I certainly am of little worth in comparison to yourself, sir, and
almost all others of the Basin. I am a simple herbalist and I generally
keep to myself yet I find myself compelled to speak. It undoubtedly will
come back to plague me but thus is life.

I will speak on two things. One is High Druid Gib Gladheart of the
Lakewoods Commune and Ackleberry Forest. The other is your definition of
"nature" and your scientific method...or lack thereof to be more
precise.

I have read your posts on Gib Gladheart who was the former High Druid of
Ackleberry Forest and the Lakewoods Commune. I view your efforts to
whitewash what was done to High Druid GIb Gladheart by those within the
tainted forest of Glomdoring as an attempt at revisionist history. (And
before you claim that Glomdoring is not, nor evidently ever was, tainted
know that I have taken the words directly from a posting by Roark
Libertas. Glomdoring is tainted by His words. Argue the point with Him
if you wish.) You have attempted to paste scholarly language to a bucket
of manure attempting to potray it not as a bucket of manure but as a
container of sweet perfume. Even more amusing than this you, evidently,
expect such musings to be blithely accepted without question.

Your revisionistic historical attempt has no basis in any scientific
field of endeavor. It is your opinion based on...your opinion...and
little else. While I understand that the years of discussions you had
with High Druid Gladheart while he was in the throes of his irrational
madness and tainted state will suffice for your, obviously biased,
endeavors into scientific inquiry let me assure you that no rational
scholar worth the name will put any credence into such unsubstantiated
claims as have been made in your, and others, postings. Nor will it
suffice for those who are true scholars in pursuit of knowledge for
unsubstantiated claims made by any person that a documented madman has
suddenly given them the "true" version of the reasons for his condition
and his history. To claim this is knowledge that is relevant is
ridiculous, sir.

It is not even an adquete biography much less hold any resemblance to
scientific method. A poor attempt at revisionistic history. I would
grade your "report" on High Druid Gladheart at a D or D-, though you
would get a passing grade for the cleverness of the attempt.

Now on to the second point. I could claim, as others have and whose
point of view you evidently agree with, that there is nothing within our
conscioness that is "unnatural". That all things perceived by our
individual and collective consciouness are within "nature" and therefore
should be welcomed and encouraged as a part of Nature. As this seems to
be the view that you are espousing, as near as I can tell at any rate
from your posts, I would ask you a question if I may.

When will the Commune of Lost Gloriana be putting up stone buldings,
belching forth noxious smoke and fumes, laying down stone roads, cutting
the trees for all the other plants and animals within the "natural"
forest of Lost Gloriana to enjoy?

In other words, if we follow your rational and definition of "Nature",
cities are as much a part of Nature as the forests, rivers and mountains
of the Basin, therefore it is perfectly "natural" and a part of "Nature"
for the Communes to just allow the cities complete sway within the Basin
and to allow them to build wherever, whatever and whenever they wish.
Using your rational why fight against something that is of "Nature"? You
obviously consider a city to be such.

While an argument can possible be made for your view and definition,
sir, by someone who has more regard for logic and the scientific method
as opposed to revisionism and rhetoric based on emotion, I would like to
make this point.

Taint was introduced to the world by abominations that were unleashed on
Lusternia by the remnants of the empire that you would follow and
reestablish with your fellow companion and ally Magnagora. You accept
Taint as a "natural" thing. As being of "Nature". Most of us view it as
invasive and not a product of this world and would be rid of it.

Equate it to weeds, sir. Noxious weeds that grow profusely, invade and
choke out other beneficial plants might be of "nature" but that doesn't
mean I have to abide them within my garden or allow them sway over all
the land to the detriment of other plants and animals.

Suffice to say, sir, I find your "scholarly" pursuits lack substance.
Your "study" concluded with what you had already decided was the answer.
You do not, or did not in the case with High Druid Gladheart, approach
with an open mind. You formulated your conclusion before you began and
tailored your "finding" to mesh with your already established biased
opinion. While this type of rhetoric and inherently dishonest approach
to the acquisition of knowledge may suffice for many within the Basin
you should be aware that among those who are true scholars and who
research for knowledge using honest scientific method, logic and an open
mind will undoubtedly find that your efforts are poor, nonscientific,
illogical and of little worth.

All may give their "opinion" or "definition", sir, on what they consider
"nature" to be. One person's opinion or definition is of no less worth
than another person's. For you to make some claim or imply that your
definition is the definitive one and above any other person's is mildly
amusing but that is all it is. Mildly amusing rhetoric signifying very
little to nothing.

Xiphoid

Penned by my hand on the 14th of Avechary, in the year 125 CE.