It’s very early Sunday morning. I wake up. My bedroom smells like stale beer, cheap cigarettes and a dirty hat. There was an e-mail in my inbox from R. Stacy McCain, a 5,000 word hate screed.
Let’s answer him. My replies will be bold and blue. The subject is “Your Continued Harassment.” This from a man responsible for this.
All these tweets within the past 13 hours.
You seem to think you deserve attention, but when you get the kind of attention you deserve, you don’t seem to appreciate it very much. I deserve to be harassed by a drunken racist who can’t get a real job writing for a real news organization? You threaten and harass people, and if they ignore your threats, you accuse them of cowardice. I don’t harass people. I ask questions. If they don’t answer, I ask again. You used to know what that is. It’s called “journalism.” But when these people take notice of your bizarre and hateful conduct, you claim that you are a victim, that they have harassed or otherwise wronged you. I would call being deemed a pedophile by Ali Akbar bizarre and hateful. Wouldn’t you?
Perhaps there is some rational explanation for the notorious pattern of your online behavior, but damned if I can imagine what that might be. You start out with a false assumption that I am notorious and bizarre, you establish it in your mind as truth, and you filter your every perception through that filter of your own creation. Even if you were, as some suspect, being paid by Brett Kimberlin to stalk his targeted enemies and subject them to mental anguish — to provoke, annoy or intimidate them — your actions are either ineffective or self-defeating. What kind of idiot would Brett Kimberlin be to pay someone to stalk and harass people when his chief objective, as far as I can tell, is to be left alone? Your behavior, if done in Kimberlin’s service, only further harms Kimberlin’s reputation, because what kind of monster would hire such a monster as you? And again, here we are operating through the filter you created, the filter you say is true because, well, you say so. You don’t know me. You’ve never met me. And you never describe a single act I’ve done in my life that qualifies for the libelous term of “monster.”
Because it has not been conclusively proven that you are employed or sponsored by Kimberlin, and it won’t be because I am not then I have no choice but to suppose that you have been acting independently and of your own volition since you began cyberstalking Aaron Walker in June 2012. By cyberstalking, of course, you mean the same process a journalist employs. Asking questions and expecting answers. Therefore, by a process of elimination – deductive logic, Occam’s Razor, etc. – this leads to exactly one explanation: YOU’RE CRAZY. Faulty logic seems to be your specialty, Mr. McCain.
Daft. Bonkers. Kooky. Bats in the belfry.
A few fries short of a Happy Meal. (Name calling is fun, right Rummy?)
Recall if you can, sir, the first time your name appeared on this blog. Don’t bother looking it up, because I have not forgotten. It was Sept. 4, 2012, the day I left to cover the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., in a post that included this:
Arrogant sociopathic punks think they can go around threatening people and if you dare say a word back to them, you’re the bad guy.
Speaking of punks, an obscure talentless assclown named Bill Schmalfeldt is threatening to sue Aaron Walker. (I don’t recall making such a threat. I do recall Aaron Walker assuming a threat had been made, but let’s face it. This is the guy who thought “Beware the Ides of March” was a death threat.)
You may follow that link to Patterico – explaining threats against Lee Stranahan and Brandon Darby and the producers of Occupy Unmasked, threats that made headlines in the Hollywood Reporter — and to Aaron Walker’s Allergic2Bull blog about your “Liberal Grouch” persona:
First off, my accusation was based on a series of tweets that Occupy Rebellion and Liberal Grouch — who are in constant contact — tweeted out. These are documented over at Joe Brooks’ blog here and here. LG doesn’t deny that he said these things and so he is angry at me for… drawing a conclusion about what he said that he doesn’t like. (Constant contact? What does that mean? We have a hot line? We exchange e-mails every day? Every now and then I get an e-mail? What does Aaron Walker know about how often I hear from Occupy Rebellion?)
