Good Morning, DUMBFUCK!







Attacks on family members…

Rude Photoshops…

Copyright infringement…

I could go on for hours…

Skirtsflap can dish it out, but it can’t take it. 
If it wasn’t for double standards…


Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

17 thoughts on “Good Morning, DUMBFUCK!”

  1. Leftists believe having double standards is twice as good as having standards.

  2. How did William ask Grady to stop anything without contact?

      1. 1) William addressed Grady specifically and directly in his soused tweets over the weekend; using his given or Christian names, initials or some combination thereof. In fact, he often interrupted hos own tirades to remind everyone else that this was between him and Grady, and "none of your fucking business."

        Whether he used an @ sign or Twitter handle is, in my opinion, immaterial.

        2) William issued demands of Grady. ("This is an order.")

        3) William warned of consequences should Grady not comply with those demands.

        4) William set a deadline for compliance. ("If your blog is still there by beddy time ..")

        5) William delivered said consequences on Monday.

        Any reasonable person would conclude that all of the above constitute contact, which William just verified by with "I asked you to stop. You wouldn't." He expected that Grady would read his twitter feed and act on it. What would you call that?

        Combine that with William's sworn declaration, under penalty of perjury and to a federal court, that he contemplated violence ("taking matters into his own hand") against someone who has an active restraining order against him, and you can't help but conclude that the Diminished Capacity Kid might have some 'splaining to do soon.

        Oopsie poopsie.

      2. Neal

        I almost always think what you say is both well thought out and well expressed. But many of us have said repeatedly that what is written on a blog or on twitter does not constitute contact under US law. I can write here or on hogewash about Bill Schmalfeldt without such words constituting contact. The distinction between "communications about" and "communications to" is important. The former have broad protections under the First Amendment; the latter have much more limited protections. The distinction was important for both John Hoge and Aaron Walker in the early days.

        1. I take your point, Jeff. But there are a few things I'd offer in rebuttal.

          - Whether or not the wording of the no-contact order violates the First Amendment is for an appeals court to decide. Mr. Walker appealed his no contact order. Admiral Inniscups didn't. In making that choice, he effectively conceded the constitutionality of the initial order.

          - Walker abided by the order while it was in effect.

          - From what I can remember, nothing that Walker wrote demanded specific action in response to their writings. That's key. That's not writing about someone, it's demanding action from them, which (i don't believe) can be defined as anything but contact.

          Of course, I'm neither an attorney or American, so it isn't for me to decide. I'm also not Patrick Grady, so what happens next isn't for me to decide.

      3. Neal

        I grant your points that BS did not appeal the order (unlike Walker) and that BS has not abided by the order (as Walker prudently did until it was overturned). That may prevent BS from successfully disputing enforcement of the order (although enforcing across state lines an order if it violated the federal constitution would raise plenty of opportunities for objection that might or might not be successful). I failed to make clear that I was not trying to say that the order was definitely unenforceable as a matter of law. Nor was I trying to advise Mr. Grady, who is the one being subjected to BS's bile.

        I understand (but do not accept) your point that an order is meaningless unless there is an expectation that it will be received and so should constitute "contact" in a legal sense. Yours is a common sense interpretation of the word "contact." But as you well know legal usage and common sense usage are not coextensive. I got interested in all this because I think the First Amendment is under attack from the left. As far as I am concerned, it is important to distinguish between communications that the intended recipient must take positive action to avoid (which is contact or attempted contact) and communications that the intended recipient can receive only by taking positive action (which is not contact for First Amendment purposes).

        Consider the situation where A tells B not to contact A. B writes on a blog about A. C tells A about B's writing, or A reads B's blog. A says that was contact from B. I would not have the law consider that contact. Otherwise, the courts must get into the substance of the text to decide whether it was contact or not. I do not want, nor do I believe that it was the constitutional intent, to have the government construing words to determine whether they constitute "contact" due to the complaints of a party who had to seek out the text. I want, and I think the best interpretation of the constitution is, that attacking speech as unwanted contact requires a very limited, bright line test of "contact."

        The current situation in the US demands an absolutist defense of the distinction between speech about and speech to. People are trying to suppress speech with which they disagree on the grounds that it threatens them emotionally. X says women sometimes lie about rape. Y says shut that X up; he is causing me emotional disturbance. Y can go pound sand as far as I am concerned. I am not going to throw my principles about free speech overboard because those principles happen to be inconvenient in one specific instance.

    1. There's only two things that could destroy Bill Schmalfeldt. One of them is Bill Schmalfeldt.

      The other one...

      ...appears to be proper prodding.

    2. BS has offered no evidence--that would convince a reasonable person--that Grady is PK.

      1. I haven't seen anything that would be deemed admissible to present to a jury. Because William saw a few episodes of Law and Order, he believes that you just show up and throw evidence around, without hearings to determine their relevance or admissibility.

        Paranoid conspiracy theories cooked up by folks who had deemed themselves incompetent just weeks before filing usually don't meet that standard.

        But what do I know? William's had such stunning success with his Feldtcharts so far!

  3. Now, let's all sit back and watch as William sends Gail into the chaos and savagery of Baltimore in an attempt to rectify his most current fuck-up.

  4. Further to Jeff's concerns above, William is taking the mutually exclusive positions that he asked Grady to stop his alleged activities, but did so without contact.

    That's going to be an interesting intellectual circle for him to square, should Mr. Grady decide to make an issue of it. I have no information as to whether he will or not, but it would be fun to watch.

    And all we have is fun.

    1. And I agree with this wholeheartedly. BS is witless. His positions change with the vagaries of the moment, and as for solving an intellectual puzzle, you require an intellect to do so.

      1. And that's my point. The Diminished Capacity Kid intends to argue one thing in Maryland and the opposite everywhere else. To my mind, as a purely legal matter, that has little or nothing to do with the First Amendment.

        There are questions I have about American libel actions, as opposed to those elsewhere, but I'd rather not ask them in public, lest monkeys get educated.


Comments are closed.