More Answers from Bill Schmalfeldt

Bill Schmaldfeldt returned to this blog and left a lengthy comment, as he is known to do, in an attempt to answer some of this blog’s “Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt.”  However, this is an answer to a comment and not any answer to any of this blog’s actually questions.  Since it is so lengthy, and a comment on a post that is now several days old, Running Wolf Blog decided it would be better presented in a post of it’s own.  Unless otherwise noted, anything in this post that is quoted is from Schmalfeldt’s comment.  Running Wolf Blog has decided to use the comment in it’s entirety.  If you’d rather read it without the commentary of Running Wolf Blog, you can find it here.

To start, here is the comment your host posted to Bill that he then answered.  Again, this is off topic of the “Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt” but since the answer was a mostly honest attempt at an answer to a question asked, we are going through this exercise.

Bill, no one is saying that no comment should end the investigation or the story. What people are complaining about isn’t that you wrote the story, it’s about how you behaved after you were told no comment. About the twitter attacks, the blatant insults and the demeaning things you said. By all means, continue to go after the story, but do so under the ethics of the profession.

From the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Do you honestly feel you behaved within these guidelines in the case of Stanahan’s daughter? Because if that’s what you honestly believe, that you used sensitivity, that your phone conversations were sensitive, that you actions when you didn’t get the information you wanted wasn’t arrogant and that Mrs. Stanahan had an expectation of privacy and respect and your continual comments on their decision to do a home birth was showing good taste… well then I don’t know what else to say. You’re the one with the problem, you’re blinded to your own actions.

– Your Host in an approved comment on this blog

Here now is the response.  Schmalfeldt’s words are in the quote boxes.  Running Wolf Blog’s commentary follows the quote boxes.  But before we begin, Running Wolf Blog hopes that Schmalfeldt will accept that this is not an attack, but a constructive criticism of his comment hoping to show him how he earned his current reputation.

I’ve already apologized for my conduct. Why is no one apologizing to me for what they said — and did — to me?

Running Wolf Blog has done nothing to you.  Schmalfeldt needs to take up his hurts elsewhere.

You are overlooking Stranahan’s past. You are overlooking his history and his penchant for using misfortune to raise money. If you are ever interested in the full story, how we “came to be”, how it started with a polite interview with his responses printed verbatim only to have him smear me as a liar online the next day, how he set the entire right wing blogoverse against me with his false rape-threat charge, you let me know. I’ll write you a story. You won’t believe it, of course, because I sense your mind is made up.

Schmalfeldt has absolutely no idea how your host feels about Stranahan.  Absolutely none.  It might surprise Schmalfeldt to learn that I have some serious problems with the politics and smear tactics of Stranahan, and am currently working on a piece that isn’t all that favorable to Stranahan.  I’m still getting background, and haven’t asked Stranahan any of my questions as of yet, so the story may yet change.  But your host’s disagreement on a topic with Stranahan doesn’t lessen the very real violations of the code of ethics of the organization Schmalfeldt claims to believe in.  Schmalfeldt is free to write his story on his blog, and your host might read it and look into it.  But Running Wolf Blog has its own Stranahan story to write.

But ask yourself. What did I do that compares to…

Profaning the memory of my mother?
Graphic depictions of sex with my dead twin brother?
Insulting comments about other deceased members of my family?
Threatening my LIFE?
Threatening to gut my dogs!
Insulting my wife! (Yeah, I know. I did it first. But I took it down because I was ashamed of it. Krendler’s is still there)
Calling my dead mother a whore?
Calling my dead father someone who gives blow jobs for the price of a drink?

Again, Running Wolf Blog did not participate in any of these alleged activities, so Running Wolf Blog feels no need to apologize for any of them.

However, as to what Schmalfeldt did that compares to each of these?  Here’s your host’s list.

Profaning the memory of Schmalfeldts Mother = Insulting the intelligence and love of a mother who just lost an infant.
graphic depictions of sex with my dead twin brother = content anus comments about commenters on Hogewash
Insults to deceased family member = dead baby again
threatening his life = veiled threats he made against others
Insulting my wife = Oh, he already answered that.
calling my dead mother a whore = him calling Ali’s live mother a whore
calling father blow job giver = did we mention the hickey’s Schmalfeldt claims was placed on Hoge’s ass?

