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
2 comments:
Tom, I cannot find that post from 7/19, please provide a link. Perhaps it was from an email or on another forum. FYI, I NEVER delete posts from my blog.
Yes, it does sound like something I would have written AFTER the NAC lost their lawsuit, not BEFORE. We're talking about two different things here.
Had AANR joined in on the NAC lawsuit, and presented a united front against the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the result could have been quite different. After all, NAC WON THE INITIAL LAWSUIT, and only lost on appeal. That appeal could have been much more powerful with AANR's support.
And let's once again state this fact: WHEN THE DPR BANNED NUDE SUNBATHING AT SAN ONOFRE, CAHILL WAS INVALIDATED. The NAC sued in order to PRESERVE Cahill. Naturists didn't destroy Cahill, the California Parks Department did.
Had there been no lawsuit, no legal opposition, the DPR could have declared Cahill invalid anywhere at any time. It's simply a lie to blame the NAC for the loss of the Cahill policy, which was never a proper regulation in the first place.
This is why nudists and naturists must not rely on letters and promises in dealing with authorities. This is what AANR is doing now, boasting about a letter from the parks department declaring that nude recreation might be accepted only in "remote" areas. This is simply not acceptable.
Yes, further lawsuits over Cahill will likely be time wasted, not because the original lawsuit was wrongheaded or misguided, but because it's simply over. The time has come to pursue other avenues, as I suggested, outside the DPR's jurisdiction. There are still several nude beaches in California which are not in imminent danger, and the economic situation in California is ripe for picking if nudists and naturists want more public land.
But this requires the cooperation of the AANR, TNS and the NAC, working together for the clothes-free rights on public lands. The movement cannot remain split on these issues, the lifestyle is marginalized to begin with.
You are a board member of AANR West - you can do something. Reach out the naturist community, offer to help instead of block, and everyone needs to put their egos in their fanny packs.
Falsely pretending the The Academic Naturist and I actually agree with you on the San Onofre lawsuit is cheap, but actually finding tangible ways for all of us to work together is priceless.
Hi Nudiarist,
I saw your comment here on your http://thepoliticalnaturist.blogspot.com blog. This is the exact post that the comment appeared on:
http://thepoliticalnaturist.blogspot.com/2009/07/pissing-contest.html
You will see it is comment #5.
I agree 100% that AANR, TNS, and NAC need to work together.
That is easier said than done as there are so many egos involved.
I have no ego involved except in wanting to promote nudism. I feel take the best ideas from AANR and TNS and use it to promote nudism. That is why I was elected to the board as I am an independent. I agree with AANR and TNS and I disagree with AANR and TNS.
However, I am not going to openly support something that another organization wants to do if I disagree with their position.
You feel as did NAC that San Onofre was too important to lose and that in order to save San Onofre the Cahill policy had to be put at risk, even though it is the major policy in the US that is used to open doors in other states for nude beaches.
Other people such as AANR and myself disagreed. As you just wrote "the Cahill policy, which was never a proper regulation in the first place" was still in place during negotiations with CA parks. CA parks did not want to revoke Cahill, they wanted to close San Onofre to nude sunbathing. In losing San Onofre, Cahill still could be quoted to other states and could have still been used in California.
Was closing San Onofre to nude sunbathing the start of a slippery slope by CA parks to close nude sunbathing at all state beaches? We will never know because of the lawsuit. According to the Los Angeles legal newspaper article I uploded the other day, CA parks has no interest in closing other nude beaches. Only time will tell.
I agree with you 100%, NAC did not lose San Onofre, CA Parks made us lose it. But then, I am talking Cahill, not San Onofre.
I do not personally know the NAC people. I have been told by guests who know members that they are very dedicated and hard working people and they are doing what they think is right to protect nudism in America. And to prove that fact, they won at the district court level in protecting San Onofre.
I have posted NAC alerts before and will continue to do so. I harbor no ill will against this organization. They just need to learn from this for the next battle to protect nudism.
In my heart, I can not believe that you would have risked the Cahill policy, the model used in other states, to save 1 beach here in California. The risk reward was way to great considering the hazards of litigation.
Post a Comment