Doom Clock Journalism

So I discovered a vicious and vile scam that was perpetrated on me.  Following in the footsteps of the great Investigative Journalist and this blogs Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt, I used aggressive journalism to get to the truth.

First I contacted the two people responsible for the scam and gave them a Doom Clock of 15 minutes to answer my questions, or else.  Only one of the two, I hate to admit that I didn’t have much hope of convincing since the or else was a complete doxing of his arse and he’d already been doxed.  But the other has tried to hide his identity for far too long.  So I figured he’d fold first.  I was wrong.

It seems that @PalatinePundit was the weak link in the scam.  He folded to my doom clock like a wet tee shirt contest and I quickly saw everything.  After leaving my sweaty palm happy place, the other scammer, Paul Krendel, just mocked me.

So I did the research. I have the story.  And I will follow through with my doom clock.  So here is the scam and the doxing, in that order.

The Scam

Here’s how the scam went down.  Paul and PP pulled a complete and total falsity on the internet.  It started when PP posted the following on twitter:

Screenshot 2014-06-03 16.38.10Paul then kicked into action and started posting and convincing others to post on their blogs that PP lost his job and to speculate that it was because of this blog’s Best Buddy, Bill Schmalfeldt. That’s when I noticed it. Clearly this blog’s Best Buddy saw it too and, in a now memory holed post on his blog, detailed the horrific experience he had getting a well justified peace order against the scammer, PP.

Then yesterday, PP posts this on his twitter feed:Screenshot 2014-06-03 16.49.51

Now I’m starting to smell a rat.  And by rat, I mean a scam.  So I doom clocked both Paul and PP to admit to the scam and Paul refused.  But my doom clock demands worked with PP and he told me everything.  And by doom clock, I mean I politely asked and he politely answered.

So here’s the scam.  PP knew on Friday that when he made that twit about losing his job, he would also be starting a new job on Monday.  In other words, PP never missed a single day of work, he just changed employers!  The dastardly scam!  Paul was in the know as well, and he made his post for the sole purpose of poking the bear, which by bear I mean this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt.

This blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt even tried to argue that he wasn’t involved with PP losing his job. But no one would listen because the scam was already in place and in full swing.

And I was harmed by this scam!  How, you ask?  Simple.  I made a post about the questionable seeking of a peace order by this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt. That blog post started a horrible upward spiral of page views and visitors that CONTINUES TO THIS DAY!  I mean, I’m actually starting to make money off this blog for the first time ever, and it’s all because of this scam.  And it is supposed to just be a hobby!  I’m ANGRY! Plus, this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt got a boo boo and an atomic wedgie, all because of THIS SCAM!  Where is the justice in that?

Now since PP gave up the goods to my Doom Clock Demand, by which I mean I asked nicely and he answered nicely, I have forgiven PP for his involvement in this scam.  Because I’m human and don’t have to stoop to the level of WJJ Hoge and his evil band of Pink Skittles.  No, I am human, so I will forgive PP for his role.  But PP better not bring me into any more of discontinued fuckery.

But Paul I do not forgive.  I gave him the Doom Clock Demand and he mocked me, by which I mean I didn’t contact him at all and he has no idea what’s coming next. And that’s why I went to the trouble to Dox him.

The Doxing

Yes, I did it.  You better believe I did.  I took a page right out of this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt playbook and I doxed the scammer.  Now follow along close, it gets involved.

PP posted his twit on Friday.  On Saturday I went and got lost, by which I mean I took my motorcycle for an epic ride with other bikers.  But all day I felt I was being pulled back into this mess.  Now I know why.  First, take a look at this picture: slenderbike
That’s a picture I took at one of the first stops of the day.  Since I’m an Aggressive Investigative Journalist, I’ll disclose that my bike is not in that picture.  But that doesn’t matter, we have a doxing going on.  Do you see anything wrong with that picture?  I didn’t at first either. But through my Aggressive Investigative Journalist skills, I managed to figure out the truth!  Look at this close up of the very far bike in this picture:slenderbikecropSee it now?  Creepy.  But what’s even creepier is that it shows up in every picture I took on the ride!  See!Slenderharbor Slenderbike2

That’s just creepy.  I mean, what is that thing?  As a true Investigative Journalist I must admit my bike IS in that last picture.  But it doesn’t matter, on with the doxing!  I did a little research by first tracing Paul’s various IP addresses, since he’s commented on this blog several times.  And that’s when I noticed that on that Saturday, several of his IP addresses were just a single digit off of MY IP addresses.  In other words, Paul was following me and his cell phone was on the SAME NETWORK AS MINE!

Looking at the rest of the IP addresses, and they jump around ALL OVER THE PLACE.  He once posted to my blog from Singapore!  Then just minutes later from London.  The man GETS THE FUCK AROUND!

So let’s do the math.