Now your host is not forgiving either side of these equations.  Running Wolf Blog has maintained that family members are off limits and threats are wrong.  But ultimately, the thing that Schmalfeldt most misses is, when you are a reporter following a story, you shouldn’t become part of the story.  You shouldn’t be in the story, you should be observing it.  Asking questions.  Getting answers.  But always in an ethical manner.  How other people treat you, the reporter, is of no concern.  Their criticism should be water off a ducks back, not something to respond to.

How does aggressively pursuing an answer that I could have been given in ONE MINUTE stack up against all that? And who has apologized to ME?

There is nothing here to stack up against.  If Schmalfeldt is truly acting as a reporter, none of those comments should matter and are of absolutely no concern as for getting the story. A majority of those comments wouldn’t have happened, at least not repetitively, had Schmalfeldt not allowed himself to be drawn into and becoming a part of the story.  And it doesn’t matter that it would have only taken one minute to answer the question, no one, including reporters, have a right to private information of a private citizen.  Had Schmalfeldt done real investigative journalist instead of harassing, false reporting and engaging himself into the story, it is a story that would never have been written.  Because Schmalfeldt would have eventually found the death certificate, known it wasn’t a scam, and never published the story.  And that’s how reporting is supposed to work.  Not with the reporter jumping into the fray and becoming a part of the story.

I know my own actions. I’m not proud of them all. But you ask any ACTUAL reporter, you will be told that they aren’t proud of everything they’ve done to get to the bottom of a story. Stranahan was a story to me. Nothing more.

Your host is an actual reporter, having worked in newspapers, television and radio for over 2o years now.  Your host has worked with award winning journalists from around the country and on stories that were far more sordid than anything Schmalfeldt has reported on in his retirement.  But I know of no reporter who actually engaged the target of a story in the way Schmalfeldt did.  I don’t know of any reporter that openly insulted subjects of a story with the vileness that Schmalfeldt did.  Oh, dis your host ever regret anything done as a reporter?  Sure.  But your host can safely say nothing done to get to the bottom of a story approaches anything like what Schmalfeldt did, and your host knows of no other ethical reporter who did anything like it either.

Yes, my taunts were out of line. His sending the cops to my house was out of line.

This is the first in a series of “moral equivalencies” that are completely irrelevant.  Schmalfeldt’s taunts weren’t out of line, they were unprofessional, unethical, and would have gotten him fired from any respectable news outfit. By making the taunts, Schmalfeldt lost any credibility as a reporter, and he inserted himself into the story, breaking a cardinal rule of journalism.  There is no moral equivalency here.  Why Stranahan sent cops to Schmalfeldt house is directly related to the fact that Schmalfeldt did what he should not have done, and became part of the story.

My naughty words were naughty. His raising money off of a false rape threat was naughty.

I was crude, rude and vulgar. Stirring up the entire right wing internet, Google-bombing me as a “Deranged Cyberstalker”, distorting a photo taken of me three days after I did the ONE truly altruistic thing I’ve done in my life, dishonestly cropping it to make me look demented. That was crude, rude and vulgar.

Again, all these things happened because Schmaldfeldt didn’t remain in his role as a reporter, he crossed the line into unethical behavior.  One part of the code of ethics is that a journalist should never put themselves into the appearance of a conflict of interest.  By inserting himself as he did, Schmalfeldt crossed over that line and the rest, as they say, is history.  Schmalfeldt seems unable to view himself as anything but a reporter, but his actions in this story belie that fact.  He may view himself that way, but he did not act that way.

I apologized to Stranahan. And I meant it.

Running Wolf Blog has a copy of the public apology Schmalfeldt issued to Stranahan.  We believe that Schmalfeldt meant what he said.  However, we do not believe that it could be properly called an apology.  Schmalfeldt never too full credit for his actions.  Throughout the “apology,” Schmalfeldt kept returning to “if you’d only given me the answer to the first question” spiel.  That is neither apologetic, blaming the person you are apologizing to for causing the whole thing, nor is it something a reporter should do, since it further inserts them into the story.  An apology should be no strings attached and deal only with your own actions, not the other person’s.

Your Host must now warn our readers that the tone and direction of these answers now make a radical departure toward Hoge.

Has Hoge apologized for lying to a judge to get a peace order? And if you maintain he did not lie, what part of “I can’t block him on Twitter because it would mean disabling a portion of my Internet functionality” strikes you as “true”? What part of “Blocking him on Twitter is the same as having to change my phone number to avoid telemarketers” sounds TRUE to you?

