Spot The Difference

Given the stated parameters:

Why is there any difference between the following two statements?

  • “Officer, I think Lee Stranahan is creating child pornography.”
  • “Officer, I think Bill Schmalfeldt is creating child pornography.”

Which is a legitimate citizen concern, and which is defamation per se?

How can you tell?

Ralph Waldo Emerson said “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”

Two things apply here.  First, this is not foolish.  Second, Emerson never met a dancing monkey with a mind as small as Bill Schmalfeldt.



Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

37 thoughts on “Spot The Difference”

  1. Ooooohh.. you're in trouble now! OUT OF CONTEXT USE OF TWEETS!!!

    Mister, after the monkey finishes dancing, you're going to get a LOLsummons!!

  2. Here's the big difference:

    Self-described HappyMyWifeDied TheMerryWidower made the complaint because the dementia addled disgrace wanted to punish grieving parents who'd recently lost their baby to stillbirth, for refusing to share the details of their grief and loss with an obnoxious and offensive stranger. Why was the fat FAILure so interested? Coincidentally, one of the parents had recently written about the exploits of Speedway Bomber Brett Kimberlin. By making this bogus, malicious report, the loathsome loser endangered the other children in that family. Had the malevolent monster's complaint been reviewed by an overzealous investigator, or during a time when such agencies overcompensate due to being beat up in the press after they failed to protect a child who is later murdered by a parent or caretaker, the investigator might have removed the children and put them in foster care. The remaining children, one of whom was an infant, would have been scarred for life at the very least. That is what the vile, vicious viper tried and wanted to do: harm innocent children to punish their parents.


    BPO became aware of someone creating a piece that contained cub scouts and various sex acts, at times including various adults, and urine. I can't think of any circumstance where putting these entities together could be consider appropriate, much less funny as claimed by the depraved author. If BPO is correct in his assessment, then the author in question should face whatever comes from such activity. If BPO is incorrect, then the author may have been wronged, but the author wasn't harmed, or at risk of harm. The author is over 60 years old, not a defenseless child.

    TL;DR - the dementia addled freakshow set out to harm children, to punish their parents. BPO pointed out an adult created something that was at best depraved and revolting, but at no time endangered helpless children, or put any innocent person at any risk at all.

  3. Bill Schmalfeldt spews: "But Sarah Palmer thinks it's BAD to report suspicious child pornography to the authorities, which makes me fear for the grandbaby with Chad."

    Based on what possible foundation does he imply that this guy Chad is a threat to the child? Because he, Bill Schmalfeldt, is a sick twisted pervert who thinks gay sex between Cub Scouts is funny, he thinks some other male person (I won't use the term "man" in any possible reference to Bill) has the same proclivities? He just doesn't get it that the rest of the world isn't as sick of a fuck as he is.

    1. And given Bill's fascination with young children and sex, is it any wonder that his kids have nothing to do with him? I think he was reliving projecting his own deviant past behavior when he accused TDPZ of being inappropriately touched by her father. Telling, don't you think? Of course, given his thinly-veiled homosexuality, at least his daughters should have been safe and have had some kind of relationship with him. Maybe that's why his ex-wife kept his son from him until the kid was 21 and could defend himself.

      Gee, this leaping to conclusions about someone's supposed behavior is FUN! I can see why Bill does it all the time.

      1. The foundation is positively irrefutable: It's what self-described HappyMyWifeDied TheMerryWidower thinks will help it in this exact moment. Same foundation as much of what the fat freak spews.

    2. Pretendy land foundation, my dear. All the cool kids like to go there and think up stupid scenarios that have no basis in fact that they think will intimidate others.

  4. Stupidity rallys forth on Twitter: "This former lawyer raises an interesting question:
    I can answer his question.

    To which we all would respond: "Stove HOT! Don't touch!" But Bill will go ahead and try to argue legal issues with a lawyer (who beat him like a rented mule before) AGAIN. It worked out so well for him last time......

    1. Oh, but I thought that lawyer was the second-worst lawyer in teh UNIVERSE!!!11!1!1!

      Even if he lost 99 percent his brain in a horrific accident, that lawyer has more smarts in the fluff under his pinky toe nail than Bill could ever dream of.

  5. Stupitidy spews: "She has changed the name of her website several times since August."

    Really? I did not know that my bookmarks and favorites lists were smart enough to change themselves when a website changes its name, because I haven't had to update the website NAMES used in them to access her site - wow - that is really smart technology. /sarc

    The DUMBFUCK doesn't even know the difference between a website's name and its caption? Maybe THAT'S why he has had 80+ websites over the past few years - it wanted to change the theme or caption, but couldn't figure how to do it, so he just got a whole new website!

    I could easily believe he really is that stupid .....

  6. Is DUMBFUCK Schmalfeldt forgetting how Microsoft nuked his account with an explanation that cited "using your view/distribute child pornography" as a ground for terminating services?

    1. "A" ground, not "The" ground so we don't know for sure why MS closed his account.

      I'll bet Discovery will include requiring Microsoft to produce all his messages with the defendants, possibly including the message(s) that prompted them to close his account.

      1. Yup. He keeps pushing this, and I suspect MS will get a polite letter. And considering his asinine behavior towards them when trying to resolve the issue, they might happily cough up his email archive with minimal fuss.

      2. I doubt even a polite letter would do it unless it were attached to a subpoena (which is a typical corporate CYA legality). But if DUMBFUCK continues this lolsuit, he should know that "discovery" is a process which works in both directions.

        1. one handle, he's vaguely aware of that, but he has protested that anything the zombies bring up or mention is irrelevant, out of date, or without context.

          Sounds like a winning strategy.

