Team Kimberlin Post of the Day

After yesterday’s brouhaha over yet another forgery, it seems that the time has come to poll the Gentle Readers on their opinion of Bill Schmalfeldt.

UPDATE—Stacy McCain has some additional thoughts on the matter.

UPDATE 2—More at The Artisan Craft Blog.

40 thoughts on “Team Kimberlin Post of the Day


  1. Its pretty clear that Cabin Boy is a kettle filled with simmering rage at the world for daring to not kiss his ass daily, a frustration that he can’t practice his perverted sexual fantasies because of their illegality in the civilized world, and a life-long psychopathology that obviously only narrowly got him incarcerated many times in his pathetic life.

    If hatred could be converted to thrust, he could propel Buzz Aldrin’s Mars mission.


  2. I posted a comment where I tried to be even-handed about travel concerns and possible unstated reasons why he might have legitimate worries about risks of travel, and I speculated about ways that the circumstances this week might be different, and this might legitimately change his position on whether he appears in person, or whether he asked to appear via videoconferencing again. The comment is at:

    https://hogewash.com/2016/10/03/team-kimberlin-post-of-the-day-1302/#comment-150010

    Less than 24 hours after I posted this, I discovered that Bill was tweet-labelling people like myself in a fashion so filthy that I won’t taint this blog by repeating them.

    My respect him, based on his writing, is low. In my opinion, he’s currently like a loose cannon. It would take a significant time, during which he exhibited more appropriate actions, for me to revise my opinion of him. His self-chosen titles that he’s adopted over time, such as “Angry Liberal”, “Prince of Parody”, and “King Leonidas”, do not give me hope.


    • Is this your first go-around with Bill Schmalfeldt? Because this is who he IS, what he DOES and what he has DONE in the past 15+ years. Pure filth.


    • Maybe you’re thinking of King of the Honyocks, or Lord of Satire? Now that you mention it, the fat freak is fond of giving itself unearned titles.

      OTOH, the horde came up with THE Prince of Parody (may DONATIONS and FUN be always upon him) to describe our own beloved HZIC, the accurate reflection, Paul Krendler.


      • You are, of course, right… I need to remind myself more often that modern Web browsers allow viewing multiple pages in parallel (usually tabbed browsing). “Lord of Satire” is what I intended, but my fingers went in a different direction… my apologies to the HZIC.

        There so often seems to be an element of “I’m so superior, I shouldn’t even need to point out my advanced thinking/satire/planning/whatever to you peasants!!!!!” The second diary entry in the Daily Kos pair, after the consternation raised by the day-before controversial article, shows this. Here’s the introduction:

        This diary, short and sweet, is really dedicated to the six people who found no humor whatsoever, thank you, in the piece I wrote yesterday about how it’s the “butt stuff” that male homophobes find so scary about “teh gey”.

        It is not an apology.

        It’s a suggestion.

        Stop reading my stuff.

        Of course, after the short introduction, which may or may not be sweet, there’s a whole slab of text — the diary body, perhaps — explaining Bill’s position in more detail… including:

        […] I’m writing for the people who understand that it’s the comics, the satirists — the Lenny Bruces, the George Carlins, the Wanda Sykes, the Janeane Garafolos — brilliant minds of whom I am not worthy to even MENTION in a diary, let along compare myself to… […]

        It’s interesting to note that the “King” and “Lord” titles, plus the various incarnations based on some variation of a “Vehemently, Angrily Left-Wing/Liberal Comedian/Satirist” all imply that Bill is some sort of a leader of a (presumably large and savvy) vanguard, and the parties on the other side are a rag-tag, disorganised and untalented scattering of people [perhaps labelled “right-wing” or “alt-right”] that he should easily be able to divide and conquer… except that reality isn’t panning out like that.

        For me, the bottom line is that respect is not something that can be simply claimed ex nihilo by an individual… it can only be granted by others, perhaps earned by an extended period of a high level of commitment, teamwork, communication, skills and consistency/reliability.


