This Is Sooooo Very Difficult To Understand

Let’s begin with this little nugget…

/home/wpcom/public_html/wp-content/blogs.dir/d20/67462000/files/2014/12/img_4607.png

Of course the harrassing cyberthug’s focus is quite narrow.  He wants to know “who sent the email?” And in his typical fashion, as soon as he gets the answer he likes (from the free lawyer chat room, the Christmas Eve Court Clerk, the African-tinged photo editor from NASA, the WordPress Happiness Engineer, the voices in his head, whatever), he determines that his confirmed opinion is truth from God, carved in stone from the mountaintop.  His focus narrows to a pinhole, and like an eclipse box, everything he sees through that pinhole is upside-down and backwards.

Plus, he fails to see anything else.  That apparent belief in his own infallibility, a belief betrayed by years of evidence and failure, so narrows his focus that he misses (or purposely ignores, that is distinctly possible) the suggestion immediately below the answer he’s fallen so in love with.

You can learn more about this here:
http://en.support.wordpress.com/comments/pingbacks/

At that link, we find the following explanation of the pingback:

A pingback is a type of comment that’s created when you link to another blog post where pingbacks are enabled. The best way to think about pingbacks is as remote comments:

  • Person A posts something on his blog.
  • Person B posts on her own blog, linking to Person A’s post. This automatically sends a pingback to Person A when both have pingback enabled blogs.
  • Person A’s blog receives the pingback, then automatically goes to Person B’s post to confirm that the pingback did, in fact, originate there.

Check out the WordPress.org Introduction to Blogging article for a more detailed explanation.

Here’s an interesting angle to consider – what if I take that explanation and replace the names?  Would that make clearer the explanation which Monsieur Mayonnaise clearly did not bother to read?

A pingback is a type of comment that’s created when you link to another blog post where pingbacks are enabled. The best way to think about pingbacks is as remote comments:

  • John posts something on his blog.
  • Park, who is subject to a peace order requiring him not to contact John, posts on his own blog, linking to John’s post. This, Park’s affirmative action of posting a link to John’s blog, automatically sends a pingback to John when both John and Park have pingback enabled blogs, even if there is no way for Park to know whether John’s blog is pingback enabled or not.
  • John’s blog receives the pingback, like a mailbox receiving a letter from the postal service, then automatically goes to Park’s post to confirm that the pingback did, in fact, originate there.

Check out the WordPress.org Introduction to Blogging article for a more detailed explanation.

 

So if Señor Neckroll doesn’t link to Person A’s blog, an affirmative action taken by him, then Person A never gets a pingback.

Eh – what do I know?  I’m just an undead zombie. Your WordPress ways are strange and confusing.  Maybe if there was a way to find a “more detailed explanation…”

Hmm…

Oh, wait!

Check out the WordPress.org Introduction to Blogging article for a more detailed explanation.

I wonder if there is some clearly worded for a Luddite information at that link for someone who’s only been blogging with WordPress for several years?  Let’s find out.

The pingback is generally displayed on Person A’s blog as simply a link to Person B’s post. It is commonly believed that pingbacks do not send any content, as trackbacks do. This is not correct. If you get a pingback, you will see an excerpt from that blog in the Edit Comments section of your dashboard. The issue is that very few themes display these excerpts from pingbacks. The default WordPress themes, for example, do not display pingback excerpts.

In fact, there is only one significant difference between pingbacks and trackbacks: Pingbacks and trackbacks use drastically different communication technologies (XML-RPC and HTTP POST, respectively). But that difference is important because trackbacks have become the target of so much spam. The automatic verification process introduces a level of authenticity, making it harder to fake a pingback.

Some feel that trackbacks are superior because readers of Person A’s blog can at least see some of what Person B has to say, and then decide if they want to read more (and therefore click over to Person B’s blog). Others feel that pingbacks are superior because they create a verifiable connection (could a zombie call this a contact?) between posts.

There are even some technical specifications linked in that article, too.  Definitely not for Luddites.

5. Example

Here is a more detailed look at what could happen between Park and John during the example described in the introduction.

  1. Park posts to his blog. The post he’s made includes a link to a post on John’s blog. The permalink to Park’s new post is http://park.example.org/#p123, and the URL of the link to John’s blog is http://john.example.net/#foo.
  2. Park’s blogging system parses all the external links out of Park’s post, and finds http://john.example.net/#foo.
  3. It then requests the first 5 kilobytes of the page referred to by the link.
  4. It looks for an X-Pingback header, but fails to find one.
  5. It scans this page fragment for thepingback link tag, which it finds:
    <link rel="pingback" href="http://john.example.net/xmlrpcserver">

    If this tag had not been contained in the page, then John’s blog would not support pingback, so Park’s software would have given up here (moving on to the next link found in step 2).