You can read Aaron’s blog post of Monday, Sept. 3, 2012, and see the evidence he provides of the association between yourself and “Occupy Rebellion,” and what you wrote about Lee Stranahan’s wife:
What I wrote about Lee Stranahan’s wife, if you are referring to the fact that Lee used to at least attempt to sell her sex for a bottom dollar price of $290 if you were willing to come to the studio and $650 for a two-hour “session” if she came to your apartment to “deliver prints” has the unfortunate quality of being true and undisputed by Mr. Stranahan. It is backed up by screen caps of Mr. Stranahan’s websites from the time. They live a different life now. Good. But it is an established fact that Lee would let you get naked with his wife if the price was right, and he has never denied it to my knowledge.
The blurred URL — was that a link to Lee Stranahan’s home address? Beats me. His address is a matter of public record and was all over the internet before I even knew of the guy. HE put it there. Not me.
What did Lee Stranahan ever say or do to you, Mr. Schmalfeldt, to deserve such atrociously menacing behavior? Did you think that Lee Stranahan had no friends who would object to this? Shall we start with the time Lee Stranahan sent cops to my house on a story that evolved over the days to my personally threatening to rape his wife, then his kids, then him? Then that story evolved into my supporting Occupy Rebellion’s threat to rape his wife, his kids and then him? And how he took to Pay Pal to raise money so he could move in terror from his present location because of Bill Schmalfeldt and his horrible rape threat? A threat from a man who would have to ask his wife to drive him the 1,400 miles to Dallas. A wife who would likely ask the reason for such a trip and would probably not agree to take me to Dallas to rape Mr. or Mrs. Stranahan or their lovely children?
Did you think that you could send such a message on Twitter and no one except your hateful sympathizers would notice it? Did it not occur to you, that in publicly associating yourself with a digital terrorist like Occupy Rebellion, (and see, we are operating through your stained “truth filter” again. You SAY she is a digital terrorist, therefore she IS a digital terrorist) that you were thereby forfeiting any presumption that you were acting in good faith?
Notice, Mr. Schmalfeldt, that I just called Occupy Rebellion a “digital terrorist,” without fear of any legal consequence, because I know this:Sockpuppets can’t sue for libel. One cannot defame a secretive menace who hides behind a pseudonymous Internet account. (Which explains Kimberlin Unmasked.) And given the close association between Occupy Rebellion and the terroristic threats against Lee Stranahan, Brandon Darby and others, who knows what an investigation of those e-mails and Twitter messages might discover? But until such time as there is an ACTUAL investigation, you choose to pretend one has actually been concluded and will report its results as if they actually existed. Right?
“We’ll be legitimately raping Brandon Darby and Lee Stranahan for the next several days while they are tied up with the movie premier at the RNC,” reads an email from firstname.lastname@example.org. The email includes Darby’s and Stranahan’s cell phone numbers. That’s nice. And it has nothing to do with me.
One tweet reads, “While @Shanahan is in Tampa this week, should Texas rapists be told where to find his wife since he supports the rape of everyone else?” So, Occupy Rebellion has a call sheet of “the Texas Rapists” to activate at her command? She was writing about Stranahan’s penchant for outing the name of rape victims and general slut-shaming. Was she over the top? Yeah. And I told her so at the time.
“My wife is home with our four kids and freaked out,” Stranahan told The Hollywood Reporter. “She’s sick to her stomach.” But not that Stranahan has a flair for being a “drama queen” or anything.
My point is that no sane, decent, honest, law-abiding person would associate themselves with persons responsible for such terroristic actions. But you did, didn’t you, Mr. Schmalfeldt? Again, through your beer-stained filter, you have acted as judge and jury and declared her actions “terroristic.” And you operate on the premise that your assumptions are proven in a court of law, therefore they are true. But you do not have the luxury of deciding what is true and what is not, Mr. McCain. That is a question for a jury, not a disgraced, racist journalist, identified personally by the Southern Poverty Law Center as being a pernicious racist.