        • Yup, and that’s why THE Prince of Parody (may DONATIONS and FUN be upon him always), stuck as a moniker for our HZIC, and the repulsive reprobate has had over 200 various (mostly thoroughly disgraced) names, blogs, and/or twitter handles.


    • Fred, long time Schmalfeldt watchers sometimes have an odd trajectory. a few of us started out trying to be helpful or patient with him. In my case, he put a picture of my house on the web, along with other personal details. He worked very hard to try to involve my employer. This was true even though he couldn’t find any really bad things that I’d said about him. Commenting here was my only sin.

      Some of us still hold out hope that this will end. I think a judge will have to intervene. His need for attention has overruled the rest of what survives of his ‘logical reasoning.’ Soon he’ll be eating bugs in exchange for dimes.


        • Reading a bit about this latest assault on Stacy McCain and the Lonely Conservative, it appears that Witless was so starved for attention that he went through all of his old stuff, looking for someone who didn’t have a current case going against him, and pulled their names out of his crazy hat. It wasn’t about them, it looks like it’s just about his need to always be abusing somebody, somewhere, even if that will eventually cause him a whole lot of trouble. Even if its trouble, it’s still attention, and he apparently needs that so much hes more than willing to do down in flames to get it.

          I think he’s setting himself up to file another idiotic suit, this time against Stacy McCain, not because that would be a rational thing to do, but because his warped psyche demands that he be the “Hero” in the psycho-sexual drama constantly playing in his head.


          • I wonder how he could have gone through his old stuff to find a four year old email when he lost his Outlook account for TOS violations almost a year ago.


          • He may have been using pop/smtp connections instead of a web interface, and had the mail downloaded/mirrored at home.

            Or maybe it was in the sent items folder.


        • Oddly, another “slam dunk libel case” that for some reason [biased judge, probably] never panned out. Oh, the tribulations [and subsequent lamentations] of the Ineffable SchmellFardt.


  3. Philosophical and rhetorical question: Can one be a deranged cyberstalker without being a demented freak? Obviously, if BS were isolated from the Internet, he’d still continue to be the repellent coprophilic jail-bait targeting sodomy fan we know all to well, but, absent technology, he could not be choice (A). Since (A) requires, by definition, technology, does it also require to be a demented freak as well?


    • Without the internet, he would just be the scary old crazy man at the end of the street that everyone warns their kids to stay far, far, away from. And he would spend most of Halloween night stamping out flaming bags of dog poo.


    • It is a close call whether the colloquial meanings of “deranged” and “demented” are completely identical. I perceive “deranged” as being broader in meaning than “demented,” but I doubt I could prove the point in terms of colloquial usage. So I concede for purposes of argument that calling someone “demented” cannot be distinguished from calling him “deranged.”

      However, being a freak and being a cyber-stalker are clearly not the same thing. Perhaps every stalker, cybernetic or not, is a freak, but certainly not all freaks are stalkers. For example, those who fantasize about urinating on children are freaks, whether or not they ever stalked anyone.

      So the terms are not synonymous. Saying that someone is a cyber-stalker makes that person a freak, but saying someone is a freak does not make that person a cyber-stalker. I think what is confusing here is how to describe someone who is freaky in multiple ways. “Freak” is generic, but “cyber-stalker” is too limiting for anyone with multi-freakiness syndrome.

      This was a very deep question. I hope you have found my answer clarifying. If you did, please rate me as five stars.


      • Perhaps I was unclear.

        Can one be a deranged cyberstalker without being a demented freak, or is demented freakdom a sine qua non which, combined with technology and a target, creates a deranged cyberstalker?


        • Obviously, every cyber-stalker is a freak, but not every freak is a cyber-stalker. For example, some freaks would be happy to piss on children, but would never consider stalking anyone.

          I believe that some who are deranged are not demented, but all who are demented are deranged.

          If so, a deranged cyber-stalker is not necessarily a demented freak, merely a deranged freak. Perhaps the difference is negligible.

          If, however, a demented freak has other freakiness in his or her repertoire over and above being a cyber-stalker, it is probably more exact to call him a multi-demented freak.

  4. Pingback: It is a disgusting dirty job… | Batshit Crazy News

Leave a Reply