Reading the preceding exchange made a vein in my forehead rupture, and
my physician has ordered me not to take part in discussions on Nature
and Evil until well after I finished my stay at a sulphur spring in the
Siroccan Mountains. This despite Erdac's thoughtful, and well-written
post.

Conor is of course correct about the sequence of events - the actions
proposed by Gaia in the quoted posts followed upon the war between
Sartan and the Forests. And of course if things happened to be the other
way around, it would not change the correct Druidic policy on the matter
(which was, to my understanding, the one pursued by Istavan). There's a
difference between understanding why your opponent does something that
he does - a necessity of diplomacy - and not opposing him. Empathy and
sympathy are different matters. I don't think any Forestal believes
otherwise, and I am hence not sure why the argument on whether the
exterminations were provoked is even raised here. It is irrelevant.

I myself have not been innocent of quoting the Mother in the past, and
certainly am not at all against doing so. However, I am quite aware that
Gaia, were She still with us, would be less than enthusiastic about some
of the policies I pursue. Those policies have risen in a reaction to
events and changes which happened after Her departure. And unless Gaia
returns to us, we will have to determine our course on the basis of our
reason alone. Studying history, including the words of our Mother, is
necessary in enabling our reason to guide us. Following Her words in a
blind fashion without understanding them and the circumstances in which
they were raised, and beating other people around the head with them, is
inimical to reason.

Narses

Penned by my hand on the 16th of Scarlatan, in the year 357 AF.