Billy Sez Top Ten Posts of 2015 – #4

The Terms of Surrender

Safe link for y’all here:

I think Bill misunderstands the rules of what it means to be a Dread Pirate Zombie.

  1. I take no prisoners.
  2. I never surrender. Never.
  3. When in doubt, see rules Number One and Two.

While I do not speak for my co-blogger here, I think it is safe to say that were *I* the one with a profoundly disabled child being referenced, I wouldn’t give two flying flips about what Bill wanted. You fucked with my child. Reap the whirlwind. Nothing retaliatory about that good buddy, ol’ pal, ol’ friend. Just cause and effect.

Bill, you have been warned many, many times that someday, somewhere, you were going to fuck with the wrong person and there will be true repercussions – not just silly twaddle on teh interwebz, but real, true repercussions. You may have just found them, but I don’t know. And you dismissing and minimizing someone as a “washed up” whatever isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference.

Be well.



Same old Bill. Different situation. Lather, rinse, repeat. Do we expect any different?

The End.


Get down off your cross, Bill. It has to be hurting your arms. You know, the ones you can’t lift over your head because of your Parkinson’s Disease that’s going to win you alllll that sympathy with a jury.


About The Dread Pirate Zombie

Member of the Zombie Horde and Lickspittle Minion. Out to eat your brainnnsssss. And a few other sweetbreads because they are so nomm-y. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Billy Sez Top Ten Posts of 2015 – #4

  1. Jane says:

    Bill Schmalfeldt’s admitted, diagnosed dementia may partly explain why the freak views the written word very differently depending on the author. Clearly protected opinion, parody, and/or hyperbole becomes “deaththreafamation in the eleventyth degree,” “intentional infliction of reason to prove idiocy,” “tortious interference with the plaintiff’s cry-bullying,” “deliberate mockery of the 100% disabled plaintiff’s daily podcasts, multiple daily blog posts, and side business of roofing and ditch digging by 100% disabled plaintiff,” and the like, depending on who wrote the words.

    What can’t be explained by dementia is covered by stooooopid, butthurt, and way out of its league.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. BusPassOffice says:

    roof roof!

    Whats that lassie?

    Woof roof woof!1

    some unsold author actually wrote that some doctors don’t think he ever had Parky Porkinsons??

    Woof woof!

    You mean it may be due to a fat neck and repeatedly hitting his head against the lack of success??



  3. MJ says:

    Res Judicata .. BITCHES..

    Liked by 2 people

  4. JeffM says:

    I hope all will excuse my developing seriously a bit what Ash and Jane have expressed humorously.

    Despite Willie’s recent assertion in submissions to a court, that he is not a “private person” under any reasonable meaning of the phrase, his peace orders, failed lawsuits, several published books (admittedly with very few buyers), multiple blogs (apparently with few readers), and multiple radio shows belie that assertion. Willie loves that MOST of what a plaintiff says in US civil procedure is presumed true INITIALLY, but even he cannot be so stupid as to believe that his asinine assertion of being a private person is going to stand up.

    Willie makes public utterances by the yard. He has even commented from time to time on this blog. 90% of what is satirized and criticized on this blog and TMZ are his public utterances. Willie calls A a pimp for A’s wife, thereby implying that A’s wife is a whore, and then throws a conniption when a site clearly identified as not being a news site calls his wife a whore. Willie is such a chump that he can’t remember that parody and satire are constitutionally protected.

    Furthermore, Willie tries to hide behind others and thereby drags them into his swamp. I consider it likely that his latest legal foray is going to involve others in litigation. For example, Willie has asserted that a defendant has terrorized a member of the staff at his place of abode. If that assertion is true (and it is presumed true at this stage of pleading), then that person is subject to mandatory joinder because how else can a defendant defend against terrorizing if the so-called terrorized party is not party to the case. Willie will probably scream that an innocent is being subjected to frivolous litigation. Such screams will be doubly ironic because Willie himself initiated what is, in my constitutionally protected opinion, this frivolity, and Willie himself introduced this person into the case.

