Burying the Eclipse

It was awful, just awful.  The owner of a Kentucky cemetery allowed people to use the grounds to view the eclipse.  She charged them to park.

And people were outraged by this.

Nicole thinks it was “disgusting,” especially the pay-to-park thing.

I think her reaction is sort of interesting, considering this, from three days earlier.

Don’t encroach on anyone. That’s her idea of law.  Don’t encroach on anyone.

I want to apply that principle to the cemetery.

Exactly who does she think owns the cemetery?

I assure you that the people who are buried there do not. They are dead. Dead people don’t own anything.  Their families don’t own the land.

The cemetery owner owns the land.  The plot owners have an easement, not a deed.  They don’t own the ground itself. They just have a right to a strictly delineated small plot of ground, X by X feet, to use as a burial plot, and only as long as the cemetery remains legally designated as a cemetery.

If I bring a lawn chair to the cemetery where my father is buried, and choose to sit in that lawn chair next to his grave, I will be sitting on land that I do not have any ownership of, or easement to use. The only way I could sit at his grave in that lawn chair and be totally on the ground that encompasses his plot is to put the lawn chair right on top of him.

I doubt anyone anywhere would fault me if I wanted to sit at my dad’s grave and meditate, even if I put a lawn chair on the ground nearby, assuming that I’m not putting the lawn chair on top of their Aunt Iris.

But ultimately it isn’t about whether or not Aunt Iris’s relative wanted to complain. It’s about whether the cemetery owner permits me to do that.

Government is the epitome of forcing someone’s opinion on another.

She says this and then three days later is openly and loudly criticizing a landowner for using the land any way the landowner wishes.  If you follow the link she provided, and read the comments, people want that cemetery owner to be arrested for doing this.  I saw no photographic evidence that a single person was encroaching on any grave.  They were sitting/standing on open land.  They were near graves, yes, but not on them.

I haven’t seen anyone produce a copy of the contract involved when buying a plot in that cemetery. Does it specifically preclude anyone using the land nearby for anything other than praying?  What happens when there is a funeral there?  You do know that you can’t have a funeral without having people all over other graves in the area?  What about the lawn mower?  Doesn’t the guy ride right over the plot?  Isn’t that why a lot of cemeteries won’t allow anything but a flat grave marker?

In the past, I’ve seen other criticisms of people who use cemeteries as convenient pleasant places to walk or run.  If the owner of the cemetery doesn’t want people to use it for that, they can easily put up a sign saying don’t do this. If they don’t, how in the world do the holders of simple easements involving a plot of ground X by X have the right to dictate who may or may not walk/ride/stand/sit on ground that they have no claim upon?

I really don’t have a particular opinion about this at all. I am anti-cemetery in the first place. I think the whole practice of burial is a huge waste of good land. I will be cremated and I don’t give a flying fuck what Dave or anyone else does with my ashes.  I’m not sacred. My ashes won’t be sacred. Nathan’s ashes were not sacred. We put them everywhere.

We put some of his ashes in a park in Southern Pines, NC, under a tree.  Children play there every day. I hope they continue to play right there, walking under that tree, laughing and playing. I hope lovers meet under that tree. For decades to come, I hope guys meet there and sit under that tree and talk a lot of shit.

But what we have here is the most hypocritical bunch of bullshit I believe I’ve ever seen.

This is a woman who buried her dead baby on land owned by the Kentucky Land Company.

Nicole’s idea of law is “don’t encroach on anyone.”

But Nicole then wants to reserve the right to determine what “encroachment” means.

Encroachment, in her mind, obviously does not mean “don’t let your goats/horses go over to the neighbor’s property and destroy his field/orchard.”

Encroachment apparently does not mean “don’t dispose of hazardous waste in a way that might contaminate the watershed.”

For her, encroachment seems to mean “don’t ride down the public road that I refuse to lift one finger to maintain.”

Encroachment means “report my neighbor for supposed dumping of a dead animal but leave me alone when I dump shit and bury a dead baby.”

Encroachment means “I can post a video of your business any time I like and refuse to take it down but you can’t object even slightly.”

Encroachment means “I can go in a public courtroom any time I like but you can’t.”

Encroachment means “I can say anything I like and blog about anything I want to but you cannot.”

I’m not a fan of Nicole’s philosophy.

Vigilance

We have, in the last few days, the story of Allen Armentrout.  He’s from High Point, North Carolina.  Allen loves Robert E. Lee. He loves Mars Robert so much that he believes Lee was the greatest American who ever lived.

This is known as the Robert E. Lee myth.

It’s almost as canonical among racists as the resurrection is among Christians.

Anyway, Allen didn’t go to Charlottesville during the infamous horrible tragic demonstration.  If he had, he probably could have just taken off his white shirt and run into the crowd and he wouldn’t have been facing the problem that now confronts him.

Allen was far too brave for that. He came to Charlottesville one day last week, dressed to the hilt in a Confederate uniform, carrying the requisite Confederate flag, and armed.  Oddly, he chose as his weapons an AR-15 rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. I don’t think those were authentic.

But there was a very brave woman in Charlottesville. Her name is Lara Rogers.  She walked right up to that heavily armed Confederate fake soldier and flipped him a couple of birds. Right in his face.

Somebody took a photo of this. Twitter loved it.

I suppose it was inevitable, but it’s still funny as hell.  A Twitter using named “Reetae” took the photo and gave it a narrative.

Here’s the link. Go watch it.  It’s okay to laugh. I did.

But things sort of went South for our intrepid Confederate after that photo went viral.

It turns out that Allen is a college student.  He was preparing to start his senior year in college, in fact.  And his college said, “Hell, no.  We don’t want you because you’re a racist asshole.”

Actually, his college didn’t say that.  At his college, nobody swears like that.

But they did refuse to allow him to come back for his senior year.

Allen is very unhappy.  He had this to say about it.

