Good Afternoon, DUMBFUCK!

Ya know, usually when I quote something, as I did yesterday when I noted that DUMBFUCK got his Microsoft Outlook account permanently suspended for “using your account for illegal activity; to spread malware or to view/distribute child pornography,” DUMBFUCK steps right up and tells me the quote is incorrect, and if I’m going to use quotation marks I should make sure the quote is correct.

Because I need a DUMBFUCK’S advice on prufreeding.

Yesterday, however, it went a different direction.  It says that “you” (I assume that’s a collective, royal “you” and not me specifically – my ego just isn’t that big) are pretending that it did that, “with NO EVIDENCE.”

It says.

NO EVIDENCE.

NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.

See, “we” (the royal “we,” which some DUMBFUCKS use as affectation, I use here as a continuation of DUMBFUCK’S reference to the royal “you” on Twitter) didn’t suspend DUMBFUCK’S account.

Microsoft did.

“We” don’t even say they suspended the account because it was used “to spread malware or to view/distribute child pornography.”

And neither does Microsoft.  Not specifically.  See, if you read it again, there’s a third cause at the front of that list, which DUMBFUCK conveniently ignores.  I’ll just repeat the full quote with some highlighting so “we” can all see it:

Microsoft disabled your access to your account due to a violation of the Microsoft Services Agreement.  Serious violations of the Microsoft Services Agreement, such as using your account for illegal activity; to spread malware or to view/distribute child pornography result in your account being permanently closed. We do this to protect Microsoft customers and the integrity of our services. 

We have evaluated your appeal and have verified that a serious violation of the Microsoft Services Agreement occurred on your account.

“Illegal activity.”

Now there’s a catch-all phrase.  And one that’s probably all too familiar to DUMBFUCKS around the globe.  But even that may not complete the list.  Who knows what other specific causes may exist in the Microsoft Services Agreement?  I don’t know, because I don’t use Outlook.

Neither does DUMBFUCK.

Like(8)Dislike(0)

Author: Paul Krendler

The Thinking Man's Zombie

25 thoughts on “Good Afternoon, DUMBFUCK!”

  1. Well, not anymore.

    He earned one of these, too. The title could go along with your Outlook stuff. Fair? Hell no. Is it exactly what he's do to you. Oh yes:
    https://ukuleledave.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/bill-order.png?w=625

    Like(5)Dislike(0)
    1. "No-Contact order for Stalking or Non-Consensual Sexual Conduct."
      They really have to break those orders into two pieces, because someone could easily think he earned the order for the words AFTER "or" instead of those BEFORE "or."

      Like(3)Dislike(0)
  2. Title for LOLCow Bill Schmalfeldt
    Horrorcow- Bill Schmalfeldt / William Matthew Schmalfeldt / Parky Bill / The Liberal Grouch"Journalist", Parkinson's-Riddled Pedophile & Scat Fetishist; St. Francis, Wisconsin

    Kiwi Farms listing Bill Schmalfeldt as a Parkinson's-Riddled Pedophile is just too funny!

    Like(5)Dislike(0)
    1. I thought he said he was a Bernie supporter -- and Bernie has stated he's more of a national socialist than an international socialist.

      Like(4)Dislike(0)
        1. The drawback of socialism is that everyone thinks they'll get free stuff from the folks above them on the food chain, without realizing there are people below them after their stuff too.

          It only works for the person at the bottom of the shitpile.

          And I think we all know who that is.

          Like(5)Dislike(0)
  3. So you are telling me there IS proof that Microsoft suspended his account, not because someone told them to, but because they actually reviewed his account, reviewed his appeal and STILL found he was doing illegal things which may include distributing child porn? Color me shocked!

    Like(9)Dislike(0)
  4. That's a semicolon, not an Oxford comma. Grammatically, they're saying the illegal activity is at least one of the two. My opinion, based only on things Schmally has posted himself, is that they mean both.

    Like(3)Dislike(0)
    1. Well, an adjudicated pedophile has told the Courts that he and Bill are associates, and Bill claimed as friends two more guys that have been pro pedophile in public writings. I wonder if it's a case of birds of a feather?

      Like(4)Dislike(0)
  5. In Schmalsville that evidence doesn't exist, so it is ignored and you will be harassed if you bring it up.