    Liked by 3 people

    • rt895 says:

      Interesting issue here. If the facility or staff members are joined to the case that’s going to cost serious attorney money. The facility can’t be pro se and any staffer with a brain would retain an attorney. Either way serious money being spent.

      I can see a doom clock for Mr. Bill: Find a new home. Here is your 30 day notice.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Avenger Watcher says:

        Find a new home. Here is your 30 day notice.

        This is as inevitable as the seasons changing or the phases of the moon.

        The only person who could change the course… won’t.

        But it won’t be his fault, mind you. It’ll be people he’s never met, who’ve never spoken to him, doing things for absolutely no reason that caused his problems.

        Like the last 50 or so years. Well, the not-meeting people to find people who “caused” the problems, that is new. Previously he’s had to actually meet them first .


      • JeffM says:

        I want to clarify a bit. If I am joined to the suit as now drafted and if I am not dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, then I will be asking for mandatory joinder of at least the named staff member and her employer because of the implications of permissive joinder. (No, I will not educate any literate monkeys about what those implications are.) Moreover if it becomes apparent that one or more parties associated with the facility are likely to have defamed me directly or indirectly, then I will be naming them as defendants in my counter-suit.

        I am not intending to file nuisance suits against anybody. I understand the theory that the facility may be liable for any misuse of a computer by one or more of its residents, but I for one do not see this theory as being anything but a huge stretch. If, however, anyone has a case citation supporting the theory, it would be helpful to the defendants to post it here or at TMZ.

        I’d like to make one more clarification. Although the US system of civil justice is a disgrace to a civilized nation by causing outrageous expense to those caught in its maw, and although as a defendant I have no duty to scant my own defense in order to reduce costs for other parties, I suspect, however, that the facility will be able to avoid major expenses by taking advantage of the fact that Witless Willie has no standing to sue on its behalf. I’d be amazed if the facility cannot limit its direct out-of-pocket costs to under $25K, and perhaps under Wisconsin law the facility may be entitled to recoupment from Willie.

        Liked by 2 people

        • rt895 says:

          Regarding acceptable use: The facility may not be legally liable for misuse by a resident but I’m betting the TOS and AUP of the ISP providing service provides for contractual remedies, including suspending the facility’s service if they don’t or can’t rein in an offending user. I expect the Cox Business Service AUP is typical and that is what they require.

          TL:DR for teh Blob: Knock it off or be cut off from the Internet. The facility may ban you to keep from being disconnected themselves.

          Liked by 1 person

        • rt895 says:

          One other note, for those who have IP addresses that match Blob’s latest bits of stupidity. A traceroute to the Blob’s latest IP address will identify all the ISPs in the chain, and they all have abuse@ addresses that *are* monitored. Local loop providers buy services from higher tier ISPs until you get to the big boys at the top level, and they ALL have AUP/TOS policies that are binding on their direct clients to behave or be disconnected.

          I had a hacker in Australia beating on my firewall long ago. I reported him to his direct ISP and asked they deliver a LART to the script kiddie to knock it off. When I got snark back from the Tier 3 ISP I cc’d the next higher tier ISP, who replied to the lower tier admin to get it in gear to rein in the idiot or they (the tier 3 ISP) could get cut off.

          This is all contractual, the courts never got involved….

          Liked by 2 people

    • Jane says:

      Funny, isn’t it, how happy its wife died themerrywidower is too dementia addled, or just plain too stupid to grasp how virtually everything it writes is self-refuting? Usually in the same piece, often in the same paragraph, and regularly in the same sentence! A private person with a brand that’s being harmed; totally disabled with multple concurrent occupations; etc. etc. etc.

      Maybe it’s the JWR. *hic*

      Liked by 4 people

  5. BillysNUTS says:

    With apologies to the late Retired Lt. Gen. Harry W.O. Kinnard: N U T S!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s