Since I’m obsessed with Bill, I thought it would be a good time to bring up my semi-regular Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt feature. These are questions I’ve collected from around the net that Bill Schmalfeldt has refused to answer. Since he’s banned on almost every blog, except this one, and this one holds him to the highest standard when it comes to rules, it has gotten harder to find questions because he just doesn’t post much anymore. Although he still runs his twitter and blogs. Sometimes. When they are up.
UPDATE: Bill pointed out in his twitter feed that perhaps I didn’t ask a question in the proper way. In retrospect I agree with him. I have updated the question to better reflect what I meant to ask, with less snark and bias. Your host.
New question this week, asked by one of my anonymous sources, and verified by Bill’s own words. (No, not Ghost. Ghost hasn’t set up the ultra-secure line of communication yet.)
On the Issue of child abuse…
Which of you would have strong suspicions that someone was abusing children and look the other way? If you would, you disgust me.
– Bill Schmaldfeldt in an unapproved comment on this blog
So you had “strong suspicions” about someone abusing children. How much time did you spend with those kids? Did you talk with them somehow? Did you actually ever see them interact with their parents? Did you ever witness anything you might be able to call abuse? What physical evidence did you have that abuse may be occurring? Or did you invent your suspicions as an excuse to harass your target?
On the issue of doxing…
On Thinking Man’s Zombie Bill has been challenged to answer one question, how many examples of failed doxings does it take for him to accept that he isn’t very good at doxing. This is a dangerous road for Bill, since he really needs to examine his failed doxings to his successful ones. And he really needs to be sure that his successful ones are correct. Accurate. Complete.
On the issue of Pronography…
Bill Schmalfeldt once
called the cops contacted the Dallas Police Department, which turned the information over to an investigative unit, the FBI Cyber Crimes unit, the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the American Sites Associated with Child Protection and accused a photographer of using underage models in the production of pornography. He did so because the photographer didn’t provide Schmalfeldt with age verification information on his models, something that the photographer couldn’t give Schmalfeldt under penalty of federal law. Schmalfeldt incorrectly argued that he was required to give him the information.
It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography. Specifically, he produced, not take but digitally enhanced, a photograph of two men in either simulated or actual anal sex. The picture had four models in it, since the faces of the body models where replaced by other faces. Schmalfeldt then disseminated the pictures via Twitter and possibly other means. By doing so, he came under the same record keeping requirements that he attempted to claim gave him the right to look at the records of the aforementioned photographer. Specifically, under the law, Bill was either the First or Second Producer of the photograph.
At first, Bill has claimed he did not produce any pornography. Once it was pointed out that there were sealed files in a courtroom that said otherwise, Bill went on a rant about hypocrisy, since he’s been accused of publishing sealed files… even though I’ve not published the picture from the sealed files, and I didn’t get them from the sealed files. But that’s another issue. It is quite clear that Bill has either made and disseminated (first producer) or disseminated (second producer) pornography. Either way, the proper record keeping is required.
That said, Schmalfeldt was asked if he had the proper record keeping files of the four people in his pornography production. Schmalfeldt has yet to answer this question.
on the issue of hypocrisy…
In a comment on this blog, Bill Schmaldfeldt accused me of hypocrisy.
Any time you’d care to explain the hypocrisy of condemning me for having “sealed documents” while you just claimed to have a document that was sealed in the Peace Order hearings, please share. Think of it as a “teaching moment” for all of us.
Bill Schmalfeldt in an approved comment on this blog
I then went on to explain to him exactly how it wasn’t hypocrisy. How first off I consider the question of him having and PUBLISHING sealed documents are not that important to me, because real journalists do it all the time. But I didn’t PUBLISH what was potentially the content of a sealed file, but it wouldn’t matter because I had gotten the file from a source who had captured the post in the wild. In fact, I have copies of several posts that contain several different images, because apparently the original copyright holders (see a trend?) took down at least one of them, and Bill produced a second version using a new stolen photograph.
Now keep in mind, that Bill denied having published the pornographic photograph to me. When I pointed out the sealed files, he flipped out on the whole “hypocrisy” charge that has absolutely no basis in reality. So I asked for a retraction. The explanation as to why there is no retraction has not been forthcoming.
I have, however, received this. It is unclear if this has to do with the Hypocrisy issue or not. Either way, it is neither an apology or a retraction.
On the issue of anonymity…
Is it true that while you’ve been calling other people anonymous cowards for hiding behind their various pen names, you’ve used false identities of your own to return to writing for websites, where you’ve actually written articles about yourself in the third person? I might point you back to the issue of hypocrisy for that one.
On the issue of anonymity part two…
Is it true, Bill, that you are currently picking up domains under the false identity of “Matt Lillefiet” or some other similar name? I’ve seen several references to this, and again have to ask why you call anyone else who behaves anonymously a coward and yet you get to do it and expect not to receive the same treatment.
On the issue of bragging…
Schmalfeldt has repeatedly claimed that people bragged about getting him fired from various “jobs” at online publishing places. A specific claim is that people brag about getting him fired from the Examiner, but other sites are implied in his writings. Schmalfeldt has been asked, repeatedly, about who these braggarts are and what they said. He has yet to provide that information. UPDATE: At least one commenter has pointed to screen caps of Bill saying he couldn’t have been fired since they were non-paying gigs, and you can’t get fired from non-paying gigs. While that’s just plain wrong, it seems Bill is talking out of both sides of his mouth yet again on this issue.
On the issue of conspiracy…
Over at Blubber Sues Bloggers, Schmalfeldt accused the host, Flynn, of conspiracy to do all sorts of nefarious things not specified. It was enough for Flynn to write an entire blog post about it. Schmalfeldt has commented on that post, as of this writing, eight times. Not once has he addressed the post itself, explaining exactly what Flynn has done that was anything like what Schmalfeldt claimed it was. Of course, he can no longer address it over at Blubber Sues Bloggers, since he has been banned from posting there. He may feel free to answer it here, and I’ll pass it on to Flynn. (Wait, is that two blogs he’s been banned from posting at, just in one post? Trend anyone?)
On the issue of Libel, Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress…
In your recent counterclaims you have pointed to a post by one anonymous blogger Paul Krendler as being vile and disgusting. You fail, in your permissive counterclaims to point out that the anonymous blogger Paul Krendler wrote the post as a parody of a post you made, that was also vile and disgusting. Or do you deny writing a vile and disgusting post about WJJ Hoge’s home life? Or does the concept of Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress only apply to you, and not to Hoge?
On the issue of “Right to know…”
I’ve now gone back literally years and years of blog posts about you. I can’t read blog posts from you because of your habit of memory holing things. However, I’ve noticed a trend in other’s writing about you. It seems you repeatedly and often demand some piece of information from other people. You response to them not giving you that piece of information varies from insults to doxing, and you’ve been accused but admittedly not conclusively proven to have done worse. However, what is clear is that you do assume to have a right to know that does not exist. So the question before you today is simple. Do you realize that what goes on in private between other people is not your right to know, and real journalist, which you repeatedly claim to be, do not respond to the answer, in the words of Robert Stacy McCain, to “fuck off” in the way that you have?