Your host has already answered this question elsewhere, but will gladly answer this again.  I do find it true that Hoge should not have to block someone on Twitter to get them to stop contacting him.  Hoge had done nothing wrong, at least under the peace order.  Having Hoge change his behavior in any way isn’t fair, the harasser should have to change their behavior.  Just like a person being harassed shouldn’t have to change their phone number to stop the harassment, Hoge shouldn’t have had to block a twitterer to stop the harassment.  Additionally, since your host has been aware of Schmalfeldt, your host can remember at least three if not four twitter accounts used by Schmalfeldt.  All a harasser would have to do to get around the block is change to another account.  Now you’re setting up a case where the harassed has to constantly take action to prevent the harassment, and that’s not the point of a peace order.  The point is for the harassment to stop.  Your host has no problem with Hoge asking the judge to prevent contact via twitter.

What part of the story about my commandeering a server in Kansas City the day of Super Storm Sandy and using it to send naughty messages to Hoge sounds true?

Running Wolf Blog has no idea what this is about, and will make no comment on it.

What part of claiming that HASHTAG mentions and PINGBACKS qualify as direct contact in violation of a peace order rings TRUE with you?

Running Wolf Blog would not think that hashtag mentions would be contact, but Pingbacks would.  It’s the nature of a Pingback, it alerts someone that another has linked to their website and that is a form of contact and I put it in the same as @mentions.  It isn’t the harassed responsibility to change, it is the responsibility of the harasser to change.

What part of dragging a person you know has increasing trouble even moving his body all the way to court in Westminster from Elkridge, and then SUING the man for fucking COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT for doing the SAME FUCKING THING HE DOES EVERY DAY sounds normal and decent and ordinary to you?

Again, Schmalfeldt assume to know the mind of Running Wolf Blog.  He doesn’t, and your host has maintained from the beginning that the copyright suit was a mistake, and one that your host wouldn’t have done.  In fact, the same thing has been said about the peace order.  But your host has not been the direct recipient of 30 @mentions an hour from anyone.  Your host has had  5 or 6 from a single person and it is annoying.  However, Schmalfeldt can not deny that he used the intellectual property of other people.  As such, he risked a lawsuit.  Schmalfeldt is not blameless in this issue.

I’m not going to charge you with harassment. I think you have your head so far up your hiney that all you can hear is your lunch digesting. You certainly do not seem to be interested in my side of the story. You certainly do not seem to care one whit about what actually happened.

It is Running Wolf Blog’s position that we have avoided personal insults against Bill Schmalfeldt, and we have taken notice of yet another one from him.  That said, we would wonder why we have maintained a list of questions for Schmalfeldt for over a month now, and have not, even though there have been repeated violations of the very simple rules for commenting, banned Mr. Schmalfeldt from the comment section and discussion on this blog.  The reason is Running Wolf Blog is interested in Schmalfeldt’s side of the story.  Being interested in it does not mean we will agree with or accept without challenging his version of event.

When you decide that you give two shits for the TRUTH, you just let me know, big boy. And we’ll chat.

Well, big boy, here’s your chance to prove that you give two shits about the TRUTH.  Digest all that has been said here.  Keep enough of an open mind to realize this post didn’t insult you, as a person, once.  Take a look back not on the behavior of others but just your own behavior, and really ask yourself did you act like a reporter, or did you act like part of the story?  Did you get involved, emotionally and personally, in the story itself instead of reporting passionately about the story.  Look at your actions in absence of others, just your own.  And try to see that what you’ve just been given is more than two shits about the TRUTH.

99 thoughts on “More Answers from Bill Schmalfeldt

  1. I understand now. MY “moral equivalencies” = BAD.
    YOUR “moral equivalencies” = GOOD.
    See, there’s the problem. I just need to understand the rules!

    And may I correct you? If you keep the same account, and I generally do, but change the name, if you blocked “WMS Radio” you would also have “WMS Broadcasting” blocked.

    I have one thing in common with Hoge, Neither of us believes I was actually harassing him. Only one of us was willing to lie to a judge, and then try to follow the other one less than a month later.

    • You’ve had more than just the WMS Radio/Broadcasting since I’ve been following you. Even if you have never changed your twitter account at all, it doesn’t matter. The behavior that needs to change is that of the one harassing, not the one harassed.