  6. Next, since the link was there, it executes the the following XML-RPC call to http://john.example.net/xmlrpcserver:
    pingback.ping('http://park.example.org/#p123', 'http://john.example.net/#foo')
  7. Park’s blogging system repeats step 3 to 6 for each external link that was found in the post.

There ends the work undertaken by Park’s system, none of which would have taken place without the first affirmative step: Park posts to his blog, including a link to a post on John’s blog. The rest of the work is performed by John’s blog.

  1. John’s blog receives a ping from Alice’s blog (the ping sent in step 6 above), naming http://alice.example.org/#p123 (the site linking to Bob) and http://john.example.net/#foo (the page Park linked to).
  2. John’s blog confirms that http://john.example.net/#foo is in fact a post on this blog.
  3. It then requests the content of http://park.example.org/#p123 and checks the Content-Type of the entity returned to make sure it is text of some sort.
  4. It verifies that this content does indeed contain a link to http://john.example.net/#foo (to prevent spamming of pingbacks).
  5. John’s blog also retrieves other data required from the content of Park’s new post, such as the page title, an extract of the page content surrounding the link to John’s post, any attributes indicating which language the page is in, and so forth.
  6. Finally, John’s post records the pingback in its database, and regenerates the static pages referring to John’s post so that they mention the pingback.

So even when you get down to the technical details, what do we learn, if we’re interested?

It all boils down to this: Idiots gonna be idiots.  If the Baron of Bloviation took 30 goddamn seconds to think about what he was doing, he wouldn’t be facing a show cause hearing and a possible contempt citation because he can’t follow a simple order from the court.

In other words, just your average day.

Like(0)Dislike(0)

It Wasn't Me!! It Was the One-Armed Mailman!

I have not contacted Hoge John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt directly, indirectly, through telepathy, in the dream world, through a wormhole or any other means.

I wrote a blog post letter about how Hoge Schmidt was copying from my blog a book in violation of the copyright settlement. I posted a link to included the page number of the offending post passage.

WordPress program The United States Postal Service saw the link letter, and THEY notified delivered Hoge Schmidt the post and the link letter. Not me. Them. But that isn’t the issue here.

Like(0)Dislike(0)

Interesting Thing About The Law

If you swear to something under oath, and sign your name to it, even if you do it under false pretense and for retaliatory purposes, like this:
IMG_4446.PNG
then you are quite bound by your oath to behave as though you believe that what you have sworn is true. To do otherwise provides both indication and evidence that you may knowingly have provided false information.

So now that Patrick Grady has been granted a plenary Stalking No Contact Order against William Schmalfeldt of Elkridge, Maryland,
IMG_4485.PNG
IMG_4486.PNG

Schmalfeldt is prohibited by court order from communicating to or about Grady in any forum or social media.

But that’s okay, right?
IMG_4454.PNG
IMG_4455.PNG

Actually, no.

Schmalfeldt doesn’t need Hoge to make sure of anything. Schmalfeldt is sure. Because…SCHMALFELDT. Sure enough to swear an oath under penalty of perjury (up to $1000 fine, up to 90 days imprisonment, or both) that Grady is me, and I am Grady.

So here he is, ordered by the court not to write about Grady, and bound legally by his own sworn oath not to write about Krendler, because HE SAYS I AM GRADY.

Oops.

Stupid people call this an “Oh, Fuck! What Have I Done?” moment.

Everyone else calls it a “What A Cute Little Corner You’ve Painted Yourself Into!” moment.

I just call it FUN.

I have it on “competent authority” that Grady is perfectly willing, as he has demonstrated by his recent trip to Maryland, to take Schmalfeldt at his word and treat any communication toward or about me as CONSISTENT WITH HIS SWORN OATH to be a communication toward or about GRADY, and a violation of the Stalking No Contact Order.

And reported accordingly. Every single time.

Like(0)Dislike(0)

Guest Summary

I received the following summary from Patrick Grady earlier this evening. With some minor edits by myself here and John at Hogewash! we have agreed to jointly publish it. (Note: for those who saw this post come and go, that’s on me. I jumped the gun. Sorry.)

I also found this cool picture he posted on Twitter:

IMG_4424.JPG

I flew into BWI late Thursday night. John was waiting at baggage claim for me. This had been arranged by an offer from a truly gracious host, and not by request. After a full day of work and half a night of travel, I was very, very grateful.

