Threatening

threat

This neighbor of yours sounds quite capable.

What neighbor?

Since this comes from the BLH Facebook page (scroll way down to find it), on the thread talking about the Blessed Little Gas Station Encounter, my assumption is that Sue Winnie is talking about Al Wilson, not the Naugler’s next-door neighbor.  She’s saying that in her opinion, Al “sounds like” he’s capable of being violent. She’s never met Al. She knows absolutely nothing about Al. She’s only read what Nicole has written about Al.

The second comment is equally ignorant. “These people” are “threatening” the poor Blessed Little Nauglers. Al’s daughter goes to get some fuel for her car, Joe sits and stares at her, she thinks he’s creepy, and suddenly that is “threatening” poor Lard-Ass.

And just so we all know it, the police are cited as being basically incompetent and refusing to help Lard-Ass Naugler.

The “unwanted photo-taking” is “constant.”

These two women are just blathering. They don’t have a single idea of the truth in all this. They just take whatever pops into their very vacant skulls and type away. I can totally discount them.

But Nicole doesn’t interject anything here, you know, like “Well, I don’t think Al would do anything violent.”

Oh, no, instead she piles on.

She cannot pretend she didn’t see these two comments.  She commented herself at the bottom, in answer to the two comments.  Both comments express concern about possible harm that might be done to the Blessed Big-Ass Family by Al Wilson.

And what is Nicole’s reply?

She reiterates that it was local.

This happened at the local store.

She makes it clear that she is talking about real-life stuff here, not comments on Facebook or blog postings.

We aren’t going to go into hiding because of a few assholes.

Get this straight now.  They have accused Al’s minor daughter of “following” Joe and yet they assert that they are not going to go into hiding over the huge threat that she is, all 100 pounds of her.

I’m just going to get rid of the assholes.

What, exactly, does she mean here? How does she propose to “get rid” of the “assholes” (meaning Al Wilson and his minor daughter)? I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she means that she’s going to block the “assholes” on social media, but that doesn’t make any sense. She already has blocked Al from everything possible.

What is Nicole suggesting she’s going to do here?

She talks a lot about “documenting” things. Well, I am documenting this. Nicole, you might think about retracting this statement.

I’m just going to get rid of the assholes.

0

Clueless

clueless

To close out the month, I offer this.

Dear Beth, in case somebody tells you that you are the subject of a whole page  and you come over here to look, I’ll give you some answers.

First, Shitgate.

. . . why would local authorities not be citing you for it?

They did. They are. Court is Tuesday.

Second, Goatgate.

. . . why are they not having it handled legally and appropriately?

It was.  Joe accepted a “deferral order.”

If they have any real concern, they would go through proper channels and not call themselves “trolls” in the first place.

We didn’t called ourselves “trolls.”

That is Nicole’s name for us. We are mocking her when we use the term. Here’s just one example.

trolls

Is there a particular reason why your family would not want to move out of the region?

As a commenter put it so well, “everywhere you go, there you are.” They don’t move for several reasons. First, they have nowhere to go.  Nicole’s business is in the area. Second, they can’t make ends meet now. They have no money to move. Third, CPS would follow them wherever they go.

I suspect most of you are laughing at this by now. I admit laughing when I read it.

I carefully chose this particular comment to illustrate something, though. Had Beth been just a wee bit less judgmental, I would have passed her by. But she insists on passing judgment on me, so she’s fair game.

Beth is an example of a person who reads something, thinks very little and certainly not very deeply, and then begins typing.

How many times do you see on social media somebody posting a long tale about how wronged they have been, and how their landlord/mother-in-law/cousin/co-worker did something horrible to them and it’s all so bad and please pity me?  And then what ensues is a whole raft of comments that all take for granted that the tale is absolute fact, and that the evil person who perpetrated this terrible outrage is actually a terrible person.

I see it a lot. Maybe I see it because I’m sort of looking for it. Blogging like this has made me a bit of a skeptic.

My parents were divorced when I was 13. My mother was better than lots of divorced parents and was fairly careful to not criticize my father in front of us kids, but we knew, of course, that there was a big problem. You don’t get divorced over nothing. We knew the basic details. And we all (there were three of us) just accepted our mother’s version, which we absorbed through tiny comments made here and there.

Mom was pure and innocent. Dad was bad.  That concept colored the rest of my childhood, estranging me from my father and making me really angry and resentful of him.

I went into adulthood believing the same thing. Mom was good. Dad was bad.

But when I was in my forties, I began to see the world a bit differently. Not nearly so black-and-white. Raising a child, living in the adult world, well, that sort of thing will do that to you if you’re lucky. And I began to understand my father much better.

I also began to understand that marital strife often (usually) involves two people. There is more than one way to see my parents’ divorce. My mother was not totally innocent. My dad was not totally evil. These were two flawed people (translation: normal) who just couldn’t live together. That’s not their fault. It’s not my fault. It’s nobody’s fault.

But that’s the case with most disputes.

They do it for the joy of causing trouble.

Notice that?  See how Beth pronounces judgment?  She is completely and entirely wrong in nearly every accusation she makes, and then she slams down the gavel and there we have it.  Evil.  Wrong. Bad.

She makes little to no effort to read much of anything.  I know this because she has no idea that the Nauglers have been reported to CPS over and over and over again.  She has no idea that Goatgate went to court and the Nauglers totally lost. She has no idea that Shitgate is an ongoing case in the court system right now.  These are all facts documented right here, complete with copies of the applicable court records. She could have asked her questions on any of the “troll” pages and gotten immediate answers.

But she didn’t.  Like folks on Facebook do all day every day, she just accepts Nicole’s version of events as factual and pronounces judgment.

I did the same thing with my parents’ situation, but I had an excuse. I was a kid and I was trusting my mother. Beth is an adult and she is trusting a perfect stranger on social media.

But what is really interesting is how Nicole reacts to this kind of thing.  Just like the discussion about Shitgate, where multiple people kept expressing outrage and amazement over “outhouses,” Nicole does not correct anything.  It is rare for her to correct a leghumper who is passing judgment on any critic. She only goes into correction mode if it’s in her interests to do so.

Of course, why would she?  Beth might just hit the donate button if she is affronted enough by what she sees as persecution of the innocent Naugler family.

 

 

 

 

0