Comments:Thousands more evacuated in California, USA
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
I hate that Smokey the bear thing. First they say that you shouldn't let a fire burn. Then they say that you should let it burn. Now they say that you shouldn't let it burn.
The truth about forest fires, is that it is a natural process that rejuvenates the landscape. If there is artificially no forest fire for too long, the underbrush gets too thick so that when it does burn it is catastrophic. Environmentalists really don't know what they are doing it seems. Contralya 19:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most of these fire were a result of arson though. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool (or hot) satellite images. Good find and good usage. Much more useful than the close-up images of a single house on fire that main-stream media tends to use. --SVTCobra 00:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I thought so too. But neither are really compatible with the lead unfortunately. I am still looking for more though. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)