(urth) BSG Spoiler

Jeff Wilson jwilson at io.com
Mon Mar 23 01:05:12 PDT 2009

James Wynn wrote:
> But if any colonists settled in Hawaii, as far as I could tell from
> the map, that was not the sort of places they focused on as a rule.
> They settled in _populated_ places like Africa, the eastern Asia, and
> the Middle East: in other words, they settled in regions where
> evidence of early man has been found. However, to the eye of people
> with the right skills, these were seen as fertile areas. Kansas and
> Minnesota were seen as a bountifully fertile lands. Prerepublic Texas
> was invariably described that way although the undeveloped state would
> look like only a wilderness to me.

I live in Texas, and it is indeed rich land, but it is still miserably 
cold her during the winter despite only snowing one or two days. I can't 
imagine preferring Minnesota over here given a choice in the 19th 
century, and I can't imagine preferring here over Hawaii in the same 
*informed* conditions.

The chief reason for the colonists to choose inhabited areas is that 
habitation demonstrates the area is habitable even by people in that 
primitive, language-less state.

Hm, that's a question - how does Baltaar have a background in 
palaeoanthropology, when the Colonies had no prehistory?

Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >

More information about the Urth mailing list