      And what moral equivalency have I brought up at all? How have I compared my actions to your actions and justified my bad behavior by your bad behavior. I’ve done nothing but model proper behavior for you, and you’ve done nothing but sophistry to try and justify your bad behavior. But not only should you not have been behaving badly, you shouldn’t have allowed yourself into the story the way you did. That was all your mistake, and until you own that, it doesn’t matter what everyone else did. You made the mistake of engaging not as a reporter, but as a partisan hack. Once you’d fallen to that level, you dished out as well as you got, and really had no right to complain anymore.

  2. I said this earlier today to Stranahan, an apology without a modicum of contrition holds little value. If he felt an ounce of contrition for his actions he would not continue to repeat them endlessly.

    BS’s apology to Stranahan and his wife is clearly meaningless.

    I honestly don’t believe he is capable of grasping that concept.

    • Given the bustup with Lee this morning, I’d say Bill’s “apology” is non-operational.

      And if I’m not mistaken, I believe all of the complaints Bill has about the comments concerning his family are due to one or perhaps two posters at Hogewatch. For the most part they are a vast overreaction on the part of Bill. But without justifications like those, Bill would be lost.

      • Well, I’m aware of that. I don’t know what he expects other to do. I don’t moderate Hogewash. I don’t control what other people say. But he keeps treating me like I’m in the inner circle of some club I don’t think I’ve been invited to join.

      • It just a thinner bagel. A flat bagel. I like bagels but either get them “skinny cut” or get a flagel. A regular bagel is just a bit chewy right now.

      • Ok, yeah had them, but pre-made and store bought. They’re okay but don’t hold a candle to fresh made bagel maker bagels.
        My bagelling has gotten real particular of late.

      • I have a few very long threads from Hogewash from a few months ago that a least start to address the dogs and death threats and other alleged violations. As I recall, at one point Bill had a “visitor log” enabled where people could leave comment son his blog, and he’d get them on an email account. I’m pretty sure that is where most of the comments came from, with no ID attached, of course. At one point Bill the intrepid investigator traced the IP of the email bandit to Ooooops.

        I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful, but I’m sure if you ask over at Hoge’s place, after everyone gets done laughing, they can fill you in on “the emails! They’re coming from inside the house!”

        Don’t get me wrong, there have been some crappy comments from Hoge’s site, but any bad ones were immediately deleted, and the others were left as is. But Bill’s complaints either come from his phantom visitor log bandits or completely misinterpreted comments.

        And Bill, your allegations just might be easier to prove if you didn’t delete everything you write on a regular basis. What are you hiding?

  3. This is the first time I’ve ever heard a complaint about # mentions. All of the complaints involved in the Peace Order were @ mentions. I recall that Mr. Hoge was quite definite that Bill could write about him, it was the contact via the @s that he was complaining about.

    And I can verify that Bill has had more than a few different twitter accounts over the last two years. And he seems to be ignoring the fact that while one can change the name on an account and stay blocked, if one changes the account from @thisisme to something else, say @thisismetoo, until the person blocking @thisisme blocks the new address, one can still contact them. Contrary to what he is saying, Bill has done a lot of switching from @this to @that to @theother.

  4. Geez Mike, sorry about the information overload! This’ll keep you up all nite. But much of it is a good start in understanding how Bill manufactured all his issue he presents as shields.

  5. I missed this comment of your Mike, but it bring up an interesting point:

    Well, I’m aware of that. I don’t know what he expects other to do. I don’t moderate Hogewash. I don’t control what other people say. But he keeps treating me like I’m in the inner circle of some club I don’t think I’ve been invited to join.

    What Bill says he wants is essentially freedom from insults and what he calls “abuse”.

    He wrote:

    WMS Radio Network @wmsbroadcasting · Jun 30

    Lemme just throw this out there and see what I net. What do I have to do to get the Hogeists to forget I exist and leave me alone?

    WMS Radio Network ‏@wmsbroadcasting

    The problem isn’t that I SEE the insults. The problem is the insults show up on Google. So, how do we make THAT stop?

    He want to be protected from being insulted! Oh, if only life could be like that! I told him if he was a real journalist, he should expect insults. But that didn’t work. He demands Hoge delete every bad thing said about him on that blog. And I’d assume you’d be next.

    • That’d be a tall order, since I’ll crawl under the Section 230 shield and tell him to bugger off. And you’re right, a real reporter would never let insults get under his skin. And would certainly never throw them back.

