"Obscurity envelops truth".

Your posts were, frankly, intellectually insulting--perhaps that's why
some chose not to answer them.

State your ideas, your opinions and your objections plainly, don't couch
them in the abstract and convoluted terms. Present them in a
straightforward and honest manner so that any contradictions that may be
present show themselves to any reader. Then discussion can take place.

The style of your postings made it very difficult to respond. What you
mean by what you say is open to interpretation, and when you are
addressing a potentially unreceptive audience (and addressing them
indirectly, I might add), the interpretation isn't going to be a
pleasant one. It is your job to tell your reader what you want them to
get out of your posts, and leave little room for such interpertations.

I will, however, respond to some of the points I've gleaned from your
post. If I misinterpreting any of your statements, the fault lies not
with me.

The overall bent of your pieces seems to be that, considering a supposed
dearth of exterminators and holocausters, we are going to start, or have
started, turning on each other. You propose we ease restrictions on
overharvesting, or indeed change the definition of overharvesting. You
also argue that because Druids and Sylvans, and to a lesser extent (in
your opinion) Sentinels, are harmed greater than exterminators by forest
enemying, they should be dealt with... without forest enemying, unless
they happen to wreck complete havoc on Nature.

I would argue that we still have the looming threat of exterminators and
the new threat of holocausters is not insignificant. Even though we have
no serious crisis like in years before, it would be irresponsible not to
be prepared should they come again. Furthermore, if this system has been
effective in deterring such exterminators, why then would one change it?

Changing the definition and treatment of overharvesting is reckless and
potentially dangerous. Responsible forestals who obey the limits, which
serve to ensure plants are not completely ripped away, intentionally or
otherwise, will not be punished. Those who do make minor errors are
punished temporarily, and return to the state they were before. What's
more, who's to say whose overharvests are intentional?

Yes, it hurts us more to be enemied that it does exterminators. But we
are charged with the care of Nature, and straying from it, such
punishment forces us to correct our ways. Certainly it has different,
far less effective consequences with exterminators, but alas, one can do
only what one can do, and no more. A concoctions loss as punishment is a
laudable idea, but not, in fact, something Oakstone has any control
over. Again, Oakstone has only certain powers, and they must not fail to
enforce our laws simply because two different crimes might deserve two
different punishments.


Your most recent post is just plain rude, Narses. How can you complain
people do not respond to you often if you insult them so? If you wish
for fair and reasoned discourse, insulting the relevant party and all
associated is not helpful. Indeed, it is contemptible, and if you
continue to do so, you will truly reap what you sow. I have never had
anything against you personally, Narses. But to slander entire
organizations without reservation is, in short, asinine.


"Hic Rhodos, hic salta"?

Natura non facit saltum.


In Nature's service, "amore, more, ore, re,"

-Loak Silvertongue

P.S. No, I have not answered everything completely. State clearly what
you want me to consider, and I may reply more readily.

Penned by my hand on the 9th of Mayan, in the year 376 AF.