Saturday, December 14, 2013

So, Who Wants To Debate Me? Yeah, So I Figured

 Some reader asked me if I'd debate any of my critics--of course. And a few others have told me and openly commented here that they'd love to see those critics go at it with me.
Don't hold your breath.
First off, they, (and they know who they are), would get slaughtered, and that's why they wouldn't do it.
Moreover, they wouldn't let their ego allow a good debate. It would be beneath them. And to be beaten to a pulp, in public no less, would shame them for the rest of their professional life.
I'm not bragging. When you're confident and believe in what you feel then the rest is easy, but again, I wouldn't hold my breath. They're just plain chicken. I'm not. In fact, should any of them want to spar, we can charge 10 bucks and donate all the money to charity. How cool is that?
*Follow me on Twitter


  1. A confident person wouldn't censor comments, but yeah, you're a game changer. When the outcome isn't heading in the direction you want, you change the game rules.

    The other game changer can't say the same but at least YOUR website works....

  2. Well,funny you brought that up. Twice on your blog I mentioned that Radnich has never had a single person write in to defend him ON 415. At least anybody we know in media.
    Last evening,Radnich bragged that the IT guy on KRON, Gabe Slate, wrote him a long thank you letter for mentioning him on KRON.
    That's almost writing 415 indignant, huh?

    1. I rode the elevator with Gary on Hawthorne Street for many years as I was employed at a competitor downstairs. Random people accost him all the time feeling like they know him because they've "seen" or "heard" him. He is always gracious and outgoing to all of them. He also delivered a memorable eulogy for my co-worker and friend Sylvester Jackson, at a service at many years ago.

      I have thought about defending him (and others) here many times, but he's a "big boy" and he knows the good comes with the bad when one is in the spotlight. Besides, it seems to be the purpose of the Internet--to let people get their "snark" on.
      My encounters with him have been from time to time seeing him around town, but my experience with him has been more from seeing him as a person not a media personality. I do think there would be less snark on the Internet if we tried to see the human qualities of the people we encounter here. Oh, one other thing. I like his body of work.

    2. I have encountered Mr. Radnich occasionally over the years and found him to be friendly and likeable.

      I've never understood the persistent, intense Radnich hate on this blog. One person in particular is obsessed!

    3. By the way Joel,Radnich has never apologized to me. Its why he never mentions my name. A small shallow man he is.

    4. Oh,I see you teach at SJstate? I'm sure you read that I predicted the president of that school might have troubles in that community right here on 415 and Lowell Cohns blog. Sure enough a year later...Mo Qayoumi is even admitting he let things go. No surprise to me.
      Men like that aren't axe murderers,and have admirers...but I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. Or,is that a threat too?

    5. Stan is a real sicko if he thinks Radnich ever heard of him, cares about him, or would have any reason to apologize to him.

      Also the nutty idea that anyone has read whatever crazy thing he claims to have written about SJ State is entirely irrational.

      Stan needs psychiatric help.

    6. Anonymous is a weasel if he thinks Raddy has no idea who I am. Even Rich can vouch for that I'm sure. And a few of BASG commenters who also cross over to my blog and said they knew who Radnich was reacting too.
      Most regulars here and on Lowell's blog know of my almost fantastically accurate prediction at SJ State. Ask BASG's "Spartan Guy" about me..I wrote about it last year. Go ahead,I have people and facts.
      Help? Yeah sure..just like half the angry FOX people always include instructions to the host Mr. Leiberman to take his meds or some such comment. What a good hearted person you must be 756 to offer such advice.
      And,Rich did leave out my reason for expecting an apology from big shot Radnich. But,go to my blog,scroll down a couple months of posts and I tell the whole story of me and Uncle Gary from the start.
      I agree with Rich,that Radnich is way too egotistical to ever do that (or debate). That's a sure thing to those who say there is no such thing!..

    7. One last I always forgot to mention.Patrick Connors knows what was really on that email years ago. And why I have no fear Radnich will ever say I libel him.
      Plus,I have that email on my PC...Its more then his word vs mine. Its proof I'm right.