      • But there you have the crux of the issue. On one side you have Schmalfeldt, who has managed to piss of loads of people by his own direct actions, on the other hand is Hoge, who happened to cross paths with Bill when writing about Brett Kimberlin. Bill tried the same thing with John that he did with other people, shut up or I’ll make your life miserable. John told him to pound sand, started writing about Bill, and then became the place where many of the people Bill previously went after could get together. Now Bill’s feeling the Streisand Effect and there isn’t thing one he can do about it. Not that Bill hasn’t tried, he’s accused Hoge and his commenters of just about everything and he just doesn’t realize that the more he goes after them the louder they get.

        If Bill doesn’t want to be insulted, he’ll have to turn off his computer.

    • I always look at that “What do I have to do….” bit and sigh.
      All he ever has needed to do is stop harassing WJJ Hoge. That’s it. Shut up about Hoge. Don’t tweet Stacy McCain 200 times over the course of one weekend. Don’t harass people, demanding answers that are none of his business, and improper and wildly offensive into the bargain. Knock off the butt-stuff!

      None of which would strike me as hard. But, evidently, he can’t even begin to imagine doing any of the above.

  6. I’ve been involved in a couple of what CB calls attacks on his family. In the incidents I was involved in I was making comments about him, once seriously and once flippantly, and his family members were involved only insofar as it came to how CB was acting with or towards them.
    I noticed that he would bend heaven and earth to do anything necessary to turn the narrative into an attack on his family. I think he knows that he has no credit in the bank but his family still has credit he can draw on to plead victimhood and outrage.
    He does the turn well. Second time around he got most aw shucksin on his behalf so I just let it go.

  7. Being interested in it does not mean we will agree with or accept without challenging his version of event.

    The definition of “A Bridge Too Far” for Bill.
    As I see it, Bill haz a sad because his actions had consequences. The only thing that really galls me, other than his smarmy attitude, is his stubborn refusal to accept the cause and effect relationship between violating a peace order and having charges filed. By. The. STATE.

    • His claim of malicious prosecution will go no where. Of everything Bill has claimed in his various lawsuits, this is by far the weakest. Hoge didn’t and couldn’t file the charges, Hoge could only show his evidence to the court, and the court filed the charges. Had Bill not @mentioned Hoge, the charges would never have been filed.

      He can claim Hoge lied to the judge all day long, that law is settled. Even if the judge issues an unconstitutional order, you have to follow that order until you get a higher judge to revoke it. The problem Bill had was the order did not involve any prior restraint.

      And really, that’s a problem all of the supporters of Bill have had. The peace order involved no prior restraint on speech. In no way did the order prevent Bill from saying whatever he wanted about Hoge. It prevented Bill from saying it to Hoge.

      Unlike what a judge did to Aaron Walker, when the judge literally said Walker couldn’t write about a topic anymore. That’s prior restraint and is unconstitutional. Walker appealed and won. If Bill really thought that the @mention was a prior restraint, he should have appealed. He didn’t.

      I also find it amusing that he blames other people for “tricking” him into @mentioning Hoge. That’s a weak argument. I’m not saying people didn’t try and trick him into doing it, I’m saying the argument is weak.

      Once again, Bill is arguing that he didn’t have control over his own actions, and therefore isn’t responsible for them. That might sway a trial judge or even jury, but the appellate courts won’t let it hold much water, and a good lawyer should make it clear in the trial that it was Bill’s responsibility not to be tricked, not other people’s responsibility to not trick him.

      After all, how hard is it to read 140 characters and make sure that none of them come together to read @wjjhoge?

    • Come to think of it, I’ve never actually read “his side” of the story. All I’ve ever seen are his blame the victim diatribes like his faux apology to Stranahan.

      • I’ve read many a screen capture of “his side” of things, and they aren’t very convincing. Like he told Aaron Walker, “I can read the English Language and make up my own mind.”

  8. If all of Wild Bill’s stories were of such compelling public interest, why would he say “If you forgot that Brett Kimberlin existed, no one would be investigating you” or words to that effect?

    The question is rhetorical because the answer is obvious. And it doesn’t involve journalism.

      • It also goes to motive, in either a civil suit or an investigation of why sealed court documents were published. His defense of “journalism” is destroyed by that very quote. And Bill, not anyone else, published it for a public audience.