John drove me to the motel where I now sit typing this. If Bill knew how close I am…well, suffice it to say that I am glad this motel sits on top of a good sized hill next to the highway. I checked in, hung my suit, cursed myself for the one medical incidental item I forgot (guess all you want – I’m not saying), improvised a solution, and crashed hard.

Woke up this mornin’, got myself a gun… (sorry. Soprano’s reference). Went downstairs and availed myself of the free breakfast – the saving of the Hockey Parent, I’ll tell you. Went back up and prepped for battle.

I had a bit of free time, so I did a lttle work printing off more information that might come in handy later in the day. John arrived just before I finished. I packed up and we headed for Ellicott City. We sat down in the Einstein Bagels previously mentioned by John with – you guessed it – bagels and coffee. We did not spot any lurking photographers.

We discussed strategy and options. To tell the truth, I came here intent on pursuing all available legal options, both civil and criminal.

Next stop, the courthouse. We went to the clerk’s office and waited a few minutes in line. Howard County folks seem to have more patience than the functionaries in Cook County, IL. I suspect that may relate to workload volume.

I gave my name. In return, the lady said something like, “Come again?” I repeated it, and I told her I would like to file a Peace Order. I also had some paperwork from Cook County that I would like to have served. She asked against whom, and I told her. The look I got in return was a combination of sympathy and gratitude. She told me that Mr. Schmalfeldt had called and intended to come in later to drop the order. She needed to fetch a sheriff, pull the file and get her supervisor.

The supervisor arrived first. Her attitude and demeanor was similar to the previous clerk.

If I were a less observant fellow, a man who misses facial expressions, a man who doesn’t catch snippets of conversation from the other side of the glass and the occasional sidewise glance and roll of the eye, I might believe that the Howard County law enforcement apparatus had not developed a widely held opinion regarding the overall character of my opponent.

But I am. So I did.

After a brief discussion of the current status – there was the Temporary Peace Order pending a hearing in an hour or so in this building, and I have a Stalking No Contact order hearing pending in Cook County, IL, the supervisor told me she could not accept a Peace Order filing in Howard County when there was another similar order based on the same acts pending in another state. If both orders were granted, and violated in both jurisdictions, both or neither might decide to pursue prosecution. With just one order – “on YOUR home field, Mr, Grady” was never spoken, but I inferred it – prosecution would be more likely. Plus, she did say, anything that was filed here in Howard County would obligate me, if I wished to follow through fully, to return for hearings and for any trials where I would be a witness. $$$ Again, I inferred from this that the easier way for me was to continue to work through Cook County.

That made my decision for me. Even though I was in Howard County (and I have already read of the efficacy of the Maryland courts at work, which also was a factor), I was being strongly recommended, if not told outright, to go home and press my case on familiar ground – and good luck go with you.

Next, a sheriff’s deputy came to talk with me. He was very straightforward in serving me with the Peace Order paperwork. I told him I already had it, even though I had not been served by Cook County. He asked where I got it, and I told him I had it from Bill’s blog post on the subject.

A brief look of amazement passed across his face. Then he served me papers I already had.

John and I retired to the waiting area outside the courtrooms, setting up on the “high ground” with a view of the parking lot, the better to observe enemy movements, and avail ourselves of “good cover and clear fields of fire,” said John. We waited. Else what’s a waiting area for?

Courtroom 3 opened at 1:00 PM for the 1:15 hearing. We took seats at about five past. The bailiff began calling parties for check-in, and it was immediately clear by his butchering of the last name, that Schmalfeldt v. Grady was at the top of the docket call list. The bailiff called all petitioners, top to bottom (heh – he said “bottom”), followed by all respondents in the same way.

John suggested that the judge could move the case down the docket and call it again, giving Bill more time to appear with his sooper dooper Friday Surprise. We both doubted he would. John did not see any of the usual Team K suspects in evidence to indicate that outcome.

Judge Mary Reese entered the room at about 1:45, immediately apologizing for tardiness, as she was dealing with some issues with detectives in her chambers. Court came into session. She too went through a checklist of parties to ask how many witnesses each party intended to call. “Scham? Schammelfeldt?” The snide grin that popped onto my face was automatic. Whoops.

Going through the checklist, she moved two other cases to be heard and dismissed immediately by mutual consent of the parties. Easy-peasy.

She called “Scham-schammelfeldt vs. Grandy” and I went up, correcting my name. Without being given a chance to say another word, she dismissed the order for Petitioner Failure To Appear (IMO, the last two words being needless). It was over so quickly that the idea of a) mentioning this is the second PO the Mr. Schammelfeldt has filed against me this year, with the same result, and b) asking if I could recover fees and costs from petitioner by court order was dead before I could open my mouth.

