron Caliburn wrote:Do you happen to have an example from the last 1500 years?

Yes.....my colleugue that sparked this entire thread for one...Agent Uriel and Vampire Snoopy, both agents of the APTF and both vampires for others...

They are rare, but they do exist...

Ron Caliburn wrote:If both of those are indeed part or more monster (Merlin was also half demon I beleive) they proove that the monsters are indeed powerful and dangerous. How many died in the battles and quests that Arthur initiated?

Some would argue that they were protecting their land from evil...that if Arthur had not been there to inspire them to reist the invaders, their civilization would have been destroyed...

Father Arden

Father Arden wrote:Some would argue that they were protecting their land from evil...that if Arthur had not been there to inspire them to reist the invaders, their civilization would have been destroyed...

Father Arden

People resist invaders, leaders rise to the top, naturally.

But who knows what would have happened otherwise.

Ron Caliburn wrote: I do know that if I found a werebear, my prefered option would be to get rid of it before it killed an innocent person

Let me ask you something...would you shoot someone who was possessed? Any acts they may carry out are not their fault, they themselves are an innocent person, and with an exorcism they can can be freed of the possessing spirirt...

Just curious how you handle cases like that...

Father Arden

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: I spoke of one individual, one, who was infected with lycanthrium and was controlling it with an inhibitor. There is no cache of 'pet' monsters that I am researching. I study the compound secreted by these creatures, the Lycanthrium samples retreived from crime scenes and, in the unhappy instances, from those victims of lycanthrope attack. Why do I research what I do? To help find ways to prevent the loss of innocent life. That innocent life could include suvivors of lycanthrope attacks, innocent people who's only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sorry, but I can't condemn them to death without fighting for their lives. Yet neither do I endanger innocents in my pursuit of such knowledge. My first and foremost priority is to preseve lives.

I got the idea between your comments and Arden's that there were more than the one.

So what will you do when he misses a treatment or becomes resistant and ends up killing someone? Given he has a potential life span of centuries, this is an inevitability, not a possibility. How will you feel about the innocent lives you could have saved but didn't?

If you could remove the condition, I wouldn't be so concerned, but all you've done is rest the timer on the bomb.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: Why do you hunt these creatures, Mr. Caliburn? Is it truely to protect innocents, or is this some sort of personal vendetta you're on, a one-man crusade against the monsters? You do work alone, don't you?

I grew up in a place where we knew about these things and we fortified ourselves in order to prevent being consumed by them. Over tiem i realized that while we were safe, there were many out there suffering and dying at the hands of these monsters. I had to choose between leavign behind everyone I've ever cared for, or doing what I thought was right.

I miss my family sometimes, but I sleep well.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: Have you ever worked with anyone else, shared the bond that only partners can share?

Not past an occasional basis. Most of those I've made contacts with are not up to the task of wading into a monster's den, so I do them the favour and don't bring them along.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: Known that you would give your life for him or her in an instant to save them?

That's the way I feel about everyone I am trying to protect

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: With all due respect, Mr. Caliburn, you know nothing about me, my organization, or what we have been through to keep the public safe.

Unfortunately we don't know anything. But we have learened that you are allowing a creature with the potential to injure and kill hundreds to exist just because you think it can be controlled. When it breaks free of the chemical chains and runs amok it will be your fault.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote: So am I. I just don't believe it has to include killing innocent victims.

Me neither. I just look at the math differently. One individual infected with lycantrhopy does not outway the troupe of girl scouts he waylays on a nature hike.

Father Arden wrote:Yes.....my colleugue that sparked this entire thread for one...Agent Uriel and Vampire Snoopy, both agents of the APTF and both vampires for others...

They are rare, but they do exist...

How about an example that the average joe might have heard of?

Farther Arden wrote:Some would argue that they were protecting their land from evil...that if Arthur had not been there to inspire them to reist the invaders, their civilization would have been destroyed...

Hey, you were the one who brought forward the idea of Arthur being supernatural. if he was, that also brigns forward the idea that he used his powers to decieve and mislead like many supernatural creatures do.

Yes the knights might have been defending their civilization from evil, but they could have also been unwittingly protecting their civilization from the evil within it.

Oh, incidently, if it matters, in real history, the Britons lost. Their civilization was destroyed. That's why they speak English over there now.

Father Arden wrote:
Let me ask you something...would you shoot someone who was possessed? Any acts they may carry out are not their fault, they themselves are an innocent person, and with an exorcism they can can be freed of the possessing spirirt...

