Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

It depends on what you mean by prevention programs.

In a way some of those programs were too active.

A ground fire doesn't kill mature trees, that takes a canopy fire.

Active programs to watch for and stomp out any fire as quickly as possible combined with cutting off logging and other efforts to thin forests has resulted in a massive build up of fuel on the ground almost guaranteeing a canopy fire when a fire does get started.

That is the real problem in California and Oregon.

"Cutting trees is bad", so nobody goes in and thins out the dead and dying trees. They are handled with a "hands off" approach, and just left to grow out of control. And with efforts to stop all fires, eventually the debris builds up so that when a fire does get out of control, it can no longer be stopped.

I know when I lived in Oroville, it was easy to spot the old "firebreaks" on the hillsides. Where it was common at one time to bulldoze and keep clear large areas, so that if a fire broke out it could be contained. And a great many were actually maintained by the logging companies. They had a vested interest in keeping the forests healthy, and both eliminating dead wood and debris, and replanting.

Now, nobody maintains them, and when fires break out (like we have had the last 3 years), they run out of control. Yet you look at other states (Idaho, Wyoming, Montana), some areas are still maintained by the logging industry, and others are left to run wild. And the ones that burn most often and are more extensive are the ones that are not maintained.

Until 30 years ago, Yellowstone was like that. Then a huge chunk of the park burned down. They still allow almost no logging, but now allow and monitor fires when they do break out. And while there were 17 fires there last year, none of them did major damage to the park. Because they admit that unless you are going to maintain an area manually, you just have to let nature do it in its own way.

This is the problem when you have people who really do not understand something trying to run it. Timber companies are bad and no trees should ever be cut down. OK, great, go ahead and force that through if that is what you think. But somebody had better step up and replace them when it comes to maintaining the forests.

I find it most funny that most who try to push those beliefs have probably never actually been in a forest.

I'm pretty sure a Bambi has appeared in a large number of dirty movies.

One thing that always puzzled me. "Bambi" is a male deer. Yet is always girls that use the name in porn.

Why not Frank, or Harold?

Male names ending if vowels generally are rare in the US, but almost none ending in i. The i for some reason has taken on particularly feminine tones, not sure why.

Mike, Pete, Tony, Antonio, George, Dave, Steve, Joshua, Charlie, Henry, Harry, Eddie, etc.

I would question that, probably somebody making a false correlation if you ask me.

In regards to Steve, those who have that has their actual proper name are much fewer in number than Steven.

My youngest son is named "Dave". Named after my uncle, and his grandfather, also named "Dave". His older brother is "Zachary". Once again, that "I" sound at the end.

Of course, their mother was a bit of an odd bird, which is probably one reason I loved her so much. Born "Rebecca", she for some reason had picked the spelling "Bekkie". But you could tell her parents were also of the "Hippie" era, because of the middle name of "Dawn".

Names are fun things, and I love studying them. But also often laugh at them. Especially at the inadvertent combinations.

Like my oldest son. Who is named "John Paul". A combination of 2 names from my family, but also the name of the Pope at the time of his birth. A coincidence my ex-Catholic wife at the time did not realize and then often hated. "Oh, you are from South America and named your son after the Pope, how inspiring!" *wife grinds teeth*

Y is not always a vowel, it doesn't count.

Irrelevant fact: In the UK, Lesley is normally female and Leslie is normally male. But I believe there are regional variations and sometimes the opposite is true.

AJ

Irrelevant fact: In the UK, Lesley is normally female and Leslie is normally male. But I believe there are regional variations and sometimes the opposite is true.

In the US, Bobbi is normally female, Bobby is normally male. Yet when said out loud, both of them sound the exact same.

"Vowel" is only important when writing a name or word. In this case, the important thing is really what the name sounds like. Therefore, since "I" and "Y" sound the same, both are equally valid.

Of course, we can always just make a future where everybody is named "Pat", "Chris", and "Tracy". At that point, we will never have an idea.

I have three friends named Pat. One of each.

Not a problem. Hell, SNL made a long running sketch with such a character. And 25 years ago made over that very topic.

A character (played by Julie Sweeney), and "their" significant other, Chris. Who left Pat at one point for somebody else named Terry. Myself, I thought it was hilarious, and was great at playing with conceptions.

Of course, today people would find that offensive.

Dicky, Tricky, Ricky

Is that Freudian? Dicky and Ricky are obvious contractions of Richard, but if you had a friend, you'd want them to call you Tricky?

AJ

Y is not always a vowel, it doesn't count.

What is the sound? Hmmm, predominantly it is the "I" sound. What matters when saying a name, the letter or the sound?

And most of us do not go around calling each other by more formal names most of the time. But I grew up with people names "Steve", and 'Dave". Lots of the early proto-hippies used the less formal names as the birth name.

When not using names like Star, Bright, and Moon Unit.