      • Again, I’m not upset that he did publish the letter, I’m upset that the court didn’t hold him in contempt, and that he’d expose his source so willingly. After that, I’d never trust him with information.

      • Once again, find yourself following the path of the Lickspittle you do my young padwan. Upset with MD judges you are. Dangerous the ways of the Lickspittle are. Aver you must, or doom clock face you shall.

        mhhhghhhrrmmm. Indeed.

      • And I’ll add this. Had a court found Bill in contempt for publishing the letter (Actually, it wouldn’t be for publishing, but for not revealing his source) then Bill should at least make a face of going to jail. With his condition, I wouldn’t fault him for giving up his source after a few hours, but as a “journalist” he should at least see the inside of a cell.

        I didn’t get that far. I was being transported to the jail facility when my news director brought in source material that proved we could have gotten the information for another source. My Executive Producer was waiting at the jail with the faxed release papers before I and my reporter (I was the producer) arrived.

      • I respect that. As it should be. I just wouldn’t hold it against you if you held out a day or so.

        I should also point out that the Contempt charge was vacated, so no one can call me an Adjudicated Contempter,

      • I wouldn’t care about being adjudicated as a contempter for something like that. And I’d sit in jail for as long as it took for a judge to understand that I was not going to talk.

      • Except, Betty, I know, and you know, and Michael knows, that the sealed letter that BS published was in no way of public interest. It should not have been published. That was pure malice, and nothing more.

      • and we all know if it hadn’t helped back the story BK and BS were telling bout Walker not being fired in relation to BK’s theats it would never have seen the light of day…


      • I think, in large part, the Court didn’t go after Wild Bill because the underlying Walker suit was so factually ridiculous that it was already well on the way to dismissal. At that point, why bother?

        And young Aaron certainly didn’t help himself with subsequently accusing another lawyer with “lying” on Twitter. But that takes us away from the focus of this discussion, doesn’t it?

      • Skippy, I don’t twitter. Mainly because I know where the local sewer plant is, and if I wanted to see that much sludge, I’d just drive down there. But, your comment is both cryptic and intriguing. If our host were to consent, I’d be interested in hearing more.

      • Okay, as i remember it – and this was over a year ago – Walker’s sealed dismissal letter from PHRI’s outside counsel was published, and somebody either asked or taunted Aaron about it, to which he responded that said counsel was “lying.” There may have been a profanity preceding that, but I don’t remember.

        Around the same time, either just before or after, Walker v. Kimberlin et al was dismissed.

        I should note that this is just how I remember it. I could have certain details wrong.

      • He said, as I recall, that this was typical HR lawyer posturing.

        Not the same as accusing a fellow lawyer of lying.

        Put up or shut up. The post or tweet, or ask Aaron. Otherwise, no, stop right there.

  9. This will be long but hopfully helpful as some background info to understand a bit of Bill’s attempts as misinformation.

    About the “false rape threat” Bill loves to harp on. One of Bill’s online friends wrote that while Lee was out of town someone should show up at his house and rape his wife. Bill replied to that with pictures of Lee’s home and his address. Now Bill claims that was all fair because it was publicly available info. Any thinking person would know better then to do anything like that but you know how Bill is. Anything he can do to hurt people he will do because….JOURNOLIST!!!!11!!!! And of course Bill has no idea how anyone could possible view that as threatening. But how Bill howled and went straight to the cops when someone merely mentioned they MIGHT give his address to one of his many faildoxes who just so happens to have a felony record. Bill was so scared of what his own actions might bring upon him that he ran to the cops. What did he tell them? Who knows except it was probably anything but the truth. Can you hear that convo? Excuse me officer but I’m in fear for my life. You see I’m mad at a guy on the internet and I published info about some other guy. Called him names, dared him to come hurt me and all, but now the guy I’m mad at says he is going to give the other guy I wrote all those awful things about my address. Yep, bet he didn’t exactly tell them that truth.

    Now about his sainted Mother. Bill basically live blogged her passing on Twitter complete with pictures. No, I’m not kidding. No one said anything about it. Nada. Zip. BUT…and here is were we cross into Schmalfeldt logic….one of Bill’s ex wives tweeted something completely innocent to Lee Stranahan that day. Nothing at all to do with Bill or his mother, but it was enough to set Bill off on one of his famous meltdowns. By the end of the day he was invoking his dead mother and making gypsy curses against Lee, John, Aaron, McCain, and a host of others. And that is when people started to mock him. Granted I’m sure losing your Mother is not an easy thing, but it’s hard to fee sorry for someone who lives tweets that process then uses their mother’s passing to issues curses and portends of doom against those they hate.