A claim of defamation requires the demonstration of actual harm to the reputation of the plaintiff and of bad motives (mala fides) on the part of the defendant. A notorious criminal like Charles Manson cannot sue for defamation, because he has no good reputation that could be harmed. And a journalist reporting on Manson’s crimes does not have bad motives for informing the public of such a criminal menace. But as my editors taught me long ago, truth is an absolute defense against any claim of libel: “Just get the facts right, and they can’t touch you.” Well, try getting the facts right. Once.
Ironic Justice for Occupy Rebellion
To describe Occupy Rebellion (hereafter OR) as a “digital terrorist” is simply a statement of fact, a vivid description based upon observation. However, as I say, sockpuppets can’t sue for libel, and the OR account was recently deleted – poof! – and if you don’t know why, Mr. Schmalfeldt, I certainly do. Some of OR’s erstwhile allies in the “Anonymous” movement had become sick and tired of her obnoxious bullshit, and were ready to “patch” and “dox” her – to connect her online persona to her real-life name, and to make public her name, address, etc., so as to subject her to harassment at home and at work. Whatever. That is OR. That is not me. I haven’t been in contact with OR for months. And when we WERE in contact, it was a sporadic thing, where I was included in e-mails sent to others as well.
This kind of terroristic activity — the implicit intimidation of what a swarming mob of online crazies might do to someone who is threatened with “doxing” — is not something any decent person can endorse, but it’s what OR and her friends were glad to see inflicted on Aaron Walker, Patrick “Patterico” Frey and other of their targets. So perhaps some will perceive an ironic justice in OR’s misfortune. Oh, spare me. Patrick Frey published the social security number and private medical information of Nadia Naffe, a woman who did him no harm. The interwebs are FULL of pages of right wing mental cases “Doxing” left wingers so spare me the sturm und drang.
Occupy Rebellion is gone, Mr. Schmalfeldt, and so that relatively high-traffic Twitter account can no longer promote your harassing messages. Again, I don’t write harassing messages. I reply to people who harass me. Again, this is truth, unfiltered through your filter, Mr. McCain. Look at the top of this column. All within the past 12 hours. But I’m the harasser?
This has deprived you of a hitherto valuable assistance in your campaigns against Walker, Stranahan, et al., which means you are back to the status I first described on Sept. 4 of last year when, at the end of a 954-word post, I called you an “obscure assclown.” Again, the assumption that I have a “campaign” against Walker, Stranahan, et. al. If anything, they have a campaign against me, as evidenced by their failed attempts to put me in jail for the mere act of trying to write stories about them.
This I intended not as a mere insult, but as a statement of fact: You are obscure — an insignificant and unpopular nobody, which is why I hadn’t paid any attention to you prior to September 2012 — and you are quite nearly the textbook definition of an assclown. I asked you this before. If I am “obscure,” why are you fixated on me? Why have you written so many stories and Twitter posts with the sole intention of defaming me? Why is it that a Google search of my name comes back with story after story written by R. Stacy McCain about my being a “deranged cyberstalker” as if it were true? Why is Walker fixated on me? Why is Hoge fixated on me? Why is it your seeming sword duty to destroy me? What harm have I caused you, Walker or Hoge?
This is a compound word combining the meaning of “ass” — stupid and/or obnoxious –– and “clown,” a laughably incompetent person. If there were an Encyclopedia of Internet Pests, the entry defining “assclown” would end with a notation: “See also, Bill Schmalfeldt.” Blah, blah, blah.
That Sept. 4, 2012, entry was not about you, Mr. Schmalfeldt, but rather about an e-mail I had received from Barrett Brown, my response to which was quoted in its entirety, a few excerpts of which I now call to your attention:
(Snip. I am not Barrett Brown. Irrelevant.)
The point is, the sound advice I gave Barrett Brown could apply equally to you, Mr. Schmalfeldt: “Spare me your lawsuit threats . . . you are traveling a road to destruction.”