I as expeditiously as possible arrange for an exorcism of course. Though under extreme emergencies I will kill the person if it is the only way I have to stop them from killing an innocent.

What you folks are doing medicating that fellow isn't an exorcism though. it's not a cure. All you're doing is hiding the symptoms. Eventually they will show up again. Then your werebear will kill someone.

If you could cure the werebear, I'd cheer you on, but what you're doing is only delaying the deaths of many.

It's a pretty bleak thought to be that guy, to know that eventually the treatment will fail, to know that eventually he will kill, to know that eventually he will have to be killed to protect others. if it were me I'd want to take the bullet now.

Ron Caliburn wrote:What you folks are doing medicating that fellow isn't an exorcism though. it's not a cure. All you're doing is hiding the symptoms. Eventually they will show up again. Then your werebear will kill someone.

If you could cure the werebear, I'd cheer you on, but what you're doing is only delaying the deaths of many.[/color][/b]

Correct, but how will a cure ever be discovered without the study?

Father Arden

Father Arden wrote:
Correct, but how will a cure ever be discovered without the study?

Father Arden

What sort of security measures do you have in place while you are working on this cure? Is your subject secured in such a way that a failure of the treatment regimen wont' be followe by the deaths of innocent people? If your treatments start to falter, are you prepared to terminate the subject before he gets out of control or will you wait for him to do some damage first?

You're messing with stuff that is probably way over your (or anyone else's) head. How are you making sure that when things do go wrong, they don't go Chernobyl?

I got the idea between your comments and Arden's that there were more than the one.

There is one that I personally know. What other organizations do is beyond my control. I know of a supposed vampire who works for an organization called the APTF. I have no association with them, and therefore cannot speak on them.

So what will you do when he misses a treatment or becomes resistant and ends up killing someone? Given he has a potential life span of centuries, this is an inevitability, not a possibility. How will you feel about the innocent lives you could have saved but didn't?

If you could remove the condition, I wouldn't be so concerned, but all you've done is rest the timer on the bomb.

That's just it, you don't know for sure it's an inevitability. Who's to say someday we won't be able to remove the condition? Who's to say that we won't find a way to cure lycanthropy as we have many other diseases, through research and study. This man is working to control his problem, with help from friends and the organization that employes him, an organization suited to dealing with whatever situations may arise as a result. If today I kill my friend because he is infected, and then a week from now, research uncovers a way to remove the lycanthropic taint, what good will having blown my friend's brains out have done then? In the mean time, he's saved lives, he's provided us with invaluable data, and he hasn't eaten any girl guides on the side, either.

I had to choose between leavign behind everyone I've ever cared for, or doing what I thought was right.

I miss my family sometimes, but I sleep well.

I wasn't givin a choice. I was thrust into this fight without knowing what I was getting into; my entire life was turned upside down, my friends killed, beliefs shattered. But I haven't allowed that to change the person I fundamentally am. And that person does not murder. Killing Kodiak when he has given me no cause to do so is murder, plain and simple. If I were to do that, I would not sleep well.

That's the way I feel about everyone I am trying to protect

Unfortuneately, your protection doesn't seem to extend to all those who need it. You put man above all others, and say that these supernatural creatures should be exterminated because they are a danger to man. By the same ideals, shouldn't man be exterminated? Man is arguably a thousand times more dangerous to man. Man has killed thousands, millions of other men. Man is a danger to man, therefore man must be exterminated... obviously this statement is false, not all men are a danger to other men. Could not the same be said of paranormal creatures then? How are we ever to know if we just kill them all?

With all due respect, Mr. Caliburn, you know nothing about me, my organization, or what we have been through to keep the public safe.

Unfortunately we don't know anything. But we have learened that you are allowing a creature with the potential to injure and kill hundreds to exist just because you think it can be controlled. When it breaks free of the chemical chains and runs amok it will be your fault.

While I am not the developer of this inhibitor (it was developed using my research) nor am I the doctor administering it, I will not place 'blame' at anyone's feet. You've made it abundantly clear that by just allowing him to live, and not murdering him (and make no mistake, we are talking about murder) I am responsible for his actions as far as you are concerned. And, since it's obvious no argument I can present will change your mind, I won't attempt to. So, I accept responsibilty. And if it happens, yes, I'll be the one who can't sleep at night. But until it does, I will not condemn my friend, just because it might. I owe that much to him, and to every other person out there who deserves a chance to defeat lycanthropy.

So am I. I just don't believe it has to include killing innocent victims.

Me neither. I just look at the math differently. One individual infected with lycantrhopy does not outway the troupe of girl scouts he waylays on a nature hike.

And even though you won't believe it, it's just not going to happen.

Well...obviously something's been happening during my absence...I go away for a few days and when I come back everybody seems to be at each others throat.

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote:And even though you won't believe it, it's just not going to happen.

Applying all the filtering down of our discussion, this is the key point. You say that this guy is not going to go off and kill somebody.

What are you doing to garuntee that? What do you have hapening besides the medication he's on?

Do you monitor his movements? Do you keep him confined? Do you ensure there is a trusted agent who can take him down if need be with him at all times?

What are you doing to garuntee that if the treatment fails to contain the beast, he will not be a danger to the public?

Until you can give me a list of concrete, effective measures all you've really done is given the pet fox the run of the henhouse. It's only a matter of time until he bites.

You're a law officer, would you let an explosive device sit on the street even if you had reason to beleive it wasn't going to go off? If you follow your own procedures, you wouldn't take that chance. You'ld establish a safe zone around the device, evacuate the area and then call in someone to neutralize the device.

This fellow Kodiak is an unexploded bomb. Please tell me you're doing something to make sure he don't go off and kill anybody.

Ron Caliburn wrote:What sort of security measures do you have in place while you are working on this cure? Is your subject secured in such a way that a failure of the treatment regimen wont' be followe by the deaths of innocent people? If your treatments start to falter, are you prepared to terminate the subject before he gets out of control or will you wait for him to do some damage first?

You're messing with stuff that is probably way over your (or anyone else's) head. How are you making sure that when things do go wrong, they don't go Chernobyl?

Kodiak is accompanied at all times by at least one agent who is indeed ready to put him to rest if the need arises...Nanook for one is constantly watching him, wary for any sign of lychanthropic tendencies...

He also wears a sub-dermal tracking device that moniters his heart rate and Adrenal-X production, that will alert us if he should somehow be on the verge of Changing even with the inhibiters (though this has so far never happened)...part of the sub-dermal device is a small explosive charge that will send silver directly into his heart...the main activator is held by our detachment's Inspector, though several of us also have activators (myself, Nanook, Anderson and Sargent Briar)...

God willing, we'll never have to use them...

In the meantime, he is a willing guinea pig for tests on how to destroy and reverse lychanthrium...

Father Arden

I'm not going to try and take a side on this one. I've had too much experience coming from both sides of this arguement, and I can sympathize with both. Ron, I do agree that this man should be watched to a certain degree, but distrusting him and hounding him isn't going to make him want to stay human, not when no one trusts him. Liz, like I said, I've a friend of my own who is a werewolf and every day he has to fight his own demons for control himself and so far he is winning, but that doesn't mean he always will. all I can do is stand beside him and do what I can to give him the support he needs. But. Just because you don't feel your friend needs to be watched doesn't mean your superiours feel the same, and he may be being watched even now, just in case. All I can recomend you do, Liz, is stand by him, offer him the support he needs, and if (I'm saying if) he ever starts to lose control, he may want you to be there to pull the trigger, cause if he's half the man you think he is, I don't he would want to live as a beast killing innocent people. Now, Peace people, our methods may differ but I think we're all working towards the same goal and we don't need to be at each others throats because there are enough monsters out there to do that for us.

May the Sun and Moon shine ever upon you.
Joseph Darkhold

Ron Caliburn wrote:That's better.

It's good to know that you're at least prepared for things going wrong.

Unlike you, I don't have an organization. I don't have the ability to install implants. Hell, I still have to work for a living in addition to going out and hunting down the monsters living in the middle of the city.

I think most of the people on these boards are a lot close to my circumstances than yours.

I have to make the choice, often on the spot, about weather the thing I'm dealing with is a threat or not. Then I have to deal with the resources I have at hand because if I go back to come up with something else, there's a good chance that I won't be able to find the beast again.

This is why my options are typically a choice of 12 guage or .40 S&W.

i hear ya man, when i first stared hunting werewolves i had no one at my back, just found em and killed them. now i hate werewolves more than anything else in this world, now with kodiak i am giving him a chance with the meds to control it but don't think for a minute that i do not have a silver bullet for him if he the meds dont work for him. be a shame thou, kodiak is a good cop.

