Thursday, October 22, 2009

Bloggers nudiarist and academic naturist write about my opinion of the the San Onofre court case

I like I think he is the best nudist blogger on the net. Even better than me. I have a lot of respect for him. I don't always agree with him and today, it was obviously vice versa.

Today, nudiarist said I was bashing NAC for disagreeing with their decision to go to court over San Onofre. Yet, the funny thing is Nudiarst agreed with my position back on 7/19/09. He wrote:
"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."

I guess he was bashing NAC too back then? Or he was doing like I was doing, disagreeing with going to court and wanting to work for compromise with CA DPR instead.

Now, I want it to be clear. What I am writing here is MY OWN OPINION. It has nothing to do with any other nudist organizations. I am not a "mouthpiece" for AANR. However when I write things they could be misconstrued as "official" nudist writings. That is why prior to this final court decision, I did not put my disagreement with going to court into writing as I did not want it to be used against nudists by the parks dept.

I never undermined this case and I know of no other nudists that did. In print, nudists supported the lawsuit even if in our hearts many disagreed with it. I for one in this blog supported the Naturists once they decided to sue the California Parks department. For instance, on 7/2/09 I posted the link to a local San Clemente Newspaper for people to vote their support to keep San Onofre nude hoping the results would help their case.

In an e-mail or comment to Nudiarst (I forget which), I invited him to call me to discuss this case as I would NOT put it in writing. Nudiarist nicely e-mailed me back, but we never had the chance to talk.

Anyone can always call me at 800-786-6938. I am happy to talk to them.

In my post earlier today, I wrote "In politics you have to compromise if you want your way. That is normally the best solution as it would have been in this case." Academic Naturist wrote a comment on nudiarsts post today stating, "Tom was on my naughty list the moment he took the AANR job [I am on the AANR WEST board as PR chair]. It was only a matter of time before the brainwashing was complete."

Yet, on a 10/10/09 post he wrote about a women who supports the NRA and is conflicted about flying to the national NRA meeting without her gun. Academic Naturist wrote "The obvious answer is bite the bullet and leave the gun at home, despite her belief that she should be able to take the gun with. She'll have a much bigger impact on the future rights to carry a gun if she goes without it."

Here the obvious answer was bite the bullet, lose San Onofre and work to get other nude beaches in California while maintaining keeping the Cahill policy intact which is the model used throughout the US.

So Academic naturist sure sounds like you agree with compromise which was an option that was offered all nudists concerning San Onofre before the court case.

So once you analyzed what nudiarst and academic naturist have written in the past, they pretty much agree with my position. Thanks guys.


Academic Naturist said...

Wow... way to pull both Nudiarist's and my words completely out of context! I assume that was part of the AANR brainwashing? (I notice a lot of that in their PR.)

My words were an example, in an offensive context. A woman taking a gun to an airport is an offensive gesture. Me taking a nude beaches book to the library is an offensive gesture. With the DPR attacking San Onofre, NAC's move was a DEFENSIVE gesture. There is a HUGE difference between the two, and different strategies are needed for each!

You seem to think that by giving up one beach, 'biting the bullet', the DPR would suddenly be supporting of the rest. That might work in the business world in an OFFENSIVE strategy, like closing one factory so the company does good overall. But, there is no indication that the DPR had that in mind. Their empty promises held no weight, and were probably said just to get AANR to stand down. More likely, closing one beach would be used as fuel to close the next and so on. We were in a DEVENSIVE mode. Instead of watching our chips slowly slide to the other side of the table, NAC bravely called an 'all in' and hoped to win big.

If NAC had won this case, all the AANR people would be quietly figuring out a way to make it look like they were right and that they had won.

Hopefully I've clarified the difference between a DEFENSIVE strategy and an OFFENSIVE strategy. Compromising works best in an OFFENSIVE strategy.

If you ever get approached by a bear, I hope that you offer up an arm in an attempt to compromise. I, personally, would climb the nearest tree and kick it in the face if it's after me.

Tom Mulhall said...

Well we will NEVER learn what the CA DPR's intentions were since a lawsuit was started so early in the game.

What is it with you and AANR brainwashing? I am probably the most OUTSIDE person on an AANR board. Whixh is why they wanted me (I assume) new sound business ideas.

The bear story is a good one as the bear is our state animal. I like how you included that.

But, as I said, you DO NOT know me. I would borrow your friend from the NRA's .44 magnum, give the bear a warning shot, and then sorrow, it is the bear or me.

I wish NAC had won. They were all in on that roll of the dice. But, as that song goes sometimes you need to know when to fold them.