Here’s how this works. I have this blog. I also have a Facebook page. It is pretty much public. Pretty much anyone can comment there.
At their own risk.
I usually post a link on there to this blog when I post a new article. Wendy thought it would be a great idea to come over to my Facebook page and confront me. Not here. There. And then she got her feelings hurt and deleted it all.
She can do that on Facebook, which of course, deleted not just her comment but all the stuff written in reply to her. Poof. Gone.
Well, not exactly. . .
Nobody has to agree with me. People here disagree with me quite often. Kaylee and I go at it pretty fiercely from time to time. (Don’t we, Kaylee? )
But I get sort of irritated with people who dive in, make nasty little comments about “God” and inaccurate statements about what I said here on this blog and then try to disappear.
First, nobody “attacked” the child. Nobody “mocked” the child. Nobody “mocked” the content of the books. They are perfectly fine books—for a three-year-old.
We attacked you, Nicole. We mock you. You and Joe are abysmally awful parents.
But I want to play your other game. Reading and children. That’s the subject, is it?
You quote some stats. You don’t link to any of them, so they are relatively difficult to ferret out.
However, you make some really contradictory statements in there. First, you insist that reading scores are dropping. Then, at the end of the next paragraph, you say that “stats haven’t changed much in the past decade.”
Which is it? Are they dropping? Or are they staying the same?
Now maybe you have data I don’t, Nicole, but you didn’t cite it. You just asserted shit without bothering to tell us where you got it beyond saying “according to the NEAP.” I don’t care to spend my entire afternoon searching through that website to find that wee bit of info, so I will sort of ignore it. I suspect you didn’t either.
I suspect you visited some pro-homeschooling (or more likely, pro-unschooling) site and just did a bit of copy and paste.
However, if you look at the stats, they are instructive.
For instance, you blithely quote:
Only 25% of college graduates are deemed proficient.
And then you start the hand-wringing.
But what does that mean, actually? What is “proficient” when it comes to this data?
It means really, really good at it. So that 25% figure is not what Nicole thinks it is. She’s implying that 75% of college graduates are functionally illiterate and that is simply not the case at all.
I knew when I read what she wrote that she was totally misinterpreting the data terribly. It’s impossible for 75% of college graduates to be unable to read adequately, especially in light of this.
If 75% of college graduates couldn’t even read, why would they consistently make more money and be more employable than those who hadn’t attained those levels of education? Why would an employer pay somebody that much more money if they couldn’t function on the job?
If 75% of college graduates couldn’t read, they also wouldn’t have been able to learn any history or much math or much of anything else. They wouldn’t be any more educated than a high school dropout. Yet they consistently earn more than twice as much.
Either employers across America are colossal dumbasses or something is wrong with Nicole’s assumption.
That’s why I knew that “proficient” didn’t mean what she thought it meant.
That does not mean that “proficient” means the exact same thing regardless of the testing or data you are looking at. But it does mean that college graduates pretty much know how to read.
. . . reading levels aren’t improving and children and even adults aren’t reading for pleasure.
I dunno about that. I mean, I am not disputing the whole “people don’t read for pleasure” thing, except I would suggest that you need to define “read for pleasure” more specifically.
I am a reader. A really big reader. I have been ever since the day I was taught how to sound out vowels. I am a college graduate. I read for pleasure. I enjoy fiction, non-fiction, the phone book, recipe books, I don’t care. I read.
My husband is also a college graduate. He does not read books. We’ve been married for 46 years. I do not remember him ever reading an entire book for pleasure in that whole time. He reads parts of books. He looks up stuff. He’s completely literate. He graduated with honors. He reads to keep up with the news. He just can’t bear reading fiction.
“Reading for pleasure” is a great thing. I don’t know how people like Dave survive without doing so. I just know that they can and do and they are often completely and totally literate.
One thing (reading for pleasure) does not equal the other thing (literacy).
Here’s some newer figures from the ebil gubmint. In this case, what is “proficient”? Does this mean that only about a third of grade-school students can read or do math?
There’s the definition. You decide what that means.
And remember, factored into all this are all the students, not just a select group. So special-needs students count, those who are struggling, and they skew the percentages down. You’re never going to see percentages in the 90’s or even in the eighties no matter what.
But here are countries that rely heavily on “unschooling.”
Going to school in one of those countries is tough. Most people can’t. In many of them, women don’t go ever, period.
But Nicole has told us, time and again, that kids will just learn to read all by themselves. They don’t need any damn teachers. They just learn.
Why don’t they learn in Afghanistan? Why don’t they learn in Chad?
And if they just learn all by themselves, why is she even having the conversation at all? What’s the point? Just leave the kids alone, like she does, and they too will be reading books intended for three-year-olds when they are nearly ten.
The child who bought these books is almost ten years old. In the real world, she’d be in the 3rd grade.
These books are suitable for pre-schoolers. They aren’t “books” in the sense that the child is expected to read them. They are “picture books.” They are intended for non-readers, for parents to read to their kids before bedtime.
When I first saw this, I wanted to give Nicole the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the kid bought the books for her younger siblings.
But then, Nicole says, that we should notice the theme. In other words, the child bought the books because this is what interests her. Being a mommy interests her. We’re supposed to think that is adorable. It makes me want to cry. But she’s telling me that the child bought the books, using her own money that she earns making bows and washing dogs for almost nothing, because that is what she can read.
I get the idea that often, for entertainment, children will read below their grade level. I raised a son. He did that sometimes. And sometimes he read books that were actually far above his grade level, especially if they contained information he wanted to know about.
No pictures. Lots of words on the page. Bigger words, like “telephone” and “forsythia.” Numerous metaphors. The number “fourteen.” Greatly descriptive, almost poetic sentences.