Joseph Darkhold wrote: <snip> all I can do is stand beside him and do what I can to give him the support he needs. But. Just because you don't feel your friend needs to be watched doesn't mean your superiours feel the same, and he may be being watched even now, just in case. All I can recomend you do, Liz, is stand by him, offer him the support he needs, and if (I'm saying if) he ever starts to lose control, he may want you to be there to pull the trigger, cause if he's half the man you think he is, I don't he would want to live as a beast killing innocent people.

Mr. Darkhold; I did not say that I did not think my friend needs to be watched. I only said I did not think he needs to be killed outright. As Father Arden has explained, he is being watched, and measures are in place to see that should the worst come to pass, he will not be allowed to endanger anyone. I did not go into detail about our security measures because I did not feel it was at the heart of my point, and because Arden is a lot more free with his information about our organization than I am. I do just as you do, and give Kodiak my support and friendship, and as much as I would hate to have to do it, I will take him down if it is what is necessary. He expects no less. My argument was simply that I don't believe it is necessary to kill him simply because of what he has had the misfortune to become.

And, no offence intended, but I would prefer Beth or Dr. Anderson to Liz. 'Liz' just isn't me.

I understand a bit better now, thank you, I've been out of touch with the society for a few days now (I've been a very busy man), so when I came on I only skimmed much of the topics that had been posted. It looks like you're already doing all the things that I mentioned so I guess it was a bit of a waste of words. I do agree with you that your friend shouldn't be killed outright, and you can give him my support.

P.S. No offence taken. I'll remember for later.

May the Sun and Moon shine ever upon you.
Joseph Darkhold

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote:and because Arden is a lot more free with his information about our organization than I am.

Sorry Anderson...confession just seems to come naturally to me sometimes...

Father Arden

Ron Caliburn wrote:
Unlike you, I don't have an organization. I don't have the ability to install implants. Hell, I still have to work for a living in addition to going out and hunting down the monsters living in the middle of the city.

I admit that sometimes that definately makes things easier, though I do sometimes chaff at the hierarchy and the paperwork...we may be empowered to investigate and deal with paranormal threats, but we're cops at our heart, so still have to follow procedure and keep things quiet from the regular police...not even all RCMP officers realize just what Division R (the RCX) really does or has to deal with...

Father Arden

Joseph Darkhold wrote:I understand a bit better now, thank you, I've been out of touch with the society for a few days now (I've been a very busy man), so when I came on I only skimmed much of the topics that had been posted. It looks like you're already doing all the things that I mentioned so I guess it was a bit of a waste of words. I do agree with you that your friend shouldn't be killed outright, and you can give him my support.

P.S. No offence taken. I'll remember for later.

May the Sun and Moon shine ever upon you.
Joseph Darkhold

Not a waste of words at all... I appreciate the sentiment, and the support. We come from different worlds, Mr. Caliburn and I. I understand his point of view, believe me. I have a close friend who has been adamant that all werewolves should be wiped from the face of the earth. Only recently has he very slowly begun to allow that it might be possible to help a lycanthrope instead of killing it first. It's been a long road, and one that we've just taken our first steps on, but we're finding a middle ground. Perhaps Mr. Caliburn and I will reach a similar understanding some day. I believe in extreme possibilities.

Father Arden wrote:

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote:and because Arden is a lot more free with his information about our organization than I am.

Sorry Anderson...confession just seems to come naturally to me sometimes...

Father Arden

Yes, well, do try to remember that there is a certain individual currently running his little self-aggrandizing investigation around our department, partner, and I doubt he'd have a problem snooping around here to see what's being said. It would be wise to tread carefully.

It seems people are going on about what their organizations do...

I'm more interested in what people find and do...


After all .. .seems like most groups are unsupported.

I'm just waiting so I Can find me a nice arcanist.. that wasn't a big fraud.. get me a nice Demonic familliar.. consort with Elder gods... Etc etc..

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote:

Father Arden wrote:

Elizabeth D. Anderson wrote:and because Arden is a lot more free with his information about our organization than I am.

Sorry Anderson...confession just seems to come naturally to me sometimes...

Father Arden

Yes, well, do try to remember that there is a certain individual currently running his little self-aggrandizing investigation around our department, partner, and I doubt he'd have a problem snooping around here to see what's being said. It would be wise to tread carefully.

Anderson, Arden, I want to see you in my office. today. 1 pm sharp.

Agent Roberts, RCX IA