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.
The funny thing is, I cannot find those exact words anywhere on my blog (perhaps they are from an email or another forum), but yes, I did say that following the loss in the Fourth District Court of Appeal, I felt the NAC would better serve the naturist cause by returning to a grassroots effort, because I believed the appeal to the Supreme Court was futile, and I was right.
I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE INITIAL NAC LAWSUIT AND HAVE SPOKEN LOUDLY AND OFTEN AGAINST AANR'S APPEASEMENT POLICY WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION.
You can go back and review everything I've written about the San Onofre case here.
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.
2 comments:
I posted a reply on his blog, but being an AANR person I don't trust him to approve it. So, here's my reply to him:
---
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.
Heh... I was right, he never approved it!
Post a Comment