Second.



Second.



Second.

Are you aware that even with latency testing, it is imposible to discover the triggering event. What this means, is that someone who attempts to kill themselves, in the hope of erutpting, may not erupt? They may know they are a latent, but not the triggering eposode, am incorrect guess can be fatal.

When you erupted, you didn't know you were a latant. Would I be correct in that assumption? Which means, that had you but a gun to your chest, you would be dead. It is also safe to assume that you could have erupted spontaneously were you in a plane crash, house fire, or fiery car accident. I use the word spontaneously, because there is no such thing as a 'Quantum Accident'. Do you sternly believe that if latency testing is wildly available, that no more people will erupt in response to a life threat. Not everyoe has the force of will to trigget their own eruption, and may wish it to happen 'naturally'. In fact, it may be necessary that the incident be an accident, as the threat of death is combined with surprise. Maybe you should change your NQA drive to NNQE, 'Not a Natural Eruption', because that is what you seem to be opposing. Instead, you would like latents to purposefully force themselves into an erution or not erupt at all. Why, because you seem to separate yourself from those who erupt 'accidentally'. Will those people be belittled and thought less of if they decide to let it happen naturally?

Lastly, many of the adolescents who die or are horribly maimed trying to force their own eruption, [b]do it to be like us[/i]. ou forget that Children, and many adults, are not rational. Some will, even if told they are not latents, seek to become Nova's anyway. For them, they want to be a nova, even if it kills them. Someone earlier mentioned the show 'American Idol'. They are right in the analogy that people delude themselves into believing what they want. Those people are easily influenced by celebrities, religous cults, nova, professional athletes and political ideologies. As one of the aformentioned, it is up to us, as role models, to make sure that we are a positive influence, and not a negative, destructive influence.

Dr. White, I was under the impression that the nature of someone's eruption was a function of both the trigger and psychology. I don't doubt that latents can be put in dangerous or stressful situations where they die instead of erupting, but I had assumed psychology was the deciding factor there. That is, I figured whatever could cause a given latent sufficient stress could be a trigger.

Are you suggesting that that a latent's basic Nova-nature is hard-wired, and they'll only erupt if they happen to meet a trigger appropriate for their particular, latent, set of powers? For example, Salamander could only have ever been a flying burninator? It's not an idea I've heard put forth before, and I may have misunderstood you, but it is an interesting thought...

You are correct, Kevlar in that it is a funtion of trigger and psychology. In Jui's case, her determination and will to erupt, combined with her aerial self-immolation, were the two factors. She might not have erupted had she been in an accident. For others, hower, the terror that their life is ending might be the psychological factor. Not everyone will erupt 'purposefully'. They actually need the accident or other situation to happen. In some cases, it happens due to sadness. I don't know about you, but making myself sad is not easy, and in the case of intentional eruptions, probably inneffective.

It seems like the psychological approach would have to be the best way to erupt deliberately. Apart from not risking death, the self control and discipline necessary to force yourself to erupt on your own terms (assuming that's even possible) would probably come in handy afterward.

But I can say only this for certain: if I had erupted from sadness, my Nova name would be Captain Emo.

I'm sorry. I can scarcely believe I'm actually speaking to an actual man with a degree right now. You're a doctor, right?



Have you read any of my posts prior to this one? I want to reply to you, but this reads like you haven't read what I posted on the NQA Initiative, what we're funding and why we're funding it, and what our ultimate goal is. It reads like you haven't seen the post where I state that yes, the trigger mechanism is not yet understood, and that some of my acquaintances in the self-erupted community had to make more than one attempt.

So, I'm going to pretend I know nothing about me either. I'm going to pretend that since my eruption, I haven't studied everything possible that has been published on eruption and latency that I could get my hands on while trying to get the NQA Initiative off the ground. Instead I'll say, "Holy crap! The trigger mechanism might not be found? People might get hurt trying to erupt? OH MY GOD? Why hadn't anyone told me this before? Thank you so much for opening my eyes, Dr. White! Think of all the LITTLE CHILDREN you've saved!!!"



Okay, you really haven't bothered to follow this thread, or bothered to least do me the courtesy of reading the posts prior to your involvement before replying to me.



Except that my eruption, which was not "spontaneous" and was in fact deliberate despite your insistence, does not follow the accident comparison. Or Rachel Alinksy's. Or Flicker's. Or countless other people who erupted when neither death nor injury was an impending factor.

A spontaneous eruption, Dr. White, would be better defined as simply walking down the street and "Oh, holy crap, I just erupted!!! How did that happen???" That is spontaneous, where no apparent stimuli triggered the event. Reacting to stimuli, such as being burned alive, isn't spontaneous at all.



A "natural" eruption. Interesting. Okay. So, instead of developing the science of eruption to where it may one day be possible to trigger eruptions in a controlled environment without endangering the life of the latent, you feel it's best and proper that eruptions continue as they do, where occasional bystanders get hurt by the new nova's lack of control during the eruption. Not to mention the fact that many of your trigger "episodes" involve the latent's life or health being on the line when this natural eruption might occur, and since the mechanism is yet unknown, they may be killed or injured instead of erupting. When, had they already been erupted, this might not have been a threat to them.

Yeah, natural eruptions are certainly the way to proceed..