I don’t believe I have threatened you with a lawsuit, Mr. McCain. Yet. But stand by.
Your threat of legal action was received, after you had sent obtuse messages on Twitter last week, hinting at all the terrible things that were about to happen to me — because this is your standard motif: “Beware, all ye whom Schmalfeldt hates! Dreadful harm shall befall you! Be afraid! Be very afraid!”
Ali Akbar has replied at length to this threat, but my own response can be summarized in two words: Fuck you.
Yes. He called me a pedophile.
The advice my editors gave me long ago was simple: “If someone calls you to complain about a story, you should be polite, but the minute they mention ‘libel’ or otherwise threaten legal action, the conversation is over. Give them the name of our lawyers and tell them not to contact the newsroom again, as this is now a legal matter.”
I’m giggling at the thought of you being “polite” in any interaction with a liberal.
Now, if the person is serious and the lawyers say “correct” or “retract,” you follow their legal advice — that’s what lawyers are for — but in nearly all cases, a threat of a lawsuit is merely that, a threat, an idiot’s attempt to intimidate honest people into silence.
I am not an idiot, Mr. McCain. And I have said time and time again, please! Write whatever you want. Just make sure it’s provably true and don’t use any images I own.
We shall see how serious you are, Mr. Schmalfeldt, about pursuing your claims of copyright violation, and I’ll let lawyers offer advice to Pundit Syndication LLC about whether my understanding of “fair use” is more accurate than yours. John Hoge, whom you have targeted with similar threats, seems certain of his own rights under “fair use” doctrine, but I’m not a lawyer and am unable to judge his case.
You certainly have no problem being a judge/jury and rendering verdicts on things you have no knowledge about. Why stop now?
As for your own understanding (of law or anything else), sir, I am quite certain it is impaired by the fact that YOU’RE CRAZY. (You’re a psychiatrist now?)
Crackers. Psycho. Loopy. Off your rocker.
Nuttier than a Snickers bar. (Again with the name calling, eh, you brain-hardened sot?)
Your claims of copyright infringement, insofar as they are not merely a delusional side-effect of your evident mental disorder, are clearly a continuation of the demonstrable pattern of obnoxious online behavior that first drew my attention to you in September 2012. Defending my copyright is a sign of delusion?
You cannot claim defamation, for I have not defamed you. Ah, but you have. You have made countless negative claims about me that are not substantiated by fact. But nothing like Mr. Akbar calling me a pedophile yesterday. You cannot claim harassment, because I have not harassed you. Tell that to Mr. Hoge. He claims a hashtag mention is me harassing him. And again, I divert your limited attention to the top of this post. So instead now you claim copyright infringement and, as I say, we shall see what the law says about that claim if, in fact, you seriously intend to pursue that claim. I will fight to claim my ownership of things I own. My hunch is that you have no such intention, you’ve been wrong about SO many things. but have merely threatenedlegal action, hoping to intimidate our web hosting provider, and to use this implausible threat as a basis for calling me a “thief.”
To repeat the earlier summary: Fuck you. (That actually helps my case. Thank you.)
The Game That Homey Does Not Play
You may wonder, Mr. Schmalfeldt, why I am sending this email to you, as I have hitherto avoided any direct communication with you. (Preferring to rattle on about me in a defamatory fashion behind my back, like most cowards.) I have on occasion written about your actions, but never have I written to you, even while you have repeatedly targeted me with your own hostile communications. (To reply to your defamatory remarks written about me like the coward I believe you to be.) The first time your photo appeared on this blog, was in November 2012, during Thanksgiving weekend when you sent me more than 200 harassing Twitter messages in a span of 48 hours. Rather than respond to on Twitter, I instead put up this blog post on Nov. 24:
(snip because irrelevant)
The answer is: Because I’m a journalist, covering a story — the story of how conservative bloggers have been harassed by an entity that has become colloquially known as “Team Kimberlin,” an entity of which you, Bill Schmalfeldt, are very much an active part. (Ah. The same reason I give for “harassing” the people you claim I “cyberstalk.” But you get to claim it because — you. I don’t get to claim it because – me. Perfectly sensible.) I seldom block troll accounts on Twitter because, since I started covering this story in May 2012, most of the psychos who show up in my timeline screaming lunatic accusations at me are part of the online troll-swarm of which Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser is generally acknowledged as the ringleader. I don’t block them, because I want to keep tabs on what they’re up to — they are part of the story — which is why I never blocked you.