John said he thought she may have recognized Petitoner’s name and been eager to be done with this waste of the court’s time.

Works for me.

On to Timbuktu, where I received an education in Maryland crab cakes (YUM!) and a Sam Adams Winter Lager.

It was very tasty, but in concert with the pharmacopeia in my body, we all had an enjoyable afternoon nap.

Like(0)Dislike(0)

Butthurt ≠ Tort

I live in Taint Louis. He lives in my head rent free. He continues to write false reviews of my droppings on the web to get folks to cease purchasing them. Now I may only sell one copy instead of two. He continues to contact me because I continue to contact him even though I think I told him to stop. But I can’t be sure. He writes defamatory things about me on other blogs that are funnier than the defamatory things I write about people. Without getting too far into the weeds here (because I am a BIG FREAKING WEED), if I want to bring false harassment/stalking charges against this person, do I file in my Taint or in my head? Thanks.

Like(0)Dislike(0)

Minor Bleg

So I’ve been thinking – do I really want a copy of Animus Nocendi?

No.

I mean, if it’s only his handlers and the missus buying up copies, what do I care?

If someone sent me a free copy, I have many more valuable ways of using my time than walking to the recycle bin and dropping it in, to say nothing of actually reading it.

The toilet paper idea has merit, though, I must admit. Especially if it’s free.

But if some folks out there wanted to drop a buck or two in the tip jar over on the right, and if there came enough coin to make that purchase, then I would have an opportunity to investigate what sort of Fair Use he might be making of my content.

I still don’t know if I would want to file a claim. After all, I am merely a fictional zombie, comfy-cozy behind what has been up to now an invulnerable shield of anonymity. I like it here. Calling Krendler names means nothing to me. Maybe it would bug Thomas Harris, if he cared about such things. Maybe someone should contact his publisher to find out.

Anyway, if there’s an infringement complaint to be made, I will be measuring the relative damage caused by his “Fair Use” against my certainty of his motive for what he may or may not have done.

And his motive, as usual, is all too transparent. He intends to violate my copyright (and exercise any other weakshit tactic he can think of) until I decide that anonymity is less desirable than kicking his ass around a courtroom.

That day may never come. For now, I’m content to punch back twice, no, ten times harder. But if the day comes, I will have to consider whether I will want to pursue that case anonymously as well. To do that will require an attorney, and that’s no penny-ante game, particularly with no promise of payable damages on the other side from an indigested dyspeptic conspiree.

So, I don’t demand that you hit the freaking tip jar. Those 5 words are very important, it’s true, but there are others moreso for a zombie in my position.

But if you are inclined, I would be most grateful.      

 

P.S. – Please note for future reference that I am planning a Major Bleg soon. But don’t worry, it has nothing to do with money.  At least not on the front end.

P.P.S – This is the 101st post on this blog.  So that’s pretty cool.  Thanks to all who keep me going by encouraging my frivolity.

Like(0)Dislike(0)

I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter

To: CreateSpace.com

I am a blogger going by the pseudonym Paul Krendler. I blog at http://thinkingmanszombie.wordpress.com. I blog under a pen name for a reason, and I am unwilling to sacrifice my anonymity at this time, on the battlefield before me.

One of your members, William M. Schmalfeldt, Sr., has published today a title “Animus Nocenti,” what he calls a true story. While some of it may be true, most of his recollections of it will surely be fantastic fictions.

In April, he published another title called “Intentional Infliction,” in which he included a majority portion of one of my blog posts, with attribution but without permission. His goal in doing so was to force me to identify myself as required by law in the DMCA. Instead I was able to join with other like-minded netizens to thwart his blatant infringement on my copyright and maintain my anonymity.

Now, again, he has decided to “write” a book detailing legal woes of his own making, in the hope that he will so offend me that I will sacrifice my anonymity in order to force him to face some form of justice. This will not happen, because what I know of Mr. Schmalfeldt is that he tries to manipulate his enemies.

He wants me to sue him. Because to do so I must give up my anonymity, which is what he REALLY wants.

