There was a blog post about me today. Gosh, I'm honored.
I guess I have ruffled a few feathers. I did not intend to as I have better things to do in my life than to have to respond to blog posts.
Nudiarst writes: "In a post today, Tom Mulhall claims that I actually agreed with his position on San Onofre based upon a few words he claims I wrote back on July 19 of this year."
He then states: "Pulling a few words out of context is a patently dishonest way to engage in debate. I would hope that Tom would keep this exchange of ideas and positions on a higher level."
This is what I quoted from nudiarst that he wrote on his blog on 7/19/09. I gave him the date yesterday:
"That's why I've said that the NAC should consider abandoning any further lawsuits at San Onofre, and instead seek ways to establish new areas. The California DPR doesn't oversee the entire coast, does it? There has to be several beaches ripe for nude recreation, in jurisdictions that need the revenue.
Sure, the loss of San Onofre is painful, but it doesn't necessarily spell the end of nude beaches in California."
So you can judge if I pulled something out of context, here is his FULL comment:
"I think AANR does have a lot to lose. Certainly the NAC, TNS members, and the Friends of San Onofre Beach are upset at them for undermining their efforts.
AANR has staked its reputation on this deal with the DPR. They have stated quite emphatically that they are not being played for a fool, and if it turns out that the DPR is yanking their chain, they will lose all credibility on the public lands issue.
I think that AANR knows that more free beaches are inevitable, Yes, San Onofre is a setback, but look at what's happening at Key West. Cities and states are desperate for money and there should be a willingness to designate more areas for nude sunbathing and swimming if it can be shown that such a venture can be safe and profitable.
That's why I've said that the NAC should consider abandoning any further lawsuits at San Onofre, and instead seek ways to establish new areas. The California DPR doesn't oversee the entire coast, does it? There has to be several beaches ripe for nude recreation, in jurisdictions that need the revenue.
Sure, the loss of San Onofre is painful, but it doesn't necessarily spell the end of nude beaches in California."
Everyone knows nudiarist does not agree with AANR. That really is real old news and means nothing as far as the Cahill policy being invalidated. What means something is he wrote "NAC should consider abandoning any further lawsuits."
Now once the court of appeals invalidated Cahill, NAC had to take it to the Supreme Court of California in hopes of getting the decision overturned. That was the correct move since the policy was invalidated at the court of appeals level.
I feel the lawsuit was started way to early in the negotiation process.
Later in today's post from nudiarst he writing "Pulling a few words out of context is a patently dishonest way to engage in debate. I would hope that Tom would keep this exchange of ideas and positions on a higher level" is a low blow.
As EVERYONE can see, NOTHING was pulled out of context.
As a matter of fact your whole post
CLICK HERE TO SEE POST was beneath your standards of excellence that you have maintained. At this point in time, I will still say you are the best nudist blogger on the web. I assume you are saddened by the San Onofre results as all nudists are and that is why you lashed out at me, but cheap shots at me does not reflect well on you.
You feel strongly that NAC should have sued, I don't. You got your way, NAC sued and now we all have to live with whatever the results will be with Cahill being invalidated. That is the true injustice here.
Some people think it is romantic, even chivalrous to tilt at windmills. I'm a pragmatist and don't. That is probably where we differ.
Tom