  1. Paul was near me on the ride and posted to my blog from the SAME CELL TOWER I was using.
  2. These pictures show the same “thing” following me around on the same day
  3. Paul moves as if he can transport ALL OVER THE WORLD

The math is simple.  1+2+3= PAUL KRENDLER IS SLENDERMAN!

God, I bet this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt is happy he dropped that lawsuit!  And it’s something he should think about in his response to the WJJ Hoge Copyright Infringment lawsuit.  I mean, if Hoge is willing to get into a contractual agreement with Slenderman, Hoge is capable of just about anything.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how you do Doom Clock Journalism RIGHT!!!!11!!!!


48 thoughts on “Doom Clock Journalism

  1. I think it’s adorable the way you kids play so nicely together. (redacted for violation of the rules), you’re getting some mail on Friday. Can your (redacted for violation of the rules) sign for you?

  2. While what you write is mildly amusing, and it’s clear you’re getting a bump in your traffic because of the Hogeists, just be very, very careful about stepping over the line, Mike. A less hamfisted touch on the satire would behoove you. If you have to hammer the satire into someone’s skull, then it’s really not good satire. Once you’ve made your point, move on to the next one. Otherwise, it becomes a chore to read. Well, for anyone with more than a 4th grade understanding of satire at any rate.

    I enjoyed the Slenderman touch. Topical. Well done.

    When you write, think of yourself as a painter. A light touch on the brush will give you plenty of color. Just make sure that if you say something about me that is defamatory (such as, that bald fat guy), that it’s true. (As I am, last time I checked a mirror — I think it was 1987) I was, in fact, bald and fat. That is defamatory, but NOT libel. Calling me a bald, fat, right-wing blogger? Now THAT would be libel of the worst sort.

    Thus endeth the lesson. Carry on smartly, son.

      • Only an idiot would see that as a threat. And you’re not an idiot, are you?

        You look like an adult. Please act like one.

        Thank you.

      • Excuse me? You come into my house as a guest and tell me what lines I can and can not cross, implying an “or else” along with it, and it’s not a threat?

        And then insult me by questioning my intelligence and adulthood?

        You are a guest, please act like one.

      • Bill seems to think that he can act as the arbiter of behaviour anyplace on the internet, not just on his own blog.

        Basically, he expects to be able to go to any website and not have anything that bothers his tender sensibilities. And if something does, he feels he has the right to demand that the blog owner fix things the way Bill wants them. At the same time he’s such an entitled so-and-so, that he feels he can do and say anything, and no-one had better dare criticize him.

        I’m sure he’d be pissed as all get out if someone visited his house, and on entering demanded that Bill’s wife leave the room, that the dogs be locked up or put out, and that any guests that were already there had to leave or shut up. But he has no problem doing the same thing on the internet to other people’s virtual houses, including getting mad and making threats if they don’t do exactly what he wants.

        He needs to listen to his doctor, ignore his “friends”, (who obviously don’t care about his health), drop all the lawsuits, and try to learn how to enjoy a life not spent 100% on the internet.

      • I don’t completely disagree. However, the ability to drop the lawsuit is out of his hands now, and the man has a right to defend himself and his claims. When he was whining about how he might not even answer the lawsuit, I was pretty sure he was too busy looking up laws and forms and such. I’m completely unsurprised by his counterclaim. It only made sense.

  3. What I am suggesting, sir, is that you are aware of the line between fair comment and libel. There’s no “implication” here. There is a statement of fact. I am asking you as a gentleman to please refrain from libeling me. That is not a demand. If you choose to ignore the request, the choice (and its legal consequences) will be yours.

    Be well.

    • Sir, you have a tenuous at best grasp of what actually is libel and what actually is protected speech, so your advice is reject based on your past history.

      I’ll give you some advice again, since as an infringing adjudicated harasser it would behoove you to learn the difference. I can have any opinion I want, and as long as a reasonable person would view it as my opinion, it’s not libel. Ever. Opinions are what the first amendment is all about. I can hold the most vile and contemptuous opinions about whoever I want, and no one can do anything about it.

      Unless and until I make a statement of fact, that a reasonable person (that means not you) would understand as a statement of fact, I have not libeled anyone.

      I will offer you an olive branch, that is a real one and not an excuse to insult people, that if you, who is not the legal definition of a reasonable person, feel is libelous and politely point it out to me, I will gladly look at it, think on it, and if necessary, make a retraction.

      That olive branch has a condition, however. If you demand, threaten or insulting poke at the host to point out what you, most likely mistakenly, believe is libel, I will instead mock you more.

      I think a reasonable person would find that more than fair.

      • You are not quite correct about that. Opinion has limited protection under libel law. For instance, if you were to write, “I think that Bill Schmalfeldt is a ppopy nose,” that would clearly be parody and opinion. If you were to write, “I think that Bill Schmalfeldt killed a guy,” well, that’s your opinion. It is also libel. Let me find the law for you.

        ” Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement.”