And if you don’t remember why you were threatening to call my wife (!) in November 2012, Mr. Schmalfeldt, I most certainly do: (How is that a threat? If you won’t answer a question, a journalist will take the next step and ask a person who knows the person. But please, Mr. McCain. Proceed.) Last year, I moved out of Maryland and, not long before you started that particularly frenzied episode of harassment over the Thanksgiving holidays, I was informed that Neal Rauhauser had expressed interest in discovering where I’d moved. (Gee, I wonder why? Maybe Patrick Frey or Mike Stack could imagine a reason.) So when you started yammering at me on Twitter, making false claims that I had not moved from Maryland, I made three inferences:
Neal Rauhauser was behind it;
The purpose was to find out where I live; and
The excessively belligerent nature of your harassment was an attempt to get me to contact the police or otherwise seek legal action against you, hoping that I would thereby create a public record of my new address and then – boom! – I would have in effect doxed myself. (Which is why I felt the need, as a journalist, to call your wife because I did not believe you were being honest. And despite the look of fear about the woman at the thought of what you might do to her for answering me, I figured she would be honest and tell me the truth about whether or not you had actually relocated or were just using your “fear” as a fund-raising excuse, seeing how well it worked for Stranahan.)
What part of “fuck you” do I need to explain, Bill? I knew very well, that late November weekend, that the Virginia court date for Walker v. Kimberlin was approaching, and that this escalation of harassment was not merely coincidental. It’s just like Rauhauser, in his “Carlito2000” persona, trying to get Barrett Brown to go after me and Patterico. If Barrett didn’t realize he was being manipulated, I sure as hell did and, to repeat: Homey don’t play that game. And there you are, once again, formulating opinions based on a faulty hypothesis. Get the hypothesis correct. THEN form opinions.
Your Non-Coincidental Curiosity
That’s something else you perhaps ought to think about, Mr. Schmalfeldt: Neal Rauhauser is much smarter than you are. (Never met him, spoke to him once. Seems like a nice guy in a quirky way.) Perhaps less crazy, but definitely much smarter. Barrett Brown has never figured that out, and maybe he never will, but the one thing I’ve never done is to underestimate Neal Rauhauser’s evil cunning. I am not Barrett Brown.
People who once worked with Rauhauser have used words like “scary” and “dangerous” to describe him. I’ve never “worked” with Rauhauser. Also, “impulsive” — his great weakness: Neal is prone to cook up a scheme and act on it without considering what would seem to be predictable second- and third-degree consequences. Yet Neal is exceptionally intelligent (one former friend estimated Neal’s IQ at 160), and remarkably adept at identifying the kind of people he can dishonestly manipulate for his own evil purposes. Neal took advantage of Barrett Brown’s susceptibility, inspiring Barrett to contact both me and Patterico, apparently in an effort to get . . .
Well, I have a good hunch what Neal’s purpose was, but let’s not go into that, eh? (Your hunches are not evidence anyway.) The point is that Neal used Barrett, and Barrett’s mental state was such that he didn’t seem to understand he was being used, and next thing you know, there’s Barrett on YouTube screaming like a lunaticabout how he’s going to “destroy” an FBI agent. Oops.
Tough luck there, Barrett. But I digress . . . (God, how you ramble.)
