So Tell Me, DUMBFUCK:

 


What’s the essential difference between your argument here…

…and this:

When retired idiot with no self-control or internal filter decides to record and distribute audio sex depictions of minors from his Catholic Church owned and operated apartment, I think his landlords should know.

Free Speech means you are free to deal with the consequences of your speech, as DUMBFUCK Bill Schmalfeldt is fully aware but uses forgot. #dealwithit #DUMBFUCK #ChildPornographer

No, seriously – what’s the difference, other than “BUT THE RULES DON’T APPLY TO ME BECAUSE PARKINSON’S!!”

If online name-calling (or the sun coming up in the East) is reason enough for you to say it’s okay to contact someone’s clients to tell on them like the fucking three year old you are at heart, why shouldn’t the Lovely and Talented Cindy’s voicemail be flooded right this minute with complaints about you?

You and your Amazon Vagina Prayer Warrior Princesses are free to comment on this post, as long as you all are trying to answer the question.

 

Like(0)Dislike(0)

Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man’s Zombie

19 thoughts on “So Tell Me, DUMBFUCK:”

  1. NINE restraining orders so far adjudicate Bill Schmalfeldt a stalker and harasser, the same Bill Schmalfeldt who within an hour of its wife's death* tweeted about "re-branding" and soon thereafter changed its online id to happy my wife died theMerryWidower.

    *She was alone when she took her last breaths because her husband was busy on the internet.

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. "She wasn't alone!" whined Bill Schmalfeldt, "I could see her watching TV right from where I was sitting!" LOL, psycho. Somewhere in the hereafter, Gail is dancing a jig to be free of that fat abusive asshole.

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
  2. It's been said before: one of these days, BS is going to try something interfere-y in the offline life of someone who has a much more, shall we say, relaxed sense of what might constitute an appropriate response, and he's going to end up wishing he'd kept himself to himself... if he survives any such response.

    But BS knows (or thinks he knows) that the regulars in this particular neighborhood are better than that, and so feels no fear about repercussions. He hasn't yet realized that there is more than one type of repercussion available.

    (Where was that involuntary commital form again...?)

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. Actually, to quote a certain President, "WE are the ones we have been waiting for." If Billy wants to act like an online criminal, it's high time his victims took him seriously, and filed police reports on the online criminal.

      (With a bit of persistence, you won't need to file an involuntary commital form. When the police arrest him and jail him, THAT will be the involuntary commitment justice requires. On top of that, the judge in Billy's criminal case will no doubt order a psychiatric evaluation as a condition of any probabtion.)

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
  3. Bill's living off the charity off an Archdiocese that declared bankruptcy a few years ago because of child sex abuse. He really, really, should be more careful.

    Wouldn't it be hilarious if his current suit results in it being res judatica that it's OK to call his "skits" child pornography?

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. They're pornographic... they involve audio depictions of children... that is enough for someone to call it child pornography, IMHO. Whether it is illegal or not makes no difference. That's something BS can't seem to get through his thick skull.

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
      1. Oh, I agree. But a dismissal with prejudice or a decision against him, and he can NEVER sue over it again! Oopsie poopsie!

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
        1. Though, knowing that Schmalfeldt is a DUMBFUCK, he probably WILL continue trying to sue for it...right up to the point the courts start to order sanctions/force him to pay his victim-defendants legal expenses.

          Like(0)Dislike(0)
      2. To be precise, Russ -

        Whether the skits themselves are illegal or not makes no difference. Your "it" was ambiguous.

        If a supreme court judge can define pornographic as "I know it when I see it" it is certainly protected speech for a private citizen to describe an audio skit, depicting forcible sodomy of a Cub Scout, as pornographic, and child pornography. I personally feel it is much more accurate to describe the skit in question as kiddie porn, than to describe it as "comedy."

        Like(0)Dislike(0)
        1. I simply figure that one may call a thing "a thing" regardless of its status before the law.

          Jaywalking is jaywalking, whether it is legal or not, and to be of the opinion that someone -- who might, for instance, create an audio record of him/herself crossing a street outside of a crosswalk -- is a jaywalker is certainly within the realm of reasonable (and protected) opinion.

          Like(0)Dislike(0)
        2. Dr_Mike, that is exactly it. There are probably quite a range of opinions among those who have been masochistic enough to listen to the skits in question, as to whether they are actually porn. I say that only because actual penetration is not described as occurring 'in the moment,' as it were. The act is either anticipated, or remembered, depending on which skit you're talking about, as opposed to depicted in the present tense. I would think, though, that the vast majority of listeners, and all those who are psychologically healthy, would agree with your characterization: closer to porn than comedy.

          Like(0)Dislike(0)
  4. I hope Canticle and Juniper Courts has a lot of space in their emailbox. Because certain Concerned Citizens might just be contacting them. Soon.

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. DUMBFUCK himself put the number of the Apartment Manager on page 58 of this filing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/294424088/Exhibits-in-15-C-1516
      Oopsie poopsie!

      Like(0)Dislike(0)
  5. "get involved in name calling yip-yap" = saying stuff Dumbfuck doesn't like. All he's saying here is "I'm going to harass him by harassing uninvolved third parties because I can.

    Good luck with that, Dumbfuck.

    I wonder what Jim Rice would think about this. He seems like a very reasonable guy.

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
    1. Let me get this straight, one of our employees expressed a negative opinion of you, and you are calling *me* about it. Well sir, I don't know what negative opinion he might have expressed about you, but given you are the kind of person that involves employers in a personal dispute, he's probably right.

      Like(1)Dislike(0)
      1. Let me give you a number for MY boss, because while I haven't spoken to my employee, you have already caused me to form a negative opinion of you...Pinhead.

        Like(0)Dislike(0)

Comments are closed.