>I did myself the disservice to check this (82 messages on this list),
>and no, David did not claim this.
As in the case of Harrek and the Red Emperor, you didn't look hard enough.
Me: >Instead an elf would view a forest fire : >as a natural calamity such as humans would view a plague or : >a drought.
DD::I submit that this is a humanocentric viewpoint. If you require fire ::and/or smoke for your children to be born, fire is not a curse.
>Nobody claimed that burning down an entire forest is required for
>fertility.
Okay. So why should the Vralos elves as a whole tolerate fire then?
>It was suggested that humans practicing a forest-related agriculture
>would be a good first defense line or at least a good buffer versus
>Fonritian aggression towards the thick aldryami forest.
Except that the Fonritans regularly burn down forests so that burning down your own stretch of the woods is rather a selfdefeating concept. Kind of like "we burned that forest to save it".
>Personally, I see more potential in some species of aldryami being
>reasonable about limited use of fire while others taking Peter's stance.
Except that the reasonable limited use of fire that gets suggested happens to be widespread burning which is IMO like suggesting reasonable limited:
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail