The Trouble with Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

On any day that ends with a “Y,” you will probably find Bill Schmalfeldt yammering on about somebody “lying.”

It might be on his blog, wherever in the heck that is nowadays before he memory-holes it, yet again. (I thought he stood behind everything he wrote? Am I wrong?)

It might be on his twitter feed. Again, before he memory-holes the particular tweet, or deletes the account, or takes it private or gets it suspended. Yet again. I think we are up to over 100 different names/accounts that have been disappeared in one way or another. Somebody’s got a list somewhere, I’m sure.

It might be in an email he sends to someone about something they wrote about him, and he’ll usually include some sort of threat against them that includes that he’s going to lawyer up or he’s going to get what he wants from them, etc., etc., etc.

****YAWN****

You have to ask yourself, wouldn’t this get tiring for someone? It seems to me that if you constantly are saying that dozens upon dozens of people are lying about you, and you aren’t a politician, that maybe maybe, just maybe, there might be something to it?

I was again perusing archives at different places on the Net. This time I visited Aaron Walker’s blog HERE. And once again, lo and behold, what do we see? Bill Schmalfeldt crying to the heavens about people lying about him and about how it’s LIBEL. Because CONTEXT! ZOMG!

But this time it’s got an interesting twist. On the one hand, Bill claims to Aaron in one email (blog post?) that what Paterico said about him had *just* enough context to not be libel, but then turned around and in a blog post about the SAME THING said that it *was* libel.

I’m going to let Aaron take it from there:

I don’t know with certainty how many times Bill Schmalfeldt has claimed that people have lied about him. But I’m pretty positive that it’s well north of 1,000 times. And how many times has he gotten someone’s boss to “see what he thinks about all of this?” More importantly, WHY would anyone think that they are so important and their butthurt is SO HUGE that they would need to reach out to someone’s boss to ask that kind of question?

I’m guessing that about 99% of people who will read about this saga are going to be more concerned about Bill Schmalfeldt trying to reach out and touch people inappropriately (ew) than they will be thinking that his level of butthurt warrants that kind of behavior.

 

Advertisements

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.

16 Responses to The Trouble with Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

  1. Neal N. Bob says:

    Oliver Wendell Jones was threatening libel actions as far back as the XMfan days, which was almost a decade ago. He’s practiced, but still incompetent.

    Hey, when you do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, what do they call that?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. JeffM says:

    I doubt you must go back so far in time for the sole purpose of finding lies; you might want to research whether the word “johns” was used untruthfully within the last several days. (I myself would avoid that plural unless I could justify it with reasonably strong evidence, especially if a jury trial had been demanded and at least one woman might be empanelled. But I’m a cautious sort.)

    Of course if you are trying to buid a record for impeachment or for demonstrating lack of reputation or for the facts justifying an allegedly defamatory statement, the more history the better.

    Liked by 2 people

    • MJ says:

      He must really think that the restraining order in North Carolina is meaningless. He continues to stalk you and your family by analyzing your home and the activity in it. As Jeff says, he offers speculation on your activities that a jury might find persuasive that he is acting with malice.

      Of course, it will be interesting to see what happens when a Judge in North Carolina sees the tweets and posts he’s made on his blog, making declarations of criminal and lewd activity well after he was told to stop. Wonder how they extradite people from Wisconsin. The plane ride should be fun. I hear they have mandatory chain gangs in the big house.

      Liked by 1 person

      • one handle and stick to it says:

        It all starts by filing a police report. And mailing it to all necessary authorities…including some landlords, cops and nuns in St Francis Wisconsin

        Like

      • JeffM says:

        MJ

        I was a bit unclear whither my musings were taking me. Sorry for being obscure.

        I have a great deal of doubt whether an order prohibiting speech ABOUT someone on the grounds of preventing harassment passes constitutional muster: according to the US Supreme Court, prior restraint is to be applied only in very exigent circumstances. Of course, an order requiring prior restraint may issue without any argument against prior restraint being raised: an example comes to mind from the state of Illinois.

        Furthermore, as I understand it, Internet speech is under the jurisdiction of the court where the speech is uttered, subject to some exceptions, such as speech directed to a specific jurisdiction. So, absent special circumstances, speech uttered in North Carolina and directed to listeners around the world is under the jurisdiction of North Carolina rather than, to pick a random example, Wisconsin. Likewise, absent special circumstances, jursidiction over a suit for defamation against someone who spoke in Wisconsin lies in Wisconsin.

        One possible special circumstance might arise as follows. A in North Carolina has a restraining order against B, who lives in Wisconsin. Does the restraining order provide a basis to permit A to sue B for defamation in North Carolina? This is a question of jurisdiction rather than prior restraint. It’s a question some people might find interesting to ponder.

        Another possible special circumstance might arise as follows. B in Wisconsin sues A in North Carolina, but jurisdiction properly lies in North Carolina, whither the suit is tranferred. In my simple minded way, I then wonder where lies the jurisdiction for A’s counter-claims against B?

        .

        Like

    • Jane says:

      When was the last time 24 hours elapsed without self-described HappyMyWifeDied TheMerryWidower asserting at least one untruth?

      One could make a very persuasive argument that as long as the dementia addled freak’s written falsehoods remain accessible that is a continuing lie.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. crawford421 says:

    “Context” is almost always the refuge of people who don’t like what they say being noticed. It is the usual excuse given for blood-and-slavery exhortations of imams, for example.

    Like

  4. popcornseller says:

    Not to be too much of a pedant, but “now a days” should be “nowadays (one word)”

    There are so many of them I’ve just started a list. 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s