Re: Karma, and fires

On 8/2/2026 6:31 PM, Creon wrote:
> At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 23:00:44 -0000 (UTC), Tara <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Tara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Creon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:57:40 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/2/2026 12:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/31/2026 6:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/31/26 3:11 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dart200 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/26 1:28 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 4:02:41?PM EDT, "Tara" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:46:18?PM EDT, "dart200"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/26 12:35 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:11:12?PM EDT, "dart200"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/26 11:25 AM, Julian wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31/07/2026 19:06, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32?PM EDT, "Wilson"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09?PM EDT, "Julian"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17?PM EDT, "Julian"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very pages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last year that government policy was worsening the fire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: ‘I told you so.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Ridley
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indigenous peoples in North America have been conrolling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat of wild
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fires with prescribed/controlled burns for centuries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Canada is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same in co-operation with our native people. We have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem doing this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however because of the acessibility and vastness of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country the size of Britain (and other European
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countries), it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that controlled fires are a no brainer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> health.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively grow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> send a lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smoke to people populated areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A bit like a volcano.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literally dimmed the sun for several days, making what was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear day look cloudy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions-exposed-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> midwest-northeast-us/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is controlled burning. Another is education and strictly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against those who are careless and start fires through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laziness and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearing vegetation around and near dwellings and building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire resistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would probably be more effective than increasing the price
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of petrol, gas and electricity for already stretched workers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jooliean you truly are a useless fucking retard. this ofc isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for u cause ur determined to take ur damned ignorance to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grave, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the record:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not only are boreal forest are far too vast to effectively mitigate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increased risk from climate change, meaning we haven't even been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engaging in serious fire suppression for the much of forest so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _not_ the cause like cons desperate wants to believe; just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burns don't even effectively mitigate risk as the ecology of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boreal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forest is different than a temperate one, so it requires fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> management
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategies that are far more labor intensive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ummm. if you care to look back a bit, the problem with boreal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forests (in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Canada) has already been addressed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why are you such a dumb fucking liar tara???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all u discussed was the size of the forest, u did not discuss the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the conventional controlled burns do not effectively mitigate fire
>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in boreal forests, nor the increased costs of the various techniques
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that must be employed instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you still haven't even after i've pointed it out in several
>>>>>>>>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear evidence of refusing to face the facts like a retarded boomer
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course we can't do anything about fires in the boreal forest.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a
>>>>>>>>>>> given ffs We can only do what we can to protect the boundaries. !!!
>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> great so u never mentioned that to joolian or his mindbogglingly stupid
>>>>>>>>>> article
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> u only admitted it after i pressed for several comments, so i have no
>>>>>>>>>> reason to believe u would have ever mentioned it otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chill. I think I said something to the effect that we have vast forest
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> we can’t do anything about. Maybe not but I don’t understand why
>>>>>>>>> you’re so
>>>>>>>>> on about it. Pick the battles that matter. Or maybe just take a break eh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the freaking article suggest climate change is not a cause of wildfire
>>>>>>>> implying it's largely a problem of mismanagement and suppression...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> completely ignoring that boreal forests, where the largest increase in
>>>>>>>> risk is seen, are largely not managed anyways due to not only the sheer
>>>>>>>> size but also the fact that managing fuel costs ~10x that of temperate
>>>>>>>> forest. normal controlled burns aren't an option cause the risks are
>>>>>>>> just different.
>>>>>>> I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that will
>>>>>>> increase wildfires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Satellite data only goes back to the 1980s. But there's solid scientific
>>>>>>> evidence based on fire scar date from tree rings on old growth trees and
>>>>>>> studies of sediment data that shows reconstructed wildfire history over
>>>>>>> thousands of years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That evidence indicates that during the 20th century in North America
>>>>>>> there's been fewer acres burned than in previous periods. They're
>>>>>>> calling it a "wildfire drought".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811286/
>>>>>>> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109
>>>>>>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3295264/
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388852965
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange how you can come up with results that show the exact opposite
>>>>>> of accepted research.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was literally accepted research.
>>>>
>>>> That you apparently would do well to read.
>>>>
>>>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811286/
>>>> Abstract
>>>> Rapid increases in wildfire area burned across North American forests
>>>> pose novel challenges for managers and society. Increasing area burned
>>>> raises questions about whether, and to what degree, contemporary fire
>>>> regimes (1984–2022) are still departed from historical fire regimes (pre-1880).[. . .]
>>>>
>>>> Since you seem to confuse the count of fires (quantitative) with
>>>> the size of fires (qualitative), you are succumbing to a type II
>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, the Tubbs Fire in 2017 -- for which we evacuated, and from which
>>>> parts of Santa Rosa burned down -- could have been kept near Calistoga
>>>> if it wasn't for the Santa Ana winds that turned it into a firestorm.
>>>> The burn path was similar to the Hanly fire of 1964, and you would
>>>> be correct to say not enough was done to prevent a recurrence.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, there is a troll in another newsgroup that continues to
>>>> say that he wishes California would burn.  This, because he
>>>> disagrees with (and apparently envies) our politics, our
>>>> economics, our technology...
>>>>
>>>> When he, in Colorado, was finally threatened by a wildfire,
>>>> I told him that a) I didn't want Colorado to burn, but that b)
>>>> I hoped he would "die in a fire".
>>>>
>>>> Since then, I've had the worst week of "bad karma" of my life.
>>>> My wife and I apparently contracted Covid-19 on the way home
>>>> from our cruise, which means we are missing a gathering today
>>>> that I'd been looking forward to for a couple of months.  We
>>>> might also miss seeing AC/DC on Wednesday.
>>>>
>>>> But that's not the worst of it.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of days ago, my favorite cat, Julie, died suddenly;
>>>> whether by stroke, aneurysm, or cardiac issue we don't know.
>>>> She just let out a moaning sound and collapsed.
>>>>
>>>> It was probably something stress-related, since she had just
>>>> interacted with Kazumi, one of our other cats -- she hissed
>>>> at him to warn him to stay out of "her" room (my office).
>>>>
>>>> Julie and I were very close.  She would perch on my shoulder
>>>> and watch while I used the computer.  She was a "foster failure",
>>>> where we had taken her off a friend's hands because the friend
>>>> couldn't handle having another cat anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't pet her when we first got her, as the previous
>>>> environment was not very loving, I'm afraid...but over the
>>>> years, she had learned to trust us, and I think she was
>>>> the sweetest inky in Santa Rosa.
>>>>
>>>> (She was with us when we evacuated for the Glass fire, a fire
>>>> that I haven't even mentioned yet.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every time I’ve brought another animal into my life I know that the
>>> inevitable will come. I’m sorry you’ve lost your Julie and I hope your
>>> karma has run its course. For now anyway because it’s always a for now.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> P.S. don’t forget about the Rainbow Bridge. :)
> 
> If there is a "God", then there has to be a Rainbow Bridge. :)
> 
> I would say more about that, but it has gotten very dusty
> in this room all of a sudden...
> 
> Okay, I guess I can't leave it with that.  I'll just point
> out that Heraclitus was writing of a "Logos" 500 BCE...and
> no, it wasn't the one from John 1:1.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
> 
> I take it to mean "divine order" (which many scholars think
> Heraclitus probably meant).  To me, that means the "Laws of Nature".
> 
> If consciousness is an inherent property of the Cosmos,
> it gives me comfort to know that she is will all of us now.
>
Every single cell in the universe is conscious. That's the ultimate 
reality. Without consciousness nothing would exist in space or time.

The idea that pets go to heaven is not so farfetched. YMMV.
 >

> (Dang that dust!)
>