        For instance, again, if you write “I think Hoge will prevail and Schmalfeldt will be found to be a copyright thief,” that is perfectly legit.

        If you say, “Schmalfeldt is a copyright thief,” that is not an opinion. That is a statement of verifiable fact.

        Glad I could [redacted].

      • Thanks for repeating exactly what I said. Notice the whole reasonable person clause.

        I would, however, say that you are wrong that calling you a copyright thief is libel. You’ve asserted that you used copyrighted material under fair use. That means you admit that you used someone else’s intellectual property without permission. Taking someones property without permission can generally be referred to as theft. It may be legal, but it is still theft. The legality of your situation is still under review.

        But there is no doubt that you stole intellectual property. You’ve admitted to it already.

        Also, let me remind you that the EFF does not make the law. What you cited is a legal opinion, not a law. I’m sure it was an honest mistake.

      • Don’t think this is my first trip to the rodeo.

        Answer me this. Did you or did you not use someone’s intellectual property without permission? Don’t hedge, don’t quibble. It’s a yes or no question. Did you do it?

        If you did, then you stole it. It may or may not be legal to steal like that, but you took something that wasn’t yours and used it without permission. I’m confident that the hypothetical reasonable person would agree with that.

        And again, you can not claim fair use if you don’t admit to using someone’s intellectual property without permission. Oh wait, I just read your Answer and Counterclaim. So not only have you admitted to using someone’s intellectual property without permission on the internet, you’ve admitted it to a federal court. No take backs now.

        I don’t know how you can’t accept that a reasonable person would view the taking of someone’s property, intellectual or otherwise, without permission is anything but stealing. I’ve always said that it might not have been illegal, but it is still a form of theft.

        And no, I wouldn’t call all cases of fair use theft, even though it is even when it is legal. But the sheer amount of the ongoing and continual use of intellectual property without permission makes this a situation where I think the term is more than apt, and a fair accounting of the situation. Oh, and you admitted to the bulk of the use of intellectual property without permission already. In federal court.

        So here’s your chance to educate me. Explain to me how taking someone’s intellectual property without permission is anything but stealing, even if the theft is ultimately legal? How is that an unreasonable position to hold? I’m asking you, please, educate me. Make it clear to me how that view is anything but reasonable?

        I look forward to your educated response. Convince me I’m wrong, and I will issue an immediate retraction with a full heartfelt apology. There is no trap here, I’m deadly serious. Explain to me how I’m wrong and I promise a retraction within minutes of your explanation. Even if I disagree with it.

      • Now, what is your basis for claiming that I am not the legal definition of a reasonable person?

      • Stop being dense. A reasonable person under the law is a hypothetical person who is not involved in the issue at hand. You can argue that this hypothetical person would agree with you. You can not argue that you are that hypothetical person.

        In other words, neither you nor I are the legal definition of a reasonable person. The legal reasonable person is a concept, not a reality. Unless you want to claim you only exist in the hypothetical. That might work. If you are only hypothetical it would throw a wrench in recent legal activity.

      • A statement can be defined as factual if it relates to an event or state of affairs that existed in the past or present and is capable of being known; such statements usually concern a person’s conduct or character.

        53) Conn. – Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican*metican, Inc., 448 A.2d 1317, 188 Conn. 107.

  4. Is it a violation of the rules to write the word [redacted] to signify the female [redacted] of the individual I was addressing? [redacted] lives with his [redacted], so I was merely wondering if his [redacted] could [redacted] for the [redacted] he will receive in the [redacted] by restricted [redacted] on [redacted].

    But if the use of the word [redacted] is against the house [redacted], then far be it from me to tell a [redacted] such as yourself how to conduct his [redacted] on his very [redacted] blog.

    Be [redacted].

    • The individual you were addressing has chosen to exercise his first amendment rights to remain anonymous. I haz rulz, and one of those is you will not post personally identifying information about people. I also have another rule that makes it clear that family members are not to be brought into the discussion unless they are directly involved in the topic at hand. Frankly, another rule that states you must keep your comments topical should have gotten the comment in question deleted. But it was funnier my way.

      And while we are at it, the comment I’m responding to is in violation of rule #1. But is instructive, so left in place.

      • the very real irony here is that, like you, many of the commenters at Hogewash came into this brouhaha the same way you did, seeing Twinkie’s version of events first, and they, like you, looked further and discovered a very different story than the one Twinkie was pushing….


      • I’ve been to websites where the Comment Police simply remove all the vowels from a comment before letting it out of moderation.

        To put it a little differently…

        ‘v bn t wbsts whr th Cmmnt Plc smpl rmv ll th vwls frm cmmnt bfr lttng t t f mdrtn.

  5. At 1:32 this afternoon, Bill Schmalfeldt was offering you advice on how to craft satire with a light touch. “….think of yourself as a painter…” By 2:15, nearly every other word was redacted. Wow.

Comments are closed.