After much consideration, I've decided to offer my own thoughts on
Strung's previous missive, public record 348. I write with no official
backing. This is just what came to mind while musing over the current
events. I apologise in advance for the length, and hope you will bear
with me anyway.

The rather poor attempt at sarcasm seems to poke at Haern, His Order,
and those who choose to further the growth of the wilds. Thinly veiled,
he states that the jungle is perhaps not terribly conducive to
comfortable living, and might be too hazardous for the people who reside
in the village of Tasur'ke. He cries danger to the children, and points
out a lack of protection for the (apparently) helpless villagers. He
implies that such protection will be offered at the merciful hands of
Shoimoro, and the rest of those who oppose the totem's growth. For some
reason, he seems to think that those strengthening the totem claim that
they are "..in no way at all connected to Him [Haern]."

The last claim is so absurd it hardly deserves the attention. Obviously
the people involved have affiliations, and thus connections. Certainly
members of Haern's Order do not make this claim. On a philosophical
level, I doubt anyone can honestly say they have no connection with Him,
or any other Divine. It's simply ridiculous. Perhaps he intended to
scorn the practices of Duiran's officials, and their choice of enemies,
and was just side-tracked by a shiny object. However, this too is a
pointless and ineffectual argument, even if he did have a say in such
matters.

I do not know Shoimoro personally, so I can only address the claims of
protection and benevolence from what I have heard of him, and what I
have experienced with those who support him. While I admit that what
I've heard may very well be biased, my own experiences do lead me to
believe that their intentions are not so heavily based on the welfare of
the village and its people- who, from what I can discern, seem only to
wish to remain uninvolved in the conflict.

As for his bleeding heart position regarding the safety of the children
and the people in general, I have to wonder- Should we all live such a
sheltered life of luxury as he obviously has, that he does not know
better than to approach poisonous and dangerous wildlife? Does he have
no drive to learn, grow and strengthen?


I do not have any children of my own, but again I am left to my
wonderings: Is it not the responsibility of a parent to protect their
offspring? For if they better understood the jungle, they would know to
teach a child basic safety precautions and rules. If the child isn't old
enough to understand, there's no excuse for the child to be running
around unsupervised- jungle or no jungle. What sort of parent does not
look after his or her child in an unfamiliar environment?

I, too, worry for the safety of children. I wonder about the implication
that city life is so much safer than living within nature's realm.
Regularly, I hear tales of invasions, death, kidnappings, and even the
torture of children within the land's large cities. Why is it better to
bring those hazards to this peaceful village? How is that benevolent?
Call me crazy, but I would rather learn the patterns of the wild, than
try and figure out the whim of man. I would rather raise my children to
be strong and smart and true, than manipulating, sarcastic, uninformed,
and lazy.

As an aside, I would note that from the description given of the snake,
it is not nearly so vile as he would have anyone believe. Yes, the bands
denote poison, but rats and other vermin, which I know for a fact plague
large cities, spread disease far worse than the venom of Strung's little
snake. Now, apparently Strung went to pet this snake and found that it
was "teething". One can only conclude that this observation was noted
because the snake bit him. Why, then, did he not die, if his implication
that a child was slain by the snake has any validity to it?

To quote Strung, "Like any child would, I proceeded to pet the pretty
animal and examine it more closely." Does anyone else see the irony in
this statement? Perhaps, then, he ought to grow up and look at what is
going on like a man would, rather than acting as "any child would." (He
really should get to know some children of the wild as well, and
re-evalute his measure of their intelligence. Having grown up in the
wild myself, I find that particular statement personally insulting.)

I would urge all of you to take another look at the wildlife he and his
cohorts want to destroy. Perhaps consider what it provides, and how much
you would appreciate living without those comforts. I certainly hope the
people working to destroy the jungle are seriously weighing this
potential loss.

--P. Skyseeker

Penned by my hand on the 15th of Haernos, in the year 70 MA.