    I’m sure someone has all that stuff backed up somewhere. And you can even ask Bill, I’m not a liar. He tried to paint me as one, but when challenged to come up with just one thing I lied about……crickets.

      • He memory holed it, as I recall. But…well, you invited yourself into this madness. I’m sorry that you have an actual life, which definitely will restrict your time for research. However, at some point, in pure self-defense, you might have to actually have people give you the actual screen-captures so that you don’t constantly find yourself taken by surprise that Bill’s claims turn out to be lies. Or, at best, distortions.

    • A succinct and truthful summary of just two of BS’s stories he continually recycles with falsehoods in order to garner sympathy and cast others as blame-worthy for HIS VERY OWN irresponsible, vile actions and behavior.

      Any normal and sane person would deem what BS did with regard to posting the Stranahan’s home and address — right on the heels of a rape threat — a call to further incite and to chill a family to their very bones, and understandably put them in the position to contact law enforcement.

      Any normal and sane person would respectfully endure sitting vigil at their dying parent’s bedside, and manage to endure the last moments and horrific loss without live-tweeting such a difficult time.

      But, then again… I think most can agree when discussing BS, we aren’t necessarily discussing “normal” and “sane.” The dude has some serious issues — one of the most serious being his inability to be truthful with himself and others.

      • Bill is all about Bill. He will use anything or anybody to his advantage. Just look (if you can stomach it) at is blog, nearly every post features a picture of him and a long discussion of his problems and issues. The “books” he wrote again featured his pictures and the content was mostly in some way about him. If you were around to read his posts at the Examiner or DKos, they were almost all about him.

        He is a classic, textbook sociopath. That the people closest to him choose to allow him to constantly get into brushes with the law should tell you what he is like when his attention isn’t upon someone online.

    • Indeed the whole Stranahan “false rape” threat he beats over and over really shows his double standards.
      He has said in the past how he worries Hoge’s “fanning the flames” of “hate” towards him may cause someone to take it upon themselves to come after him (although Hoge has done nothing of the sort IMHO) and then tries to back it up with anonymous comments sent to his blog, none of which he can rightfully hang on Hoge or anyone who posts at Hogewash, he just makes the assumption and runs with it.

      However in the Stranahan “false rape threat” situation, BS actually tweeted Stranahan’s address and google pics of it and seemed to be encouraging anyone who wanted to take it into their heads to pay a visit, and THAT is what got the law called into it, NOT an “old crippled man who can’t even walk” making threats…

      So claimed incitement counts as threats when it’s against him, but not when he attempts to incite against others…


      • SMACK!

        OK, give me a bit of time and I’ll look for some other examples, but given the memory-holing he does, it might be difficult.

        But NO DEMERITS, please.

        And if anybody could help me out here it would be, well, helpful.

      • Before we continue this circumlocution, we should perhaps excogitate on the sesquipedalian goals of our acumen. It may be best to return to the cupidity of callipygian that Bill has shown to be the bellwether, no doubt the unparagoned practitioner. We should, instead, let Bill’s actions be our cynosure and proceed with an eye toward the anomalistic accoutrements that it provides. In that spirit, let us stop perfidiousness here and now, and show our conviviality as we move forward.

      • Oh, and it think Bill tried the “baseball bat” thing with Kyle, IIRC. We’ll see if he visits again.

  10. BTW, about people “tricking” Bill into @mentioning Hoge? Yeah, that was me he complained about. You know how I did it? I wrote a series of tweets to Hoge without even mentioning Bill. He butted into our conversation and didn’t bother to remove Hoge. Then he claimed in a letter to the States Attorney that he was “tricked”. Good old Bill. He can never accept responsibility for his own stupidity.

      • ever notice how he resorts to dragging Stranahan into whatever discussion/argument he’s having (usually when Stranahan hasnt even been mentioned) when his lies/distortions are being proved to be lies and distortions?

        I have, he did it here as a matter of fact, twice bringing up Stranahan rather than answer the question(s). Why do you think that is?

        I think HE thinks its a quick way to shut down the discussion/argument without looking like the dishonest coward he is, because others aren’t as nasty as he is and will try to avoid adding to the pain BS has already caused Stranahan by continuing to argue it with BS.