I’m a born-again Christian and I believe this wrench has hindered my attempt to serve the Lord. I believe a Christian institution should support patriotic individuals who want to stand for American tradition and beliefs. It really hurts me a lot when you try to do what’s right and you get attacked.

Frankly, I am shocked.

I mean, I figured that he was a student at some college I’ve never heard of and that they simply were not going to have a known racist on the campus.

But no. Allen was a student at Pensacola Christian College.

It took me a few minutes to process that.

I’m a bit familiar with Pensacola Christian College.

Pensacola is a kind of cheap, tawdry imitation of Bob Jones University.  By cheap, I mean literally cheap.  Four years at Pensacola will run you around $40K.  State schools are often right about that, for in-state students, but this is a private college.

However, you get what you pay for.

Pensacola is unaccredited. That creates a big problem for Allen. He has done three years of study, paid three years of tuition, at a college from which he will be unable to transfer much of anything.  Bob Jones just got accredited. They won’t accept his shitty credits.

I find all this just sort of astonishing.  This is a college that dictates which Pensacola beaches its students may visit, and there is a boys beach and a girls beach. I kid you not. Pensacola makes Bob Jones University look positively progressive.

So, do we have a situation here where this very rigid, shitty little unaccredited fundamentalist school that is probably absolutely full of racists decided suddenly to take a moral stand on the correct side of history and rid itself of this distasteful racist asshole?  Are pigs flying?

To give you an idea of the outrage, read the comments on this page. These are people who think it’s just lovely to do what Allen did. They are mad at PCC for not letting him return. Note the religious overtones to the comments.  These folks are PCC’s core base.  They’re pissed.

There’s a part of me, this liberal, heathen, irreverent progressive Democrat, that just chortles with glee when I see these folks go to war with each other.

The people who support Allen are vile.  Allen is only 21 years old, and is pretty vile, but might have hope if he can get away from that school and those horrible people.  Pensacola is just as vile as Allen is.  A pox on all of them.

Oh, and I assure you that Pensacola has a complete right to do this. Bob Jones University expelled my friend Christopher Peterman nine days before his graduation.  Nine days.  He had no recourse. (Christopher has recently graduated with a real degree from a real, accredited university, and has gone on with life quite successfully.)

But wait. There’s more.

Allen was participating in a nifty little program at Pensacola called “Fourth Year Free.”

It’s a deal where you pay on time for all of your first three years and meet other requirements (gotta be a full time student, gotta live in the dorms, etc) and you get your fourth year for free.

You pay for three years toward a shitty, unaccredited, non-transferable “degree” from an unaccredited little nothing school, and they’ll make the fourth year a gift.

Allen was ready for his gift.

Allen blew it.

He gave the school an opportunity to do two things at the same time. They could look all tolerant and full of equal opportunity and all that, while simultaneously ridding themselves of a free student.

Allen should have known better.

 

Then and Now

But that was then and this is now,
And I am changing,
And how I feel has changed somehow,
I’m re-arranging.
Yeah, that was then and this is now.
Cause that was when I was still…
Still in love with you.

Nathan Davis, Then And Now

Then (2011)

Once upon a time, there was a senior student at Bob Jones University named Christopher Peterman. Chris became so upset by the unfolding Tina Anderson saga and the revelation that the pastor who had treated her so horribly, Chuck Phelps, was sitting on the board of Bob Jones University, that he started a Facebook page called Do Right BJU. Along with some other students, he organized the first-ever student-led protest in the history of the school in early December.

However, nine days before his graduation, he was expelled from the university for watching Glee off-campus at a Starbucks. He went to the media with the story, which pretty much infuriated the school.

And he lived happily ever after, albeit without a degree from BJU.

The end.

That was the narrative. I remember it well. Anyone who had any interest in this stuff and was paying the slightest attention remembers.

It was the narrative in the mainstream media. It was also the narrative adopted by most of the people in the online community of former students and graduates of the school.

But there were a number of BJU “loyalists” and others who weren’t so sure about the accepted story. One of those was Greg Easton, who wrote a blog called The Hidalgo Grain Company. It no longer exists so I can’t link to it, but Greg’s basic concern seemed to center around the role that Camille K. Lewis played in the whole scenario.

At the time, there was immediate push-back from Camille and company. Dan is talking here about Greg, pooh-poohing the idea that Christopher had help or was “being used.”

This paragraph is from Dan Keller’s Facebook page, a “note” he wrote and posted on November 26, 2012 entitled Red Balloons and Reality. Notice that Christopher started “Do Right BJU”, and Christopher organized the protest.

And what do you see in the comments? The Queen herself “liked” it. She said “Amen.” She did not say anything about “Oh, no, that’s not exactly right.” She said, “Amen.”

The Do Right BJU page itself announces that there are four administrators, all closely tied to the University in some way – and that Christopher is the founder.

Christopher is nobody’s puppet, we are told categorically, and just as vehemently, Dan Keller tells us that nobody can tell Chris what to do.

And Camille Lewis has nothing to do with it. Nothing.

Just so we all are clear about this, Camille “liked” the statement.

Chris is nobody’s puppet and Camille Lewis had nothing to do with this.

St. Catherine jumps in to “like” the statement as well.

This is fairly typical of the kinds of comments that were being made during that period. The students were behind the movement.

Here’s a statement about all this from St. Cat herself. It speaks for itself.

Here’s the final word on the subject from the Queen herself. Camille tells us on her blog that DRBJU was a student-led effort that accomplished the first protest in BJU’s history.

The Queen is the super researcher of the whole world and always gets it exactly right.

Now (2014)

But that was then, as Nathan says. And this is now. And Camille and Cathy and Dan and company have done some changing. And re-arranging.

Why? Well, seems that they aren’t in love with Christopher any more.

These were presented on one of the now-defunct Manhater pages to “prove” that Christopher didn’t start DRBJU, and didn’t really do anything at all. He was just a puppet and followed Camille and her Court around doing their bidding.

There’s a few things to notice here. First, the cavalier way the unnamed person says that Chris “may or may not be shipped.” She doesn’t care. It doesn’t matter. Use the next few days, then let whatever happens to him, well, just happen.

It’s a sort of brain-storming session, batting around ideas. One person even says, “I messaged him…We’ll see if he thinks it will work.”

The questions begin, all designed to imply that Chris has tried to take all the credit for DRBJU and the protest as though somehow he did it without any help or any suggestions from anybody. Which is, of course, exactly the narrative that Cathy and Camille and Dan tried their damnedest to put out there. Go back and read what they wrote.

Seems to me that the people who were lying about Camille and her Court’s involvement in the whole DRBJU thing were…Camille and Dan Keller and Cathy Harris.

So, who are the “malignant narcissists” again?

This stuff was all presented on the Manhaters page, only they left out Christopher’s responses. I am including them, so you can see how he answered the accusations being made.

So Rhonda Whiting did the logo. That’s nice, and creative.

Or, at least, Rhonda sent the logo to Chris. Maybe Grant Lewis actually made it.

And now, the Court Jester is slamming the very thing that he and Camille and Cathy so vociferously defended back then.

Nathan called it “re-arranging.”

First, Camille and Grant “helped” with the logo (whatever that means), and Cathy (and others) paid for the airplane that flew over the school during graduation and gave Chris money after he was expelled.

How nice of them.

But then DRBJU “jumped the shark” and of course, in typical fashion, nobody knows what the hell that means. I suspect it means that Christopher would not give Camille admin privileges on DRBJU, but that’s just my opinion.

And “Mark” never had anything to do with anything, as far as I remember. I never even heard of “Mark” until he showed up on TSGoBJ and I’ve never seen a sign of him any place else.

Actually, Dan, no. It doesn’t.

I am the owner of this web site. I bought and paid for it all by myself. Nobody did it for me.

Do you believe for one second that I don’t get PMs and emails (almost daily) from people suggesting stuff to me for this web site? Of course I do. (And I am very grateful for them. However, not one of them is a “powerful fundamentalist preacher.”) Is this my web site? You betcha it is. Do I write every word that appears on this site? Yes, I do. Did I personally come up with every single idea here and every single screen shot and every single piece of information? Nope. And do I reject many of the suggestions that are made? Yep, I do, for various reasons. And I did not come up with the name of this web site. Somebody else did. Does that make this not my web site? Of course it doesn’t.

Dan has a mind-numbingly boring site on Storify where he attacks Jeffrey Hoffman viciously. Did anyone help the Court Jester with screen shots to put on that site? You betcha they did. Camille and Cathy did, for certain. It’s likely other people did as well. Does that mean that it’s not Dan’s very own Storify mess? Of course it is. Nobody else would claim it.

So does that mean that when Greg accused Camille and followers of lying about their involvement way back then — he was telling the truth? And if Greg was right about Christopher, does that mean he was also right about Camille?

Here’s a contrast for you. When Chris got shipped, the world watched as he went public with the details. His story was caught by the mainstream press. There was no way for him to hide.

When the Jester got shipped, he did just that. He hid. He lied. He didn’t own it for years. I have no idea why he got shipped. We all know that it can happen to almost anyone and takes very little. Being shipped from BJU isn’t exactly a scarlet letter sewn to your breast. But Dan hid.

What I have done here on this web site is just a fraction, a tiny fraction, of what Christopher did when he defied Bob Jones University, called them out on their own rotten behavior, started Do Right BJU, helped organize and spearhead the first on-campus protest ever at that place, and then subsequently was shipped for his trouble. Where we compare is that both of us have done this alone.

Nobody’s name is on this web site but mine. The Queen and her Court take potshots at people they believe might be in league with me, but they don’t really know and can’t be sure. I and I alone have walked out into the field and stood there while they fired their bullets right at me.

Christopher did the same thing, only the force that was firing at him had much more power to hurt him than the Queen and her Court have to bother me. They did hurt him. They took his money, a very sizable sum. They took four years of his life. They gave him nothing in return. And he walked out onto that field alone. I did not see the Queen, or St. Catherine, or the Court Jester, or anyone else standing beside him.

As he was jerked from his room and hauled off to face expulsion, Camille was happy in her little house having her little dinner and feeling smug. Dan was down in Miami taking his little dogs to the park. St. Catherine was in Pennsylvania doing whatever it is she does. But none of them were being shot at. Only Chris was.

And with the bullets comes the credit.

Thank you, Christopher, for your courage and honesty.

 

 

 

Eclipsed

I’ve been around for a while.  When I was still working, I remember a solar eclipse occurring. What I remember is that several residents came to the ICU (where we had an exit door) with x-ray film for us to use to view it.

What I don’t remember is actually viewing it.  I don’t remember what year it was. I tried looking it up and can’t figure it out, so I gave up.

So that was my total real life experience with eclipses up until yesterday.

And I learned a great deal.

My first inclination, because of where we live, was to get in the car and just drive due south for about 60 miles and that would have put us in the path of totality.  But the road due south is narrow and winding.  And our farm was supposed to get something like 98 or 99% of it, and honestly, I thought “Hell, what difference can 2% make?”

What difference can 2% make?

Well, as I discovered, it makes the difference between seeing and experiencing a total eclipse and seeing a crescent in the sky through a filter and experiencing a partial eclipse.

The difference is quite literally night and day.

A few days ago, Patricia Pandoff told me that she was going to drive down south of Bowling Green to see the eclipse.  And then Lisa Luthi said she was going too.  Dave and I decided to join them. We are beyond delighted that we did.

Landsat Aerial Photography

This is Woodburn, Kentucky. It’s a very nice little town, located just a few miles south of Bowling Green.  It was well within the band of totality, about 58 miles from Hopkinsville, which was Ground Zero.

And here’s a closer view of where we were (the red dot).  That’s a small park. There were around fifty people there.  No problem parking in the shade. No crowds.

And there was a guy there from Indiana who knew something about astronomy and was willing to do a bit of teaching.

What we witnessed yesterday was a total solar eclipse.

ScienceJedi.com

A total solar eclipse can only occur when the moon is in perigee. Perigee is when the moon is as close to the earth as it gets (the moon’s orbit is not circular, but eliptical).

That 12% difference in size makes all the difference in the world when it comes to an eclipse.  At perigee, the moon appears to be the same size as the sun, and therefore blots it completely.

So, here we were in our little park, at about 11 a.m., waiting for the show.

It was a bright, hot, sunshiny day, as you can see.  We had our special glasses ready, and we were waiting for the sun to do its thing.

 

So, why did we need those special glasses?  The answer is not just that you’ll do retinal damage to your eyes without them.  It’s also that you simply won’t see anything much.

All these photos of the eclipse itself were taken by Patricia Pandoff who is a badass photographer.

Here’s the sun, during the eclipse, as we saw it through our glasses.  Without the glasses, nothing looked different around us.  The sun still looked just like the sun.  You couldn’t tell that anything was happening at all.

As the eclipse drew closer to totality, we started to notice that the insects went completely silent.  A breeze picked up. It started to look like late afternoon.  But if you looked up toward the sun without the glasses, it just looked like the normal sun.  Mind you, I didn’t try this little experiment for more than a slight glance, but there was nothing to see.

We were obviously losing daylight.

Photo by Dave Davis, with the permission of the young couple

This was before totality, but after the eclipse had actually started happening.  Sunlight. Bright sunlight.  Without glasses (or a pinhole camera), you saw absolutely nothing.

Patricia got this photo of the eclipse as manifested on the pavement through the trees.  That’s as much as you could see of it without glasses.

And if you were in an area outside of totality, that’s pretty much what the whole thing was like.  You could see the eclipse, the moon partially covering the sun, if you had on glasses. You see a reflection in a pinhole camera if you had one, or through the leaves if you were near a tree, but other than that, nada.  You might have experienced a little bit of dimming of the light.

But not totality.

Totality is a whole different ball game.

Here are Patricia’s photos, taken with a polarizing lens cover to protect her camera. I was afraid to attempt to photograph the sun, period, even during totality.  I left it to her to do it.

What was astonishing is that we could not see this through the glasses. During totality, we saw absolutely zip through the glasses.

We saw this with our naked eyes. For slightly over two glorious minutes, that’s exactly what it looked like. The sky was not quite so black, of course, but that’s what the sun looked like.

Scroll back up and look at the young couple watching the eclipse in the sunlight.

Here they are  (center right, from the back) during totality.  I took that photo and it’s terrible, but I was in a hurry. I wanted to get back to watching the sky.

The birds went silent. The evening crickets began to sing. Venus and Jupiter appeared in the sky, very obvious.

The ring we could see around the moon wasn’t the sun itself. That’s why we could look at it.  It was the corona – especially visible in Patricia’s first totality photo above – the outermost atmosphere of the sun, comparable (sort of) to Earth’s nitrogen/oxygen mix of atmosphere.  Obviously there is no land in a gaseous body, but what we think of as the sun itself, the “land,” was all covered up.

It was a profound experience.  It wasn’t just the darkness descending on us, and the quietening of the daytime insects and birds, and the dead silence and then the starting of the evening crickets, and the obvious drop in temperature.  It was the experience of looking at the sun with our naked eyes and seeing that black disc blotting it out.

Because of the sheer awesomeness of this, we felt that we needed to do what ancient people did for centuries, and placate the god(s).  We chose to offer a sacrifice to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Lacking spaghetti or anything like it, we figured a Slim Jim would work okay, since it’s skinny and long and we thought maybe it had enough grease in it to catch fire.

This was taken just before totality.  As you can see, the sacrificial Slim Jim just sort of sizzled. It did not actually catch fire.

Dave Davis performed the ultimate sacrifice, took the photo, and then ate the Slim Jim.

It’s no wonder that way back in the day, the author of the book of Joel wrote this:

The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.- Joel 2:31

The Bible’s treatment of the sun, by the way, was a major factor in my awakening to the realization that “God” didn’t write any of it.  These men had no idea about the planets and the sun and how they moved.

The author of Joel had no idea what he was looking at during a total solar eclipse. The sun just turned black. With the naked eye, he would have seen nothing until the moment of totality, and then a black disc totally covering the sun for several minutes, and then just as suddenly, the sun reappearing.

Because that’s exactly what happened. We were all watching and the bright sun began to peek out on the upper right side and we had to grab our glasses.

What astonished me was what a small sliver of sun there was at that point.  It took almost nothing to erase the face of the moon and suddenly, it was dawn.

That was the moment when I realized what a special thing I’d just seen, and that I wouldn’t have seen it at all had I stayed at home with our 98% or 99% or whatever it was.

Dave and I thank Patricia Pandoff for a great idea, wonderful photos and  Lisa and company for a super great day.

 

Three Lies

You choose the path of peace, not violence, and your peace is deemed so threatening, you must be arrested.

Imagine that all of this is happening because a known meth addict filed a false CPS report against you, and told you that they had the intention of doing so, because you “unfriended” them on Facebook.

– Joe Naugler, on Facebook, about May 12, 2015

Way back, about three years ago, there was a Facebook page started by a woman who wanted to do something to counter what she viewed as Cathy Harris’ lies and attempts to intimidate people.  I watched as people began to participate and one of the things that bothered me greatly was that it descended into a sandbox fight.

The particular thing I’m thinking about is one woman who accused Cathy of doing something patently illegal.  Cathy denied having done that thing. The woman said, “Yes, she did.”  Cathy’s humpers said, “No, she didn’t.”

There was no way in hell to resolve it.  Nobody was present except the woman and Cathy (and an unnamed business owner who might or might not even remember the incident after several years).

This exchange got me thinking about how to accomplish what was desired (expose Cathy’s lies  – and she does lie) but do so in a relatively safe place where you couldn’t go to Facebook jail, and where she would not be able to bitch and complain and get it all taken down, and where it wouldn’t scroll off the face of the earth.

And Romancing the Victims was born as a result.

I ran into this again not too awfully long ago.

It involved the video that was taken of the Naugler horse running loose. I found myself in a position where I couldn’t post the video.  I couldn’t because it would have been relatively easy for Nicole to assume from the filming angle who had taken the video. I didn’t have permission from the owner to post it.  I saw the video, of course, and I knew it was true, but I couldn’t prove it.

Nicole kept denying that the horse had ever gotten out, when I knew her denial was absolutely false. Whether Nicole was lying outright, or whether she was saying what she believed to be true because Joe and/or the children had lied to her is anyone’s guess, but the horse was loose.

When I made a statement to that effect on the blog, a very astute comment was made. Somebody thought carefully and said words to this effect:  “Since I have not seen the video personally, I don’t know if the horse has gotten loose or not. To believe that it’s true, I would simply have to take your word for it.”

She was right.  It was maybe the best comment ever made on this blog.

So what are we to do?

When we’re faced with a situation where one person tells one story of an incident, and another person tells a competing and often opposite story of the same incident, how do we determine who is telling the truth?  Is it possible that both people are telling the truth insofar as they understand it?  Do they each have a different view and thus one of them sees the mountaintop as inaccessible because they are looking at the cliff, while the other person is viewing the mountain from the other side and sees a gently sloping path leading steadily upward? (I stole that example from Richard Dawkins – if you haven’t read his stuff, you should.)

How do we deal with this?

Courts, of course, deal with it all the time, all day, every day.  That’s what juries determine.

And that leads me here.  And yes, it’s going to take 1500 words to talk about this.

George Will was faced with this kind of thing once.  That moron in the White House insulted him via Twitter, and Will was asked to respond while on one of the TV shows.  His response was beautiful.

USA Today

I’m going to begin with the birthing video story. This is not something that came from this blog. I have never asserted that there was any birthing video. I’ve never asserted it because I’ve never seen it.

But there is a whole blog page with graphic photos of Nicole having a baby. A word of warning.  Once you have seen these, you cannot unsee them and you really don’t want to see them.  They are graphic. If you click on any of those photos, you can get a full screen, very large version. Not only is Nicole naked, so is Joe (at least he has on no shirt). In addition, he is in those photos, which means that he did not take the photos. One of the children did. All the children were present.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the appropriateness of either doing this, or taking photos and putting them out in public, it’s fairly easy to see where the birthing video story arose. Nicole does lots of little videos. She’s pretty much known for that.  Somebody just got mixed up, and remembered the photos as a video.

The underlying premise remains true. You can, if you like, go look at Nicole’s hoo-ha up close and personal, complete with a bit of turd.

Let’s turn now to water-stealing.

That sentence is the totality of what I had to say about the media and water. Where did I say that the media said “stealing”?

Here is what the media actually said.

There’s a couple more parts to Nicole’s bitching session about water and one of them involves the actual stealing accusation.

Nicole and Joe were friends for a while with another couple while they were in one of the Mormon churches.  Ultimately, the two couples parted ways, and it wasn’t under amicable circumstances.  They had an argument about the role of the military and I just will let you guess what Nicole and Joe had to say about it.  Knowing that the husband of the other couple is a disabled vet will help you understand why that particular friendship ended.

After they were no longer friendly, according to the other couple, Joe and at least one of the older boys came to their house one day and got water. The couple was not at home. Joe was seen by a neighbor who informed the couple of what had happened when they got home.  Joe had left the water running, because he made a hasty exist when he realized he was being observed.  The couple had noticed that for a couple of months, their water bill had increased rather markedly and didn’t know why. After this incident (Joe being seen taking water), their water bill dropped to normal levels.

Joe was seen by at least three people doing this.

Now then, we have a situation like I described using 1500 words in the beginning of this essay.  Joe and Nicole say this never happened. The other couple say that it did.  Joe and Nicole insist that they are lying. The other couple insist that Joe and Nicole are lying, or at least, that Joe is lying.

There is a third part to Nicole’s water bitching, though, and that involves the menacing story.

The menacing story, as told by the woman who was menaced, is that Joe came by her house, perhaps ostensibly to get water, and accosted her minor teenage daughter. The daughter had been having a problem because Joe had friended her on Facebook, and then began creeping around on her page (I know exactly what he does, as he did it to me), and following her around “liking” stuff she commented on elsewhere. The daughter was uncomfortable because Joe, in her mind, was a creepy old guy with umpteen kids and a wife and what the hell.  So she unfriended him.  He demanded that she tell him why she’d done that.

The mother appeared from behind the house when she heard the raised voices and told Joe to leave.

Joe then told his minor child to get the gun from the glove compartment of the vehicle.

Nicole’s version of this has wandered all over the place, but is basically like this.

First, it doesn’t matter if the “well owner” was “okay with it.”  The woman told him to leave and that she was not okay with it.  Period. She resided there, and renting property includes renting the fucking well.

And notice how it becomes the woman who “got into an argument” with Joe. We don’t get to know what the argument was about because Nicole doesn’t say.

She then supposedly called CPS “out of spite.”

The woman did not call CPS out of spite. She called CPS because when she notified the police, they told her that she was required by law to call CPS.  It was because Joe involved a minor child in his threatening behavior.  All citizens of Kentucky are mandatory reporters.

That call to CPS, which Nicole knew about within moments of it happening and which therefore was not “anonymous,” led to CPS visiting the shitstead. Joe and Nicole, knowing that bad shit was about to happen, vacated the property, and the CPS folks saw the shitshack, thought it was animal housing, and thought that the people were living in tents.  That totally substandard clusterfuck of a “home” is what led directly to the children being taken.

The last reference (“you won’t be back over at XXX either”) involves a relative.  Joe and Nicole had been getting water there as well.

So there is a reference to water here.

This supports the notion that Joe was there ostensibly and perhaps primarily to get water.

However, that does not explain the whole thing at all.