Your interest in my whereabouts, and my wife’s employment, and my income as a journalist — your curiosity about me is apparently not just coincidental, is it, Mr. Schmalfeldt? (No. Not at all. It’s based on MY wanting to know if and why your are lying about your “relocation,” knowing that no reputable news organization will hire you with your history of race-baiting and overt racism and misogyny, and your — in my opinion — dishonest panhandling. Odd as it may seem, I have my own mind. I think my own thoughts. I come up with my own questions without help from Rauhauser, Kimberlin, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.)
Even if you’re merely crazy (again with the incorrect preconceived notion and unscientific analysis of my intent and behavior) and not employed or sponsored by Brett Kimberlin (as I have said time and time again I am not), it is not by random chance that you became obsessed with me, and I have always viewed your threats and demands and other forms of harassment in the context of a larger story. (“Obsessed” is not a word I would use as far as my thoughts about you, but about your thoughts regarding me. But again, you have formulated an opinion based on a faulty hypothesis, decided your faulty assumption is TRUTH, and are operating as if it were engraved in a stone tablet.) But you have no right to know anything about me or my family, and I have no obligation to answer any of your questions, or to take notice of your malicious accusations. (I claim the same right YOU claim — that of a journalist.)
Your obvious motive — to assist Brett Kimberlin in silencing Kimberlin’s critics — (and again, the faulty assumption based on the incorrect hypothesis and declared as truth) is sufficient cause for me to dismiss you as an active agent of evil. (Oh, please.) Having never e-mailed you before, I checked my inbox and found that you had e-mailed me three times: (Oh! The HARASSMENT!)
From Bill Schmalfeldt (email@example.com)
Tue Aug 28 11:31:15 2012
Subject: One more thing…
I notice I am forbidden from commenting on your blog. You are not forbidden to comment on mine. Why am I forbidden to comment on yours? Different opinions not welcome?
Notice the date there? Aug. 28 — nearly a week before your name ever appeared on my blog, you e-mailed to ask why you were banned from commenting at my blog. (One has nothing to do with the other. I knew of you as I was digging into the National Bloggers Club story, was reading you on a regular basis, and could not understand why someone so “dedicated” to the pursuit of “truth” would delete opposing viewpoints.)
But you had already been banned from Daily Kos and banned from Examiner.com, so why were commenting privileges at my blog of such interest to you, Mr. Schmalfeldt? (Again, you lie about the Examiner. Why do you do that? Where is your proof that I was “banned” from the Examiner? I QUIT the Examiner because they wanted to do background checks on all their writers, and I felt that to be an unnecessary invasion of privacy for a $300-month gig. Why do you insist on perpetuating that lie?) Look up “troll rights” — (again, the faulty hypothesis used to establish a certified truth. YOU call me a troll, therefore I AM a troll and that is the end of the discussion.) this insane idea that you and other trolls have, that other people are under some kind of obligation to provide their bandwidth to you so that you can spew you hatefulness (I do not hate you or anyone else. In fact, I pray to God every night to keep hate from creeping into my heart, lest I end up like you) to their readers. In other words, not content to befoul your own corner of the Internet (where no sane person would ever go), (again, an opinion based on a faulty hypothesis declared as truth) you demand that other people provide you access to their platform, so you can befoul that, too. I demand nothing, Mr. McCain. I ask. If you decline, I can demand until I’m blue in the face (or ashen grey, like you) and it will do no good.
Do I really have to explain what “fuck you” means, Bill? (No. It defines your limited ability to express yourself.)
OK, second e-mail: (Sigh.)
From Bill Schmalfeldt (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed Nov 21 08:18:12 2012
Did you and Louann ever REALLY move, or is that just part of the scam?
To this, sir, you attached a satellite photo map and a “background report” about my former address in Maryland. There were errors in that report — e.g., “10 baths”? – and it’s been years since either of those phone numbers were mine or my wife’s. However, the address was correct for the home we moved out of last year, for reasons that are well-known (there are many witnesses), but which you and Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser keep constantly lying about. But why get into that, eh? (I am not a liar, sir. I am also not a pedophile. But more about that later.)
