Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt

questionsSince 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.  

Your host.

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.

Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.57.34Screenshot 2014-06-28 17.57.55

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?

Advertisements

Questions of Bill Schmaldfeldt

questionsWe are adding a new question to Bill Schmaldfeldt, that arose over at Thinking Man’s Zombie.  I’m sure if Bill were to answer the question here, I could get Paul to accept it on his blog.

So on with the questions….

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.

For example, I’ve been in contact, as a sort of support group, to several of Bill’s doxing victims.  Bill thinks he has successfully doxed several of them. I know, in one case, it is an incomplete doxing.  Bill got most of the facts right, but instead of doxing his target he has doxed his target’s 81 year old Alzheimer suffering father.  In some ways, that’s even more frightening than this new friend being doxed.  After all, if Bill suddenly goes on another None of his Business attacks on the misplaced doxed father…  why that would be stressful and confusing to the poor fellow and his caring wife.  Out of nowhere, they start getting calls from some moron in Maryland demanding all sorts of things.  So I know at least one of Bill’s “successful” doxings is not as successful as he thinks and is, in fact, quite dangerously wrong.

That’s not the only time Bill has gotten key information wrong about one of his victims.  In the case of a certain photographer he doxed, he got the photographers studio mistaken for his home address.  And without verifying his information, Bill filed a complaint against the photographer with child services.  Even though he had the rest of the photographer’s information correct, the fact that he had this key bit wrong led him to some really invalid conclusions.  Conclusions that were none of his business, even if they were correct.

Since all my comments are moderated, if you’re reading this and are a victim of a Bill doxing and want to get in touch with me about it, feel free.  Just make it clear you don’t want me to approve the comment when you write it.  I’d love to hear from more.

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.

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 question of sealed documents

More important to several readers than to me is the issue of sealed documents you’ve freely printed on your various blogs in the past.  They would like to know who revealed sealed court documents to you.  I, however, have worked in “real journalism” and have no issue with this.  For one, it is obvious who shared them with you, and two, as a journalist you should never name your anonymous source.  But it does show a specific bias in your alleged reporting.  YMMV.  I find this question irrelevant to almost everything and am dropping this.  There is no question that Bill did publish sealed documents, and no question who provided him with those sealed documents, and that neither the party targeted by the publishing nor the court did anything about it, I’m less inclined to include this any longer.

On the issue of scams

Please detail the scams you have already claimed exist by several bloggers as to you telling various untruths.  Already at question is your claim that Flynn of Blubber Sues Bloggers of conspiracy.  Please explicitly explain your accusation of  Robert Stacy McCain running a scam over his leaving Maryland.  Or is it still your intention to claim that Robert Stacy McCain did not move out of the state of Maryland?

On the issue of 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1

Have you actually read this?  Can you sum it up? You put it forth as if it is law, but have you really even bothered to look up this specific source that you site?  Is that law?  What law?  What is 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1?  And asking if Hoge has read it is not answering the question. I’m frankly so sick of his spewing forth half educated guesses about copyright, that I don’t want him to answer this on principle.

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?


As always, feel free to add any additional questions in the comment section.

In Fairness To Bill…

Is there room for the principal party and reason for your blog to correct a few misconceptions you seem intent on promulgating? Thanks.

Bill  Schmalfeldt in an unapproved comment on this blog

Bill has left a lengthy comment to me that attempts to answer some of my Questions of Bill Scmalfeldt.  He left it in the wrong place, and I haz rulz, so it will not be approved.  However, it is a fair enough attempt to answer my questions, but is lengthy.  I do not think approving it if he had left it in the right place would be fair to him or to me.  So instead of approving it, I’ll be moving it into at least one, if not several, blog posts, where I will rebut or accept his answers individually.  That may take time, as I am not a full time blogger.  But I didn’t want Bill to think I didn’t see his post.

Thanks for the responses, Bill.  I will get to them in time.  But like a real journalist, I will take the time to respond to them correctly, completely and in fullness.

Questions for Bill Schmalfeldt

Frankly, I don’t know how to pronounce it.  But I know how to spell it.  Which is a sad.  But this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt still hasn’t answered his list of questions asked last week.  So, I’ll have to repost and re-ask again this week.  With additions.

As always, this is not a threat or a demand.  Real journalist neither threaten or demand answers to questions.  They ask the questions, and either get an answer or don’t.  They then point out that the subject either answered the question or didn’t.  They don’t go hyper and do mean things to the subject.

On the issue of Pornography

Bill Schmalfeldt one called the cops 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 argued that he was required to give him the information.