We’re back to the whole business of a woman and her daughter and their version of what happened, and Joe’s version of what happened.  Nicole has no version. She was not there.

Scroll back up and read the quote at the beginning. I do not have a screen shot of this. Joe scrubbed his Facebook pages rather thoroughly.  At the time that he posted it, which was very shortly after the children were taken, nobody knew about screen shots or was even aware of their use.  But we have the quote.

____________________

UPDATE:

One of the beautiful things about going viral is that the internet never forgets.  Joe scrubbed his Facebook page (this one), but not before a news outlet saw the accusation.

Charisma News

My thanks to the sharp reader who found this for me.

_______________

And Joe will deny it, but the problem is that dozens of people saw it, dozens of people (including me) remember him and Nicole saying stuff like that. Two things stand out. They accused the woman of being a drug addict. She is not. They also insist that it all had something to do with Joe unfriending her on Facebook.

What?

What does unfriending on Facebook have to do with getting water?

Let’s assume for a second that Joe is telling the truth, in spite of the absolute lie about meth, and he unfriended her on Facebook.  Why did he then think it was a great idea to go to her house and try to get water?  Why would he have thought he’d be welcome?

How do we figure this out?  Can we figure it out?

The truth is that we really cannot.

We cannot know for certain exactly what was said that day.

What we can do, and what juries do every day, is determine which story, or which parts of the two stories, we believe.

On the one hand, we have Nicole’s version, which is meaningless because she wasn’t there and she doesn’t know shit.  So Nicole’s version is actually Joe’s version.

Why would I not believe Joe’s version?

Let me count.  Shall we start with the beer in the road?  I’m personally on very solid ground here because I was there and I know what happened.  There were at least four other witnesses. I know that most of you do not have that luxury.

Then there’s the Quinten was run off the road by trolls story. For that one, you don’t have to take my word. We have video of Quinten apologizing for nearly causing a wreck.

We can move on to the IPO attempt and resultant courtroom fiasco.  You don’t have to take my word for that either. You can watch the video.

For me, the real big one is the Nathan committed suicide bullshit.

Now, remember what we’re talking about here. Yes, what Nicole and Joe wrote is vile. It’s false.  Nicole simply made it up and Joe and some of their supporters have taken up the whole suicide thing and wave it around as though it’s true.

Nicole made up a complete lie with no purpose behind it all except to stab at me. She had no evidence of anything. She didn’t talk to anyone who said, “Oh, yeah, I knew Nathan and he was despondent and probably killed himself. His mother is a real bitch.” She didn’t surmise it from my blog writing, which is what she claims. She just manufactured it.

And even after I’ve patiently explained that it’s false and I have even written pretty extensively about how we know and how the police knew that his death was an accident, it doesn’t matter. She still repeats it as though it’s settled fact.

And that makes me doubt her version of the menacing story.  There are too many lies coming from them, and none that I see coming from the other side.

The woman’s story is credible. It goes hand-in-glove with other first-hand accounts I have had from people who went to church with the Nauglers saying that Joe often exhibited unwanted, inappropriate attention to young teenage girls. I can’t publish those accounts, because the folks involved are afraid of Joe.  But they are numerous and they involve people from different Mormon churches, not just one.

The woman’s story accounts for Joe’s response right after the event happened about unfriending on Facebook being an issue.

The woman’s outrage after the event fits her story.

Joe’s version makes no sense at all, on the other hand. Why would he go try to get somebody to give him water after unfriending them on Facebook?  He made up a complete lie about the meth thing.  I have never met the woman involved, but I know people who have and they assure me that she’s certainly not a drug addict.

Rather than asking the woman what happened, you notice, Nicole immediately jumped all over her and began accusing her of lying, of filing false reports, boasting about how there would be consequences.  Bullying behavior.

One thing I don’t want anyone to do is to accept what I say just because I said it.  Ask questions. Read links. Think about it. Reject what I’m saying if you can’t find enough evidence to accept it.

All I’m doing here is explaining why I believe the woman’s story and do not believe either Joe or Nicole.

Nicole calls all of this “lies.”  Maybe she needs to revisit her own lies, the ones that I’ve provided solid evidence to refute and do something about that.

She can start by apologizing to me.  It’s easy to do and won’t take 1500 words.

 

 

 

 

Susan Wright

I want you to meet Susan Wright.  She might be the stupidest woman in America.  Seriously.

Here’s the link.  It’s not a long article. It’s peppered with lots and lots of ads because the website is shitty as hell.  It’s nauseating, though, I warn you.

Who could have predicted it, she asks.  She is, of course, implying that nobody could have seen this coming. She’s referring to Charlottesville and that white supremacist in the White House’s obvious sympathy for the poor beleaguered Nazis.

Who could have predicted it?  Who?  I beg you. Who?

August, 2016.  She told us quite clearly what would happen.

Implied Falsehoods

I was going to ignore this, but she mentions me, so what the hell.

1. Neglected/abused children: Nicole and Joe pled to dependency.  It doesn’t matter that they loudly proclaim that they were “forced” to do it and they were really perfect parents and CPS thinks they are the model of parenting, they still pled to dependency.

What is “dependency”?

Kentucky CFHFS

Dependency basically means that the parent isn’t providing proper care for the child, but is so clueless s/he didn’t even know it and can’t help it for some reason.  It’s “improper care. . .” that is not intentional.

And the definition comes grouped with the section on neglect and abuse.

2. Stealing water: I wasn’t there. Nicole actually wasn’t there, either. But Joe made the whole menacing thing about water, when it really was not about water. It was actually about Joe insisting on bestowing unwanted attention on a minor teenage girl.

However, the news media made it about water.

Furthermore, we have a first-account from another person that Joe went to their house and stole water. “Steal” means that he went there and took water without first obtaining permission and did so when they were not home. They were told that he’d been there by a neighbor who saw him, the van, and a teenage boy.  Joe left the water running.