The point is, we moved, and on Nov. 21, you sent me this e-mail, accusing me of a “scam.” Shortly thereafter, you began harassing me non-stop on Twitter, using your “Liberal Grouch” account which, if I recall correctly, was subsequently deleted because of your repeated terms-of-service violations. (Maybe you could refresh my memory about this, Bill — you’ve been banned so many places, it’s hard to keep track.) No, you are incorrect. I still hold “Liberal Grouch” in abeyance so scumbags like you can’t use it like you have used other Twitter accounts I have abandoned. And I have been banned from ONE website. And not for the reasons you and your fellow idiots keep harping on.
And finally the third e-mail: (Good lord….)
From: Bill Schmalfeldt (email@example.com)
Thu Dec 20 11:22:15 2012
Subject: Hi, Pal!
I do a BlogTalk Radio Show now. It’s on Weekdays, live from noon to 1pm. You seem like a nervy guy. Wanna be my guest? I’ll play nice if you do.
Love to have you!
Well, har-dee-har-har, “chum.” And did you notice anything unusual about your e-mails to me, Bill? Three e-mails, three addresses: In August, you e-mailed me from firstname.lastname@example.org. In November, you e-mailed me from email@example.com. And then in December, you e-mailed me from firstname.lastname@example.org. (The two comcast addresses are on the same account. The first, “balmerliberal” was created so that people writing to me about articles I wrote as “The Baltimore Liberal Examiner” on Examiner.com would not be mixed into my regular e-mail. When I created the Patriot-Ombudsman website, I created the Patriot-Ombudsman e-mail for the same reason, to keep that e-mail separate from my regular account. The “grouchcast” e-mail is part of my main Comcast account (you get, I think, something like 10 separate account with Comcast) so I could keep the GROUCHCAST SHOW e-mail separated from other accounts. Nothing nefarious, easily explained. Except, it would seem, to a fool.) Three separate e-mail accounts you used in less than four months, which probably doesn’t seem that strange to you, because you have used so many online identities in the past year or two: “Liberal Grouch,” “Dead Breitbart,” “Patriot Ombudsman,” “Bill Matthews” and so forth. But while this may seem normal to you, regular people tend to look at that kind of multiple-personality behavior and think: CRAZY. (Especially if they are operating on a faulty hypothesis and using it to formulate opinions that have no basis in truth.)
There is also the apparent instability of your mood, the way you address someone as “chum” and then accuse them of a “scam” while sending a map of (what you think is) their home, in other words: “I know where you live!” And then a few weeks later, this false-friendly invitation — “Love to have you!” — sent to someone you spent months doing everything in your power to harm. Oh, now, really Mr. McCain. How have I ever attempted to “harm” you? Sakes!
This is not how sane, decent and honest people behave, Mr. Schmalfeldt, (because you, the eminent psychologist, racist and drunk say so?) and yet you can’t seem to help yourself. You are apparently in the throes of some sort of compulsion that causes you to constantly harass and threaten people. (Again, the faulty hypothesis comes into play, coloring your perceptions of reality. You might consider getting yourself checked. Dry out first.) In complaining that I had violated your copyright, you provided a list of posts, but I could write every day about your craziness if I thought anyone wanted to read it.
The list is a list of posts where you use images that do not belong to you. They are mine, and I have not given you permission to use them. It is really quite that simple.
There’s no shortage of craziness on your part for me to write about, but I ignore most of it, because it has become so tedious: “Oh, look – Bill did something crazy again today.” (Again, the faulty hypothesis, but I do grow weary of pointing that out to you.) And of course, you’ll do something crazy tomorrow, and the day after that. Basically, if it’s a day of the week ending in “-y,” Bill Schmalfeldt is doing something crazy. Dog bites man.
