From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 21:05:26 -0500, Rhino   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2025-12-21 4:17 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >> BTR1701  wrote:   
   >>> moviePig  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> . . .   
   >>   
   >>>> If "plants and critters" are never "prioritized", say goodbye to them.   
   >>   
   >>> Wherein moviePig explicitly endorses the idea that at least sometimes it's   
   >>> appropriate to let people die if it means some rodents might otherwise   
   >>> perish.   
   >>   
   >> While moviePig is being an unsympathetic jerk here, I will comment that   
   >> humans should not live surrounded by these forests subject to wildfire   
   >> and will expect to be burned out at some point.   
   >>   
   >> In this case, given that the decision had been made decades ago to allow   
   >> this home construction, then there was no choice but to use mechanical   
   >> means to smother the fire and not to allow it to smoulder till it became   
   >> a threat to human life, despite consequences for conservation. Too late   
   >> for that consideration as the presence of human settlement had forever   
   >> changed the forest.   
   >>   
   >> But the town doesn't have to be rebuilt where it is subject to wildfire.   
   >   
   >You could also turn that around and observe that cutting back the   
   >underbrush near people's houses would actually be a clever idea to   
   >minimize the risk of fire to those newly rebuilt homes. Also, keeping   
   >the reservoirs filled would be handy, ESPECIALLY during the Santa Ana   
   >winds. Oh, and hiring a fire chief for his/her skill rather than to win   
   >Diversity Awards would be better.   
      
   It's the simple things in life isn't it?  :)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)