Nicole, of course, denies this.  But the accusation remains and just because Nicole says it’s not true doesn’t make it not true. Nicole also insists that Joe didn’t drink a beer in the road with Kyle and that’s in the face of about 10 people who watched him do so.

3. Menacing: It can’t be an implied falsehood when Joe was convicted of it.

4. Sexual assault/abuse: Joe’s son most definitely accused Joe of this, in a public courtroom, on the witness stand.  It doesn’t matter whether the court decided to follow up or not. It makes no difference at all.  He was still accused. That is a fact.

I’m the first person to stand up and say, “Look, he was not charged with anything.”  I would never and have never accused him of being guilty.  But the fact remains that his son accused him of it.  It’s not false to state that.

5. Grifting:  Call it whatever  you like.  Joe and Nicole beg for money a lot.  Once a month, online, for two years.

6. Running from CPS: I don’t think anyone anywhere has suggested that they are running now.  I do think that they were in the process of fleeing when Pate intercepted Nicole and the older boys at the property that day.  I think Pate thought so too.

7. Issues with neighbors: Well, there’s the problem with the landlord. I didn’t make that up. Nicole recorded it and put it online.  And then there are all the problems with the Sneeds, too many to list here.  I didn’t make those up either.  Joe has been in court repeatedly due to their inability to get along with the Sneeds.

And Nicole couldn’t get along with her business neighbor and that resulted in more court shit.  Quinten couldn’t even ride down the road without having a scene with a neighbor.

She tries to spin this into “Everyone just loves us, except these six mean people who are instigating all this trouble,” but that is simply not the case. Yes, I think that a couple of people got involved (not Lisa, she came into the picture well after the fact) with Viv early on and made a bad situation worse, but Nicole absolutely started it.  Quinten started it. Joe and Nicole allowed their animals to run loose and refused to pen them properly, dumped shit on the ground and refused to rectify the situation and started it.  The common denominator here is not “trolls.” The common denominator is Joe and Nicole Naugler.

No, I’m not joking.

UPDATE:  (After a whole two minutes. . . )

Joe is referring to this.

Go read it.

Now, tell me what this is?  And he wasn’t talking in general terms. He was talking directly to me, about me.

You know what horrible things I’d said to warrant that?

I’d commented in one or two places that I thought the state did the right thing in taking those children.  I said directly to Joe that they lived in a dump, unfit for human habitation (or words to that effect).  That’s all.

He doesn’t even curse, he says.  Wow, I guess I was lucky.  I don’t give a shit about swearing, as I assume everyone knows by now. It’s not a sign of honor if you refrain from swearing.  You’re not a great knight in shining armor.  It’s about what you say.

“Jews will not replace us,” involves no swear words at all, but is anti-Semitic, vile, and yes, a threat to the well-being and safety of Jewish people. (That’s what the Nazis chanted in Charlottesville.)

Joe, dear, you have no power. There’s nothing to keep in check. You’re a man with 10 dependent children and a wife and you haven’t had a job in years. You live in a garden shed. You cannot even provide your family with a home, Joe. You don’t have a single legal dime to your name and haven’t had one in a long, long time. You’re a slob, you can’t even express yourself clearly using the English language, and you’re a disgrace to the idea of manhood.

That’s what you are.

 

 

Expenses

These are strange bedfellows, indeed.

Nicole, meet Cathy. She claims to have been sexually abused by almost every male person she has ever known.  She’s a pretty liberal Democrat (her political views are probably the only common ground that exists between us).

Cathy, meet Nicole. She called CPS to report her stepson for supposed sexual abuse of his cousin (I think it was his cousin), yet refuses to believe the same stepson who accused her husband of sexually abusing him. And you know, kids don’t lie about sexual abuse, now, do they?

I think you two should get together and have a nice conversation about Alex.

Oh, and that crap with Cathy carrying on about how I was abused as a child is something she and Camille and Linda Fossen tried repeatedly. I’ve heard it before. They’re nuts.

But moving on.

Not 6 years, Nicole, you idiot.

I thought I might have some trouble trying to show when I actually started the Romancing site, but Cathy and the Manhaters came to my rescue.

For the record, Beth had nothing whatever to do with Romancing. She was never an administrator, she never wrote a single word of it, she participated by making comments only once that I remember, when Linda Fossen wanted to have it out with her and I provided the blog as a place for them to do that.  It was short-lived.

Romancing began, as the Manhaters mention above, as a static website.  I added the blog portion a few months later, at first as an experiment, and then made it permanent.

I paid for Romancing out of my own pocket, always. I was offered financial help by a few people (but not Richard Harris, or Bob Jones University, or anyone like that), and refused. I refused because I wanted to keep total control over what went on there. I didn’t want a committee running it.

That’s not because I am a control freak. It’s because I watched the various Facebook pages turn into sandbox fights and wanted to get away from that. I also was concerned in the beginning, since I had zero experience at this, about legalities and I only wanted to be responsible for myself and not somebody else.

I paid for it out of my own pocket and always have.  It expires next month and will come down.

This website is mine also, of course.

And here are the bills.

You will notice the beginning date – 12/15/ 2015.  That’s the date this blog began. Romancing was about a year and half old at that time, and the Romancing blog was around a year old.

Let me explain what all that shit is, starting at the top and coming down.

The hosting plan is what I pay to iPage to actually house the blog. It lives there, on their server.

The WP upgrade is extra service I pay for regarding WordPress, which is the software I use to generate this blog.  When it gets fucked up, I can call iPage and they fix it.  That’s a very good thing, because having to fix it yourself is horrible. You can look online and find stuff, but generally that consists of “Find the correntia.exp file in the fillupoint area and open it, using extremis.exe.  Change the sixth line from x84nswogh.pch to x8e3kdh.pch.” I usually manage to find the appropriate file, but then discover that line 6 does not say that at all, but instead says wothgathica.pcp and then I just cry. So paying a little guy to do it for me is worth every penny.

Sitelock is security software which keeps hackers out.