Instead of doing his bidding, I would like to remind you of several terms of your Member Agreement:

1. Mr. Schmalfeldt has agreed to abide by and comply with the Content Guidelines.
2. The Content Guidelines express that Mr. Schmalfeldt is expected to conduct proper research to ensure items sold through CreateSpace are in compliance with all local, state, national and international laws.
3. According to the member agreement, CreateSpace will immediately remove items from the service on learning that the item is not the property of the seller.
4. According to the member agreement, CreateSpace may at any time and without notice, reject, remove or refuse to list content.
5. According to the member agreement, CreateSpace may request members to provide additional information relating to Content, such as information confirming that members has all rights required to permit your distribution of the Content.
6. By consenting to the member agreement, Mr. Schmalfeldt represents and warrants that any information and documentation he provides to you will be current, complete and accurate.
7. By consenting to the member agreement, Mr. Schmalfeldt agrees that he owns all right, title and interest in and to the Content, including any copyright.
8. By consenting to the member agreement, Mr. Schmalfeldt further represents and warrants that

a. He will comply with all laws, rules, regulations, and orders of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over his performance thereunder;
b. He has all requisite right, power and authority to enter into this agreement, and perform his obligations thereunder;
c. Prior to his delivery of Content to you he has or has obtained all rights, clearances and permissions to grant the licenses he grants thereunder that are necessary for you to exercise the rights he grants under the Agreement;
d. He is granting you the rights, licenses and authorizations thereunder free and clear of any encumbrances;
e. The Content is not defamatory, libelous, obscene or otherwise illegal, does not infringe upon any Intellectual Property Right; and
f. The Content complies with all aspects of the Content Guidelines.

 9. By consenting to the member agreement Mr. Schmalfeldt agrees he will not do anything to intentionally prejudice the rights granted, but in the event that he loses any rights or other licenses, consents or permissions relating to a specific Title, he will immediately remove such Title from your Services.
10. According to the member agreement, CreateSpace may terminate this Agreement at any time by sending Mr. Schmalfeldt an e-mail notice at the e-mail address associated with his account.

In response to each of these terms, I offer in response:

1. I should hope that having done so, you will uphold your interests and see that he has and does abide and comply with the Content Guidelines.
2. Mr. Schmalfeldt may or may not have done sufficient research, but he has made no effort to ensure that his Content is in compliance with the law.
3. I have not reviewed the content in his book, but he has Tweeted that it was his intent while creating this book to freely use an unknown amount of content from my blog, whether he received permission or not. He did not receive permission. Therefore, it may be reasonably inferred as fact that significant portions of his work are neither original nor owned by him. Those portions have been stolen from me, and probably from others as well.
4. After you have performed your own investigation to confirm this, an investigation I will be happy to assist with as long as it does not compromise my anonymity, I would hope once more that you would uphold your interests and remove the Content as per the member agreement.
5. You have the option to request of Mr. Schmalfeldt additional information and documentation confirming his ownership of all rights detailed in the Agreement. Given that he has no such documentation, may I suggest you set the standard he has demanded of others in the past, and require him to produce a signed, dated and duly notarized Copyright Transfer Agreement in a timeframe sufficiently short to prove that he did not forge the same?
6. Given that he has no such documentation to confirm ownership of any material taken from my blog, you can reasonably conclude that any information and/or documentation he produces will be neither current, complete nor accurate.
7. Mr. Schmalfeldt does not own my content nor has he been assigned any rights or permission to use it. He can produce no authentic documentation stating such, and is therefore in violation of the Member Agreement.
8. Having consented to the Member Agreement, Mr. Schmalfeldt is further in violation of same in his:

a. Lack of compliance with US Copyright law;
b. Lack of right, power and authority to enter into the member agreement for the purpose of publishing material that does not belong to him;
c. Failure to obtain any rights, clearances or permissions to grant the licenses required for you to exercise the rights granted to you;
d. Granting of these rights while encumbered by the obligation to obtain permission to do so;
e. Representation that the Content is not defamatory, libelous, obscene or otherwise illegal (it may very well be obscene, depending on what content he has taken), does not infringe upon any Intellectual Property Right (having been used without permission, it most certainly DOES infringe on my right); and
f. Representation that his Content, which contains stolen property, complies with the Content Guidelines.

9. Mr. Schmalfeldt has agreed not to do anything to intentionally prejudice the rights granted, but he never held the rights to grant in the first place.
10. You have the option to terminate the Agreement at any time.

Fully realizing that because I have not given my name I may impress you only as a character as unbalanced as Mr. Schmalfeldt himself, you may choose to do nothing at this time. I understand and accept that. But I too am a CreateSpace member, and if Mr. Schmalfeldt can violate the Member Agreement with impunity and face no consequences, what am I to think? When it comes time to publish my works, will I be treated with the same permissive hand?

And if my circumstances change, and I again become more interested in protecting my copyright than in protecting my identity, then we will simply be having this conversation again, and I will constantly remind you that I suggested you undertake your own due diligence, but you chose not to do so.

Yours Truly,

Paul Krendler
The Thinking Man’s Zombie

Like(0)Dislike(0)