Discussing the meaning of "Forestal" on these boards is I think quite
useless, since I do not think the two sides are going to agree. It is
also a discussion which is irrelevant to Nature itself.

I have _always_ considered anyone who lives in the Forests and regularly
uses either Concoctions or Groves as a Forestal. This includes a number
of individuals whom both I and Elsp would regard as traitors. It also
includes a somewhat more considerable number of individuals whom Elsp
would probably regard as traitors - but who I do not regard as such. The
reason why I uphold this definition - and have upheld it when I was a
member of the Druid Guild or Oakstone as well - is that the actions of
any Concoctionist or Grove-user will play a significant part in shaping
the future of the Forest and the "Forestal Community" - regardless of
the opinion of aforementioned Community. If I decide to dislike my left
hand, and I start to believe my left hand a traitor and having evil
designs - it will change nothing of the fact that it's just my left
hand. I can of course cut my left hand off - but I will have become an
invalid, merely because of a delusion.

Now, it is possible to define "Forestal" as being a member of an
organization and holding some ideological beliefs. But this definition
opens up the road to some rather unelevating ideological phariseanism,
to useless and stupid discussions on political purity, and ways to
measure it. Also, by making adherence to a set of beliefs and
organizational loyalties - citizenship in a City, even, of all things! -
a prerequisite to "Forestalism", you make adherence to those a part of
the definition of those judged capable of discussing them - in other
words, you elevate a set of ideas to Sacred Doctrine. Ideas are like
muscles - if you do not stimulate them regularly by stretching them,
using them, they will atrophy and die.

I believe the latter to be a silly playground game, and I see no reason
to participate in it at all. I have been, over the course of more than
sixty years, been a member of the Druid Guild, Eleusis and Oakstone at
various points. I am currently involved with none of these organizations
at all - though I remain supportive of Oakstone doing its most important
task - prosecuting exterminators, aiders to extermination, arsonists and
other people intentionally harming Nature. However, I think it to be a
wee bit presumptious of someone like Qwilleran deciding whether I am a
Forestal or not!

The temptation to participate in political sandbox games may be large,
but I will advice my associates to withstand it, as I will, from now on.

Now that I am writing anyway, one final point - to pre-empt any
speculation on the matter here or elsewhere. Do I on a purely personal
level agree with Ariella's original post? Most assuredly. Must this
agreement be taken as representative of the view of my associates? By no
means - some of them may strongly disagree. Am I aware of Lodi's past
actions against Nature, including extermination? Indeed I am. The truth
or falsehood of a given word is, of course, independent of who says it.
This is not so of the motivation for saying it - something of which I
remain very much aware.

Narses

Penned by my hand on the 8th of Phaestian, in the year 352 AF.