Site backup is just what it says. If all goes to hell, all is not lost. I also pay a few more dollars annually for a second backup service because I am totally anal.

Domain privacy keeps people from getting my phone number, among other types of information.

You’ll notice, if you know anything about web sites, that there is no fee for the domain name (blessedlittleblog.com). That’s because they were running a deal where if you bought hosting, you got the domain name for free.  They were also running a very big sale on hosting, as you can see. That is very cheap for three years of service.

There were about five people who helped me pay for this.  Take those figures, add them up and divide by five. That’s how much it cost each of us, approximately. Call that “collusion” if you want. I don’t care.  They helped because at that point, my husband was ready to kill me if I bought any more websites (at the time, I owned five and had about 12 domain names – remember, I manage Nathan’s music).

 

And here is the bill for 2016. The only addition is that the domain name (.com renew) is no longer free, but costs $17/year.

I paid this bill myself with no help from anyone. One person offered to help me pay for it, but I told that person to donate the money to the Ranch instead.

I just added all that up.  This blog is costing me, out of my own pocket, about $11/month, give or take, depending on whether they run a sale or not. We do not have cable television at our house. We pay $48/month for internet access, at the highest speed the company offered, and that’s a deal which we get because they put a repeater device on our house so that the signal could be broadcast to some of our neighbors who live down in the hollows. This is really not a big deal. It’s just about what a lot of people pay for HBO.

But she recently combined them as she is paying to market it.

What in the hell does that even mean?  Joe and Nicole keep saying this, and I have no idea what they are talking about. I am not “marketing” anything (unless you count my shameless plugs for the Ranch).  There are no ads on this blog.  The only one is the one I made myself for the Ranch.

I combined them because I had three fucking blogs and it was ridiculous. I was paying for all three of them and that made no sense at all.  I had written nothing whatever on the Romancing site in something like 8 months, and considered just letting it expire and die and go away.  But Cathy reared her ugly little head with this new story and I decided to archive it all instead.

You think that money goes to charity. Only some of it. The rest goes into her malicious obsession.

What “rest”?  Please show me. What is she talking about?

What she’s accusing me of is stealing.  She’s saying that I’m only telling you all about part of the money I’m getting for the Ranch and I’m pocketing some of it to pay for the blog.  This is simply not true.

I send a copy of every single order I get (a screen shot right from Paypal) to Debra as I get them, and I email the person who donated.  Debra is keeping a ledger.  She knows exactly who donated, what their address is, what sort of troll they asked for and how much money was involved.

Periodically, we total up how many trolls are involved and I send her the shipping charges.

Debra is donating all the materials for these figures.  She’s buying it all herself.

I tell you what is going on here.

Way back in 2015, Joe and Nicole had a GoFundMe.  They collected a huge amount of money, more than $45,000. They then blew through all that money in a matter of a few months.  Nicole never accounted for a dime of it to anyone.

They made great “plans” for the money. They made a big list of all the things they needed money for, remember?  A new van. Laptops for all the kids. None of that stuff ever appeared.

Nicole thinks that everyone handles money the way she does.

When she calls me a thief, she’s saying more about herself than she is about me.

 

 

 

The Kentucky Bar

Nicole, Joe, Cathy.  Doesn’t matter who it is, when these folks want to disparage Lisa Luthi, they end up looking her up at the Kentucky Bar Association website and they find this:

And then they start in with “suspended law license” and “what did she do to have her license suspended” and it goes on ad nauseum.

They don’t look any further.

If they did, they would find this:

Here’s the link.

You will notice (and I’m explaining this carefully because I am dealing with people who can’t read well) that there are only four categories here.

Two of those categories are “Suspended – Disciplinary Reasons” and “Disbarred.”

Those are the bad ones.  In the first case, the lawyer has done something that warrants the bar association saying “you need a time out.”  In the second case, the lawyer has been expelled altogether.

The other two are not bad.

One is suspension because the lawyer didn’t pay her dues.  The other is suspension because the lawyer didn’t keep up with her continuing ed.

Lisa retired.

When you retire, you don’t pay dues anymore and you sure as fuck don’t bother with keeping up continuing ed.  The Kentucky state bar has only four categories to describe this whole retirement thing.  Four.  Pick the ones that apply. They did.

When I allowed my nursing license to lapse, there was a category called “inactive status.”  I didn’t invent that. The nursing board in North Carolina did. I went over there and checked to see if I could find myself listed anywhere but I can’t.  I’ve been gone way too long.  Ditto for South Carolina.  Those are the only two states where I obtained licensing.

UPDATE:
Somebody found me!

I do not know why it says that my SC license expired in 2002. I don’t remember keeping it that long, but maybe I did.

When I left South Carolina and moved to North Carolina, I let my license expire in South Carolina because I knew that I’d probably never move back there. I have no idea what category they call that.  Expired. Suspended. Inactive status. Whatever. It’s all the same thing.

This is really simple, but these people want to discredit Lisa, so they grab anything they can.

Lisa Luthi was a fully-credentialed lawyer in Kentucky. She went to law school, graduated, became a member of the bar and practiced law for years. She never had a single black mark on her record.

Remember when Nicole filed that IPO request on Lisa which resulted in the absolutely delightful spectacle of Nicole madly going through papers?

When that first happened (not court, but Nicole filing), I asked Lisa why she was bothering to even respond to Nicole or the court. I mean, so what if Nicole got a restraining order against her?  Really, who cares?  She can get one against me if she likes and I won’t even show up for court.  Why bother?  I have never even laid eyes on Nicole Naugler and she won’t eat lunch with me even though I’ve invited her twice, so if it would make her happy to wave around a piece of paper saying I can’t come within 50 feet of her, that’s great.

Lisa’s response was that she had a perfect record as a lawyer and she wasn’t about to allow Nicole to mar that.  She felt so strongly about it that she spent about $5000 defending herself against bogus charges.

I know I’m sort of beating a dead horse here, but I’m tired of having to write all this out over and over again.  Once is enough.