I still tend to disagree with it....I still believe thos with loss of life were "bigger".....but I commend you on making people think and dig...you kind of note who cares enough to do the work......
Did the thread title say "biggest" at some stage? If not I think "largest" means size, as in area. Mind you, I'd read "biggest" as meaning area as well. The "worst" to me would mean casualties and/or property damage. Semantic?
Strange how we so often look at fires in these ways. Another of those times when 'bigger' dosen't always mean 'better'? And there have certainly been some big and nasty fires over there.
Tony, the question on "largest" was brought up and it helps to specicy because there are different perspectives.
Although I agree that "largest" doesn't necessarily mean square area. "Largest" loss of life was Peshtigo. Largest dollar loss, Largest FF loss, and so forth. Next time, please specify.
"Firefighter NetCast" - that name is too long to use in a reply!
Your suggestion would require people to read through a thread. I can't see that happening too often. We're still getting answers/guesses even though you've provided your answer, So really, posting a different 'answer' now should contain reasons as to why the new post is correct and your answer incorrect.
Did you notice I never posted a guess? Simply because I have no idea what so ever. I wouldn't even know the largest one here in Australia. I could guess at the largest in my State I suppose - no, I wouldn't guess I'd look it up ;o) It's been an intersting thread.