        Look at how he tried to stir it up again the other day by @mentioning Lee when it was comments about other stuff he was blustering about from Hogewash…

        man he needs help…


      • That is exactly what he was doing. He knew Lee had asked everyone on twitter to move on, and that most people would leave him out of any discussion with Bill. But as soon as Bill’s disgusting behavior in that incident was brought up, Bill would go nuts and @ mention Lee with every tweet, knowing people would shy away.

        Well, he overplayed his hand and got bitch-slapped by Lee yesterday, so that tactic is now officially out the window.

      • That intrusion was mostly my fault. The key phrase was “fetal monitor”. At the height of his assault on LS he just kept hammering that phrase liek the damn things were magic totems and would have solved all medical problems instantly. I used the phrase at the time as a chant to try and picador CB off of the Stran’s. As a result, using it now summons up the demon of Elkridge who reflexively tries to relive the whole thing for two reasons: A) to shut everyone up and B) because he likes it so much.

      • he”ll still go there any time any of his nasty behavior is brought up…and then blame the people he’s arguing with for “bothering” the family..


      • Well Lee called him out on this yesterday and told him to go to hell. I don’t think Bill will use the Stranahans as a shield anymore to much effect.

      • If he treated people with a modicum of respectability, his stock would rise considerably. But trust won’t come easy to the man.

      • He keeps bringing it up, keeps posting his “defense” to the charges against him (even when no one’s brought it up), a clear case of “methinks the lady doth protest too much.”

        Three words: consciousness of guilt.

  11. Well, if you had any doubt how sure Bill was feeling about his case, he just tweeted this:

    WMS Radio Network @wmsbroadcasting · 1m

    @Xcitizen10 When she gets the filing I mailed today, I don’t think she will be any more inclined to see things Hoge’s way.

    Hoge is toast. I can only imagine the legal bombs that were dropped on him in Bill’s “filing”.

      • Hey, Bill kinda likes you (well, let’s just say that one of the Bill’s likes you, not sure which one is out today), so you’ll probably get invited to the party. Reading his TL today I’m surprised he hasn’t sent out invitations yet. He seems to be on quite close terms with the Judge in the case.

      • (I was Joking)

        The joke between Mike and I is that I say Hoge has orchestrated this whole thing to give Bill a false sense of security (and I’m not completely joking). In any case, it seems to be working. I’ve never seen Bill this out of control.

      • that’s just until she makes a ruling he doesn’t think serves him, then she’ll be an idiot who needs to FOCUS!!1! because according to ACME Law her understanding of the law is WRONG!1!11!!


      • not saying there aren’t problems, just making an observation based on BS’s past behavior in court. When he thinks the judge is going his way, then that judge becomes the bestest judge in the whole judiciary, when the judge doesn’t then they become senile old coots who believe stupid lies and ignore the law…

        My psychic adviser says that claim is gonna be tossed so fast anyone standing in the direction it gets thrown is gonna have paper cuts all over..


      • Yep, then within 24 hours Bill has another book up on Amazon which is nothing but a cut-and-paste of John’s website, all the while saying “the judge said I could!”

      • I am gloomily convinced that is the most likely scenario.

        If BS really wants to write a book, he could get off twitter, think about some subject, and then write about it, and maybe someone would read it and be impressed. It’s so much less angst-inducing to actually write something useful than to constantly indulge in smarmy, disgusting, vile harassment! Probably, such an exercise in positive thinking and behavior would improve his health, into the bargain.

        But, of course, that’s far too much effort for him.

      • Well, the irony is that he has over a dozen “books” for sale right now on Amazon (I use parentheses because many are ironically cut-and-paste jobs of his earlier works), including one that was put out for sale at the end of May! All without any “right wing attacks”, although I’m sure some of the comments aren’t complementary. It’s just that those “books” are his normal gradeschool-level “satire” that doesn’t steal from anybody, AFAIK.

        That would seem to put a kink in his counterclaim, if nothing else.

        As an aside, if you have a Kindle, some of the “books” have the download a sample option. I’ve done it. I dare you to try.

        (He really does love his face, doesn’t he? It’s on practically every “book” he’s “written”)

      • But, but, but… BS wrote over on his “Cyber Ins@nity” Amazon page:

        “If I try to write another book, I invite those who love me to give he [sic] a hot lead injection right between the eyes. I’m done. I’ve had it.”


Comments are closed.