To answer your final question, the choice to pursue eruption is the choice of the latent. If they choose to not attempt erupting deliberately, that is of course their choice. If the NQA Initiative is ultimately successful, and we are able to develop safe and controlled means for eruptions to occur, then I've no idea why anyone would want to wait for an accidental eruption. If they chose to, however, that's their choice and we'd be respectful and professional about that choice.

If you're referring to a more global arena, would novas in general be critical of accidental eruptions in a world where the majority of them were deliberate, I can only speculate. I think that on the whole, they would not be, since most accidental eruptions would still occur to individuals who did know know they were latent.

If you're referring to deliberate eruption novas being critical of known latents who chose not to erupt until something accidental triggered it, I can see that occurring. If little birds would rather not leave the nest and learn to fly, then the birds that fly above them might rib them a little.



The people you are referring to are going to try to erupt without latency testing, and without receiving a positive result with latency testing. You keep emphasizing this "children" angle, as though the NQA Initiative would be so irresponsible as to test children without a parent's consent.

It is not my responsibility to try and change the world so people don't try and erupt, Dr. White. What I seem to be hearing from you is that because I succeeded in doing this in 2001, I have a moral obligation to stand up and give a PSA that says, "Hello, I'm Salamander. In 2001, I did something dangerous and stupid and I'm here to tell you all not to make my mistake. Becoming a nova isn't worth the risk of getting hurt, or worse, killed."

While I might consider doing something like that if it emphasized latency testing, few, if any people are going to listen to me. Without emphasizing latency I would be rightfully called a hypocrite, and frankly, the people you're worried about not being rational are still going to try anyway.

Why don't you and other accidental novas try doing this instead? You know, those who haven't tried doing what I did, and what I would be telling people not to do? I suspect you'd be even less persuasive than I would be, considering they see you living the good life after a "fortunate" eruption.

Okay, most of this shit is going over my head, I'll cop to that. But some part of me thinks the doctor just got fucking schooled.

This paragraph said it all: Not only are you an elitist, and a narcissist, but you are a separatist among Novakind.

Who... cares? Whether Salamander's "self-erupted" or not, or whether we're all "Surprise Novas" or "Accidental Novas" or "Fortuitous Novas" and what those terms in quotations mean, exactly is pretty damned irrelevant. They all have the same end-result.

None of us is better than any other, based only on the qualifier of our eruption.

I also don't think that anyone (nova or otherwise) can be responsible for someone else's happiness or mental stability. I'm not a shrink, but those people who willingly court death to seek eruption generally find it, and they're probably the same desperate souls who'd give up their lives for any other obsession or celebrity. Chances are, without medication and serious counseling to find out the root of their issues, they'd just find another way and another reason- most people who genuinely want to die (whether they hate themselves or can't live in a world in which they aren't a nova, or whatever) are damnably persistent about it.

It's not Salamander's responsibility to hold their hand and steer them away- that should be left to their families and friends. All she has to say is, "Look. This is what I did. It might work for you, and it might not, but I've started an organization dedicated to helping people learn about their options and make their own choices from there."

I may not agree with everything she says, but for Pete's sake, give her some time to breathe between crucifixions, will you?

Thank you, Fianna.

Suicide: The act of killing yourself.

I'm curious. If a person pulls what Juri did, and they don't live. By her logic, providing their intent was eruption and not death then they haven't killed themselves intentionally.

So, what's it called then?

"Failed Eruption Attempt Resulting In Death"?

Hmm, forgive me, Dr. White. It seems that you believe I said that I'm using my own accounts to help fund eruption and latency research not for the purpose of helping latent novas and benefit novakind in general, but to bring new novas into the world for the purpose of dividing us along lines of my creation. That I will not acquiesce to your desires, and instead suggest you carry out the action you seemingly wish to see me perform, is the proof of this.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how you inferred that.

That's exactly what it is.

If I attempt to blow my head off with a shotgun and instead severely mutilate myself, that would be "Botched Suicide Attempt Results in Severe Disfigurement."

It wasn't intentional disfigurement. The victim didn't intend on living.

Accidental suicide? Happens all the time.

It can't be a suicide, attempted or otherwise. The intent was not death, it was eruption. They didn't attempt to kill themselves they attempted to erupt, so the meaning of 'suicide' doesn't apply.

My example wasn't one of intended eruption, but intended suicide.

Assuming the chosen trigger-action is generally fatal, I think there's an argument for some self-destructive intent here.

If you jump off a cliff hoping to erupt and you know you're going to die if you don't erupt... there's a strong implication that you would rather be dead than be a baseline.

The only possible mitigating factor, I think, is if you have utter, soul-filling faith that you are a latent and you will erupt. Of course, if you truly believe that, you're at a disadvantage because you expect to be in no real danger during the plummet, making the eruption attempt less stressful.

If your intent is to not divide us by how we were created, then what's with the 'us' and 'them'. Do you need to add identifiers to a nova who erupted one way, as opposed to another? Again, I will return to your own words.



Why the identifier? Aren't we all novas, who deserve to be treated equally without stigmas? Or, to paraphrase Animal Farm by George Orwell: are some Novas more equal than others.

What about...

This has been something of an interesting conversation, and today it became very real for me. A member of my sorority found dead this morning on campus. I wonder if she was attempting to erupt or actually wished to commit suicide. I'm sure that theory, as well as many others, will come up in speculation over her death.