It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography.  Specifically, he produced 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.  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.

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 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.

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, five times.  Not once has he addressed the post itself, explaining exactly what Flynn has done that was anything like what Schmalfeldt claimed it was.

On the question of theft

I offered to give Schmalfeldt an apology and a retraction if he’d answer this question.  Simply put, to answer why calling him a thief over the sheer amount of copyrighted material he has used without permission should be considered anything other than theft.  I offered the apology and retraction if he simply answered the question, my agreeing with the answer wasn’t material.  He refused.

I herby rescind my offer of a retraction for answering the question and return to the caveat of convincingly answer the question.  Bill Schmalfeldt, why do you think it unreasonable to call you a copyright thief, considering the sheer amount of posts you’ve stolen, in total, without permission.  I do remind you that in 2012, you accused Robert Stacy McCain of theft for using your picture without permission, so please, in light of your history of calling other people thieves for using intellectual property without permission, explain how it is suddenly libel to accuse you of the same.

On the question of sealed documents

More important to several readers than to me is the issue of sealed documents you’ve freely printed on your various blogs in the past.  They would like to know who revealed sealed court documents to you.  I, however, have worked in “real journalism” and have no issue with this.  For one, it is obvious who shared them with you, and two, as a journalist you should never name your anonymous source.  But it does show a specific bias in your alleged reporting.  YMMV.

On the issue of scams

Please detail the scams you have already claimed exist by several bloggers as to you telling various untruths.  Already at question is your claim that Flynn of Blubber Sues Bloggers of conspiracy.  Please explicitly explain your accusation of  Robert Stacy McCain running a scam over his leaving Maryland.  Or is it still your intention to claim that Robert Stacy McCain did not move out of the state of Maryland?

On the issue of 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1

Have you actually read this?  Can you sum it up? You put it forth as if it is law, but have you really even bothered to look up this specific source that you site?  Is that law?  What law?  What is 3 Copyright 15.5.1.1?  And asking if Hoge has read it is not answering the question.

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?


 

As always, I’d love to have specific examples of questions this blog’s Best Buddy Bill Schmalfeldt has avoided. You may leave them in the comments.

The Questions of Bill Schmalfeldt

I can’t help but notice that since Bill Schmalfeldt left the blogging world he has been far more active than before he left the blogging world.  I’ve also noticed a trend where Bill Schmalfeldt doesn’t answer direct questions, continually tells others how they must post, threatens people who don’t post appropriately according to the rules of Bill Schmalfeldt, and constantly insults people.

Nice fellow.

But it’s the doesn’t answer direct questions that has me a bit upset.  See, Bill Schmalfeldt has a habit of demanding answers to his own questions, and taking action if his questions are ignored.  He will post threats about what he will do if he doesn’t get the answers.  He does this, he claims, because he is a journalist.  That’s a claim that is down right laughable, but we can go into it at another time.  Real journalist would never treat a source like this.

Here’s what we need. We need proof… something more that the liar Hoge’s say so… that you “sold” your rights to that blog to him. Monday morning, May 5, 10am ET will suffice.

-Bill Schmalfeldt in a comment on Paul Krendler blog, Thinking Man’s Zombie

Threats and deadlines are not how one would get answers.  And if you didn’t get your answers, you published your story with their pointed out lack of comment.  That’s what journalist do.  But not Schmalfeldt, no he threatens.  He calls the cops.  He files peace orders.  He doxes you.  He calls your wife’s employers.  He denies that your child who just died even exists.  Yes, Schmalfeldt has done all these in an effort to “aggressively follow a story.”

I won’t do any of those things.  I’ll do what real journalists do when a source won’t answer questions.  Make it obvious that they won’t answer questions.  So here is a list of direct questions asked of Schmalfeldt that he has ignored, dodged, or otherwise refused to answer.  Much like some other blogs, this may become a regular feature here.  In other words, I’ll be posting the list again and again until he answers.

On to the list:

On the issue of Pornography

Bill Schmalfeldt one called the cops 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 argued that he was required to give him the information.

It turns out that Schmalfeldt is also a producer of pornography.  Specifically, he produced 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.  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.

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 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.

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, five times.  Not once has he addressed the post itself, explaining exactly what Flynn has done that was anything like what Schmalfeldt claimed it was.


 

Schmalfeldt has a bad habit of demanding answers and refusing to give them.  I’m sure this list could be much longer, and feel free to leave a comment with a somewhat detailed example of what questions Schmalfeldt is dodging.  I’ll at it to the list next week.