    8. And least admit you omitted one of my posts..if your going to then post some fool wondering why I ask for an apology.
      Cmon, we aren't friends..but its the wrong thing for you to do.

  3. You are unable to answer your critics on the blog so you censor their comments, You'd do no better in a real debate.

    Pretending that "your critics" are afraid to debate you is childish posturing.

  4. Hey Rich, why not have that debate right here?
    All you have to do is stop censoring comments from those who disagree with you or who call you out on facts.

  5. When and where?

    1. You're a house shill--major schmuck. I won't waste my time with you and you're irrelevant at that, bye bye.

  6. Rich,

    I posted two questions. You censored them. And you're asking for honest debate?

    Come on, man. Own up to reality for a second.

    1. Wait now I'm confused. You post the comment calling out your censorship but not the comments themselves?

      And you're looking for debate?

  7. Rich, congratulations on winning your imaginary debate with nobody.

    If you were really capable of prevailing in a contest of words, you wouldn't censor comments so extensively. The great debater is afraid of publishing contradictory opinions.

  8. Rich, most of this blog is a product of your subjective opinion. Most of us know that means this is not The News per se, this is a presentation of current events or non-events or pontifications about events as viewed from your perspective. This site can be quite informative to news junkies like me, but I know each report will have been 'baked in your oven' not mine. I am free to come and express my opinion, so long as it's said in an interesting, non-libelous way. In other words, don't change a thing. Just keep baking your biscuits.
    What I find mysterious is these accusations of you censoring stuff. There is a difference between censoring and editing folks, look it up. Both are permitted on this kind of format, and one is strongly encouraged.

    1. Why not just make this another post instead of commenting on your own post, Rich?

  9. "Wake-Up-America, Grab The Keys
    From Atrocious Republican Leadership"

    When given keys to drive Our American Vehicle, the Republican party has without fail steered the country into *SERIOUS FINANCIAL STRAITS* in their unbridled pursuit of the Dollar.

    CRASH #1
    Republicans had the majority in both houses of Congress from the beginning of the Civil War through the Panic (Depression) of 1873. Two of the three Presidents during that time were Republicans. Supreme Court Justice appointments by party was Republicans 6, Democrats 3.

    CRASH #2
    The Presidency: Harding, Coolidge, Hoover. From Mar 4 1921 up to the 1929 crash (almost 9 years)
    The House: 13 year majority from 1917 up to the 1929 crash
    The Senate: 11 year majority from 1919 up to the 1929 crash
    Supreme Court Appointees:
    By Republicans: 7
    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.-1902, Willis Van Devanter-1911, William Howard Taft-1921, George Sutherland-1922, Pierce Butler-1922, Edward Sanford-1923, Harlan Stone-1925
    By Democrats: 2
    James McReynolds-1914, Louis D. Brandeis-1916

    CRASH #3
    The Presidency: George W. Bush. From January 20 2001 up to the 2008 crash (almost 8 years)
    The House: 14 year majority from 1995 up to the 2008 crash
    The Senate: 12 year majority through 2006, equal in 2007 and 2008
    Supreme Court Appointees: (Sandra Day O’Connor-1981-2006)
    By Republicans: 7
    John Paul Stevens-1975, Antonin Scalia-1986, Anthony Kennedy-1988, David Souter-1990, Clarence Thomas -1991, John Roberts-2005, Samuel A. Alito-2006
    By Democrats: 2
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg-1993, Stephen Breyer- 1994

    1. Just keep on drinkin that rancid Kool-aide, you may even convince yourself this illogic passes as serious thought. Strange how you only tell one side of the story, the parts not made up as you type, I mean. Admit it, the alinski methods, the cloward/ piven approaches to running an economy, the crippling of boarder patrol authority by the DIMS , the capricious, the downgrading of educational standards , the vituperous EPA rules against private property ownership, all come together to the ruin of this country. To me, that;s a bad thing. I only speak for myself.Stop Makin stuff up.