          On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 9:17 AM, The Thinking Mans Zombie wrote:

          > one handle and stick to it commented: "I doubt even a polite letter would > do it unless it were attached to a subpoena (which is a typical corporate > CYA legality). But if DUMBFUCK continues this lolsuit, he should know that > "discovery" is a process which works in both directions." >

  7. Sorry to disagree with all my zombie friends, but I emphatically do in this case.

    Both statements are not defamatory because statements of what constitutes pornography are matters of opinion, not fact.

    Moreover, In my opinion, neither person produced porn. Few will debate that with regard to LS, but I suspect push back with regard to Witless Willie. He is too abysmal a writer to titillate anyone sexually. He may have wanted (consciously or unconsciously) to produce porn under the cloak of political satire, but he is incompetent to do so. What he wrote is simply disgusting with no redeeming sexual value (or social value for that matter.)

    The only difference lies in the motivation of the two statements, not the statements themselves: I am absolutely confident that BPO's statement was a sincere expression of personal opinion. And if Weeping Willie sincerely classifies LS's photos as porn but his own stuff as not porn, is he recognizing, however belatedly, that even porn requires competence beyond his capacity?

    1. Well, according to DUMBFUCK's latest ramblings, you're either reporting something or stating it as FACT. There are no opinions here.

      1. DUMBFUCK should sue the moron who gave him his legal ejumacation. Oh, wait.

    2. It truly pains me to disagree with you, JeffM, as I am a big fan of your comments. Unfortunately, I must present this argument to your well reasoned, but imo slightly flawed comment above:

      Do we agree that pr0n involving children exists?

      Do we agree that there are both legal definitions, and personal, moral definitions of what constitutes same?

      Do we agree that BPO has never presented himself as a practicing lawyer, or as a government employee authorized to bring criminal charges?

      I'm going to assume you answered all questions in the affirmative. From this we can then reasonably conclude that BPO offered his personal, moral opinion, and at most a layman's opinion of the law.

      If, in fact, titillation is required for anything to be considered to meet either definition of what constitutes pr0n, then how can any decent person find anything so disgusting meets that definition? Whether the object at issue is the revolting audio 'comedy' that consisted of cub scouts, sex acts, urine, adults, and a camera; photographs of actual children, or video of real children engaging in the acts described by the depraved author in question, no normal person would be anything but repulsed, so it couldn't meet that definition.

      Of course, we know actual pr0n involving children exists, and that the most vile among us find such things titillating. But we don't, and really can't, know whether they'd find the 'comedy' titillating, short of having some so disgustingly predisposed review it.

      Admittedly, I am not a pedophile, and to my knowledge am not personally acquainted with any, so would never presume to speak for them, or to claim I have any special or other knowledge about their preferences, habits, or interests. However, what I know of the claimed 'comedy' sounded to me like a fantasy put into words. Perhaps when the dread pedo and his cellmate were forced by the state to do without such materials, they passed the time in prison telling each other similar stories. Of course, their stories would likely have gone further, been even worse. But their stories wouldn't be designed for public consumption.

      I suppose reasonable minds can differ, because they do, but I think anything that combines children, sex acts, urine, adults, and a camera is usually going to be at least soft pr0n, though I wouldn't find it titillating at all; quite the opposite, in fact.

      1. Under Maryland law, which is admittedly quirky, it qualifies as kiddie pron. Dumbfuck created it in Maryland. He can never prove that calling it what the state he created it in calls it is false.

      2. @ crawford421

        I am not going to debate that screaming truth.

        @ MJ

        As frequently happens, Witless Willie is wrong. He is taking the stance that "pornography" has only a legal meaning. But that is simply not true. It is quite clear that, as Jane says, reasonable minds can differ on what constitutes pornography. BPO considers Willie's dumps to be pornographic, and I consider them merely awful: a classic difference in taste and opinion. BPO has a cast iron defense against defamation because he never claimed that Worthless Willie was indicted or convicted, and it is certainly not unreasonable to consider what Willie spews to be pornographic (in the non-legal sense). In fact, one of BPO's alleged assertions was that the Catholic Church should be sensitive to seeming to condone that spew, an assertion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the spew is legal or not.

        @ Jane

        I am sorry that we are in disagreement because I value your comments and appreciate whatever amount of esteem I may have garnered in your eyes. But I do not think our disagreements are very deep. Like you, I do not know what excites pedophiles. And Willie has made it very clear that no one knows for a fact what goes through another's mind. (Actually that position is another, but this time an unusually subtle one for him, of his admissions against interest: no one considers A's statement about what was really in B's mind at any given instant to be ANYTHING but an opinion.)

        My fundamental point was much simpler, and I apologize if I were unclear. Whatever Willie's personal predilictions truly are (I'd be ecstatic to remain in ignorance, thank you very much) and whatever might appeal to pedophiles, his writing skills are simply incapable of making anything appealing. He could write about chocolate cake with chocolate frosting, hot fudge sauce, and and mountains of whipped cream, and I'd probably be unable to eat a brownie for a week even though I admit that I might be entitled to a chair in "Queer Studies" on the topic of chocolate.

        1. Disagreement with respect.

          I LOVE IT.

          This whole branch of comments has earned the Thinking Man's Zombie Seal of Approval!

      3. Pablo, I agreed before you posted the actual statute back when. As I've written many times, there is no way to combine those elements and end up with anything decent people would find anything but revolting.


        JeffM - We're in perfect accord.

  8. LOL, the irony of Bill Schmalfeldt calling anyone a "willfully stupid psychofuck" Self-awareness fail.

  9. I see Bill has protected his twitterz again in a fit of rage.

    This begs the question:

    How am I supposed to understand context if we're not allowed to see it?


Comments are closed.