Day after day, you cyberstalk and harass people, (what YOU call “journalism” when YOU do it) and it’s just like what I said about Barrett Brown:
(Snip. I am not Barrett Brown. Irrelevant.)
The Dragon Kicks Sir William’s Ass
You begin with the assumption that everyone else is your inferior. (Well, YOU are. But everyone else? There’s that faulty hypothesis again.) Then you set out with the intention of demonstrating this — and imagining how you’ll be admired by others for displaying your superiority (Egad! It now claims MIND READING abilities!) — by bullying someone you consider your inferior, and when this expedition does not produce the expected result, you believe you have been wronged. (Again, the faulty hypothesis.)
Your rationalization of your failure (TFH is how we’ll abbreviate “the faulty hypothesis” hereonin.) is essentially this: “Those inferior people somehow cheated me out of my glory. It’s unfair that, because of their deceit and malice, my superiority has been wrongfully obscured and I have been deprived of my right to admiration.” TFH and mind reading.
So you sally forth from the castle, the knight in shining armor who is going to slay the dragon, and after the dragon kicks your ass, you limp back to the castle complaining that the dragon didn’t play fair. (TFH) You are a victim of your own irrational expectations, (Mindreading and TFH) your arrogant overestimation of your abilities (TFH and mindreading), and your contempt for your chosen enemies (TFH and Mindreading.). Whose fault is it, Mr. Schmalfeldt, that Aaron Walker, Lee Stranahan and John Hoge have refused to tolerate your bullying ways? (TFH about “bullying” when you do it you call it “journalism.) Why did you think they were under any obligation to conform to your will? (They were not under any obligation. I never said they were under any obligation. And when did I ever demand that anyone “conform to my will”? TFH.) And why, if you are going to behave in this manner, do you object to my describing your actions — and illustrating those descriptions with photos of you? (Because you are using photos you have no right to use. I own them. I hold the copyright. You did not ask permission. Therefore, you are not allowed to use them.)
Your problem is not my writing about you. Your problem is you. (Gee, Dr. Freud.)
Let’s talk photos, just briefly.
(Snip. I am not Amanda Bynes. She is a celebrity. I am not. Using her photo to illustrate a news event qualifies for fair use. Use of a person’s image, dishonestly cropped to make him appear malicious, is not. My uploading a photo or a movie to the Internet does not give you the right to use it. In fact, each photo and movie comes with the explicit notice, “Copyright Bill Schmalfeldt, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. You never ASKED to use them, you just used them. I am not Ed Shultz. He is a celebrity. He has a TV and radio show. His image is covered by fair use. You can not just take the image of a private citizen, manipulate it to your purposes, and use it. It is the same thing as coming into my house, taking a commemorative dish with a picture of my late mother on it, saying the image was already online, and walking away with it. This will not stand the “fair use” sniff test.”)
Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding this stuff, and the Legal Department will tell me I’m all wrong. Maybe the case of Schmalfeldt v. McCain will be a legal landmark by which all bloggers are put on notice to stop all this YouTube screen-capping and grabbing photos off social-media accounts under penalty of brutal compensatory damages awarded to a notorious kook in a Maryland trailer park. You are far down on the list, McCain. First, there are the 23 instances of perjury in Mr. Akbar’s letter to Zippy Kid.
The court will award you umpteen gazillion dollars, Bill, because of the way in which I shamelessly “stole” your photos, and this verdict will stand as a warning to any other right-wing blogger who thinks he can get away with saying mean things about Bill Schmalfeldt on the Internet. Yes, imagine the headlines:
Schmalfeldt Triumphs; Supreme Court Ruling
Reverses Years of Online Injustice
(Grow up, for fuck’s sake.)
Oh, damn! I guess I’m just being sarcastic again. Lost my train of thought and forgot that I started this e-mail with the intent of explaining something very important: YOU’RE CRAZY.
And also, fuck you.
Robert Stacy McCain
Whereabouts Unknown (Isn’t that where all the masked wrestlers come from?)