Bill Schmalfeldt Demands an Answer Now!

Update from Dave Alexander. Schmalfeldt really said this online:

They all knew I had identified the wrong person. It was the right person to wrongly identify. A felon who raped his stepchildren. He was the person I pretended to believe to be @SonoranConserv. The felon was a useful patsy. May he rot in hell. What’s he gonna do? Sue me?

At any rate, all concerned were convinced that I was sold on @SonoranConserv being this kiddie raper from Washington State. That’s just what I wanted them to think.

So, in a nutshell…Bill Schmalfeldt publicized the name and picture of a convicted felon, in a cunning and calculated attempt to draw out the identity of a guy who said mean things about Bill? Bill is declaring checkmate in a 3-D chess game, which he is playing with salt shakers, packets of moist towelettes, and toys from Happy Meals played on stacks of old pizza boxes.

What about the real Michael David Jackson? Does he get to play?


David’s original post:

Oh man, we’d better hop on this one right away.


Now, in accordance with long-standing policy I won’t confirm or deny whether I’m @SonoranConserv.  I will say that clever Mr. Schmalfeldt is so, so clever, though.  The amazing legal mind this guy has.  Announcing that you are going to add someone to your (doomed1) federal butthurt lawsuit, then slyly sneaking an early request for admission into a tweet hoping that @SonoranConserv will be so focused on what The Oaf has been doing over the past week or so- falsely calling him a child molester along with some guy out on the west coast- that @SC won’t be able to restrain himself from shouting “Hell yes, you fool!” and completely missing that Bill’s usual rules apply: that anything bad or wrong that he claims someone else has done is not bad or wrong when Schmalfeldt does it himself.  This time in Bill Schmalfeldt’s pretendy-land mind his outrageous defamatory statements are completely excused because… journalism!  Yeah, that’s the ticket!  Journalism.

I think we may well see if that flies this time.  Just sayin’.

But we are, if nothing else, polite.  Bill Schmalfeldt has questions?  We have answers, and from a solid source that’s never been wrong in my experience.  We put his question to it, and the obviously correct answer came right up.

Magic 8 Ball Go F-ck Yourself 800px.png

David Edgren

1 A story told elsewhere for about the umpteenth time. We won’t repeat it here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Bill Schmalfeldt Demands an Answer Now!

  1. lorddewclaw says:

    Dude…. that is awesome and SOOOOOOO stolen.

    Liked by 8 people

  2. Techno Jinxx says:

    so Shakey is asking someone else if they agree Shakey’s behaviour libel/defamation? is that correct??

    World’s Stupidest Man™

    Liked by 5 people

  3. onwyrdsdream says:

    Not to be a smart-ass, but are people legally assumed to start with a good name that can be tarnished? For most people, few actually have a good name. I mean, family, teachers, professionals we interact with. The guy on the street? I don’t know him from adam, and wouldn’t trust him more than to think that if I don’t interact with him he probably means no harm. Even with professionals, if I walked into a McDonalds and saw a guy working the grill who I thought looked like he’d spit in my food, I doubt his reputation would be damaged unless I calmed that he HAD spit in my food.
    I mean, from the perspective of value, that should be a complex question. If I said a guy on the street looked like an arsonist (and well, the FBI does have a composite for what arsonists in general look like) that wouldn’t be tarnishing the person’s good name, as neither me nor my audience know him from Adam. Where as if I told the local churchmarm that I had good info the priest was banging one of the hair stylists at the local salon behind his wife’s back, there would be real (negative) value in my statement. I can’t really see how saying “the priest looks like a philanderer would do any real damage to his reputation. People could agree or disgree, but no one would think that was on information and belief. So, you know, if you claim someone is “probably” doing something in one fashion or another, that might be a shade of gray, but .. well, it’s #FDFCFE as far as it goes. Pretty close to white.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. bystander says:

    Goodness, somebody really pinned Billy’s ears back yesterday. He’s got his head down but good today.

    Liked by 3 people

    • gmhowell says:

      It’s early. Lately, he’s not looking for the hair of the dog until around noon.

      On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Dave Alexander & Company with David Edgren and Gus Bailey – The Artisan Craft Blog wrote:

      > bystander commented: “Goodness, somebody really pinned Billy’s ears back > yesterday. He’s got his head down but good today.” >

      Liked by 6 people

  5. lorddewclaw says:

    Sleeping off the rubbing alcohol bender/verbal asskicking from MJ.

    Makes for a hell of a hangover, I am told…

    Liked by 5 people

  6. bystander says:

    “What about the real Michael David Jackson? Does he get to play?”

    Apparently not, because he’s a dirty felon who paid his debt to society, unlike Brett Kimberlin, who, Bill says, we should leave alone because he…..paid his debt to society.

    “Consistency is a luxury enjoyed by the normal and well-adjusted.”
    -Bill Schmalfeldt

    Liked by 8 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s