    Like(3)Dislike(0)
  6. Here are the terms of the current Code of Conduct:

    a. By agreeing to these Terms, you’re agreeing that, when using the Services, you will follow these rules:
    i. Don’t do anything illegal.
    ii. Don’t engage in any activity that exploits, harms, or threatens to harm children.
    iii. Don’t send spam. Spam is unwanted or unsolicited bulk email, postings, contact requests, SMS (text messages), or instant messages.
    iv. Don’t publicly display or use the Services to share inappropriate Content or material (involving, for example, nudity, bestiality, pornography, graphic violence, or criminal activity).
    v. Don’t engage in activity that is false or misleading (e.g., asking for money under false pretenses, impersonating someone else, manipulating the Services to increase play count, or affect rankings, ratings, or comments).
    vi. Don’t circumvent any restrictions on access to or availability of the Services.
    vii. Don’t engage in activity that is harmful to you, the Services, or others (e.g., transmitting viruses, stalking, communicating hate speech, or advocating violence against others).
    viii. Don’t infringe upon the rights of others (e.g., unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music or other copyrighted material, resale or other distribution of Bing maps, or photographs).
    ix. Don’t engage in activity that violates the privacy of others.
    x. Don’t help others break these rules.

    I'm thinking The Blab hit the jackpot with ii, iii, v, vii, viii, and ix!

    Like(3)Dislike(0)
    1. I cordially disagree, after reading those terms, I think he violated i, iv and x also. So I think he hit them all!

      Like(3)Dislike(0)
  7. My analysis was based on what violations are most likely documented by the Horde, so no speculation required.

    Multiple No Contact orders (including one for a 3 year old child) covers ii and iii. His endless failed DOX attempts v and ix, and his musing about people getting beaten by tire irons takes care of vii. Mr Hoge's copyright infringment claims takes care of viii.

    Clauses i and iv will be proven when Mr Hoge's current lawsuit comes to a close but IMO neither are provable today.

    Blab's Boy Scout sketches may or may not be pron, but hat stuff was probably not a factor for M$ to close out Teh Blab's account. The rest of the list showes ample reasons for M$ to act.

    Like(1)Dislike(0)
    1. To be fair to Bill (I KNOW, right?), he did not send me any missives from the Outlook account that is mentioned in those emails. So nothing that he did that necessitated obtaining the no-contact/stalking orders came from that. Now, it was *received* at Outlook accounts (some of which did not belong to me), but I don't think that Microsoft would be banning him for things that originated on other accounts.

      I believe (and I may be wrong and am willing to be corrected) that this account was the one he sent Lynn Thomas harassing emails from that she then was able to obtain a restraining order.

      Like(6)Dislike(0)
  8. Makes you wonder what a few well-placed supoenas might turn up...

    Like(2)Dislike(0)
  9. That flallic mike sure looks like a...nawwwwww...
    http://picplanet.net/image/609.html

    Like(1)Dislike(1)
  10. So just to clarify: "Microsoft disabled Bill Schmalfeldt's access to his account due to a violation of the Microsoft Services Agreement. Serious violations of the Microsoft Services Agreement, such as using your account for illegal activity; to spread malware or to view/distribute child pornography result in your account being permanently closed. We do this to protect Microsoft customers and the integrity of our services.

    We have evaluated Schmalfeldt's appeal and have verified that a serious violation of the Microsoft Services Agreement occurred on his account.'

    Game. Set. Match.
    Time to gluggle a little more of that JWR, shakey. 😛
    p.s.Since WHEN is Canticle and Juniper Courts in the "habit" of enabling "Serious violations of the Microsoft Services Agreement, such as using your account for illegal activity; to spread malware or to view/distribute child pornography"? Might be worth some intrepid reporter asking about that...
    Katie Voss ( kvoss@cardinalcapital.us )
    Cindy Lopez ( clopez@cardinalcapital.us )
    Erich Schwenker, President eschwenker@cardinalcapital.us
    Interestingly, C&J actually markets to provide protective environments for the deaf. Is THIS [Insert Billy's assault rifle here] the kind of "protective environment they have in mind??

    Like(0)Dislike(0)
  11. Oh, and speaking of making the monkey dance, this doc might just come in handy...
    http://archive.is/1Bk2G

    Like(1)Dislike(0)
  12. What Witless does not seem to understand is that if a person is caught in a lie once, there is no reason whatsoever to believe anything said by that person ever again. It is a binary state: either you will tell lies when it suits your fancy, or else you will not tell lies ever. I make up my mind about each person's credibility case by case. If I conclude you have lied once, you are a potential liar always, no matter how long time and the universe must tolerate your execrable excuse for existence or how many times you may find it convenient to choose to utter a truth or a half-truth. Liars do not always lie, but they are always willing to do so.

    Like(3)Dislike(0)

Comments are closed.