Nicole and Joe Naugler are not educating their children. I know it. They know it. The whole world knows it. CPS knows it. They are simply not educating those kids.
In my view, this is the most egregious thing they have done. Isolating them is bad. Neglecting them is bad. Living in a damned garden shed is horrible. Blaming them for not being able to run a fucking “homestead” is terrible.
But not educating them should be a criminal offense. The fact that the state of Kentucky allows them to get away with this infuriates me.
I have been corrected by several folks, some of whom also have the child’s date of birth, and it seems she would be in 4th grade. (It’s been a long time since I dealt with school children.)
Well, I don’t hate them, but the evidence indicates that they are not necessary for most people in first world countries under most circumstances.
We used them in a hospital setting, but that was with people who were already ill.
There are diseases that can cause vitamin deficiencies. My mother is a good example. She is a celiac. Not the fake “I’m gluten-sensitive” currently popular type, but the real deal. She was celiac long before being gluten-intolerant was cool. In addition, she contracted non-tropical sprue (an intestinal disorder) just after World War II when she was en route to the United States on a bride ship from Australia.
The doctors had no idea what was wrong with her. They didn’t know about either condition. One specialist told her she probably had leukemia.
At any rate, as a result, she became very deficient in Vitamin B-12 and had to take shots. I remember her doing this when I was a child. She gave them to herself which always fascinated me.
When I went to nursing school, I bullied her until she went to see an internist I knew and he diagnosed her as celiac just from a brief conversation (later confirmed with actual tests). Her gut began to heal and she no longer needs the vitamin shots.
So that’s an example of a necessary use of vitamin supplementation. Pregnancy is another. (Folic acid tablets are simply too easy and cheap to risk spina bifida by not doing it.) But most people don’t need them. As one of my doctor friends used to say, all people are doing is creating very expensive urine. That is because the usual first-world diet has all the vitamins and minerals any human being needs.
So here I agree with Nicole.
I will pause for a moment while you pick your jaw up off the floor.
Eat real food.
But then she just drives right off the cliff.
There are two big problems with her statement.
First Problem: Nicole is the biggest hypocrite on the planet.
Chocolate cake for breakfast. It’s obvious that 13 people didn’t have chocolate cake for breakfast unless she bought six of these, so one assumes that Nicole bought it and hoarded it for herself, but still, she had cake for breakfast and dares anyone to criticize her.
For the record, as you’ll see, I’m not critical of her choice. I’m critical of her bullshit hypocrisy.
See? They’re at Hardee’s, having “real food.”
They go there a lot, as you can see.
She’s gonna go get her a nice gyro. “Real food” from the takeout place.
Here’s some “real food.” How much do you bet she bought this someplace? We have ice cream here too. Sometimes we buy it, but often we make it from our cow’s cream.
And she starts them young with that “real food.” Super nachos from Hardee’s.
Just so you know, Alex Jones is a blithering idiot and ninety percent of the stuff from his site is total bullshit. “Chemicals” in soft drinks are fine. They are not “habit forming” or “addictive.” The problem with too many soft drinks is too much sugar.
If that is the case, why in the world do you post shit like this, Nicole?
It’s quite true that nicotine and caffeine and alcohol are all mind-altering drugs. (I’m not sure why the Mars bar is there, except for the idea that somehow sugar is bad, which it is not – unless they are representing chocolate, and Nytol and Ritalin aren’t pretending to be anything at all other than drugs, one by prescription and the other over the counter).
I don’t consume caffeine in very large quantities because I have a problem with rebound headaches if I do. It’s present in chocolate, but in small quantities. And alcohol, while it is a drug, is nice in small amounts and I partake from time to time, but have rarely been drunk.
However, there is no evidence, zilch, nada, that would suggest that if you use alcohol or caffeine or nicotine, you are somehow going to progress to other drugs. None of those substances could remotely be considered a “starter kit.” This is nonsense.
And that leads me to the second point.
Second Problem: What in the hell is “real food”?
Nicole loves to talk about this. She likes it because it’s all healthy and homesteady and it makes her sound like Earth Mother. Everyone nods sagely and agrees. “Just eat real food.”
When people say this, I tend to exit the conversation because what is going to follow is complete bullshit.
What most people mean when they say “eat real food” is “don’t eat processed foods.”
But that leads directly to another question. What are “processed foods”?
If you look up the definition of the term, you’ll find stuff all over the map.
So from this definition, which is not really very accurate (more in a moment about that), we get two main things: packaged in something, and contains the dreaded chemicals.
Exactly how are you supposed to get your food home from the store if it’s not packaged in something? Even if you buy fresh produce, they put it in a bag.
Chemicals. Sigh. Everyone has spasms about chemicals. Salt is a chemical, folks. Sugar is a chemical compound. You are a bunch of chemicals.
Some artificially produced chemicals are very dangerous indeed. For example: ethylene glycol. That’s the stuff in anti-freeze. Don’t let your pets near it. Some artificially produced chemicals are preferable to their “natural” counterparts: melatonin, for example (“natural” melatonin can be toxic, artificial melatonin is much safer, if you’re going to take that shit, which I do not.)
Chemical is not a dirty word.
So here’s a better definition of the term. “Processing” is whatever you do to food before you eat it.
Here’s some peaches being processed, put in cans so people can store them on the shelf for a considerable length of time.
And here’s some serious food processing: cheese. The factory takes milk and adds some chemicals (rennet, which by the way is almost entirely GMO in America and has been for decades, and salt), heats it slowly and then presses the hell out of the curd that results.
These are processed foods.
So are these.
The difference is that the last picture was taken by me in my kitchen of my canned peaches and my cheese.
There is virtually no difference nutritionally in my processed food and the photos of the factories above. None.
If you take a tomato and slice it, you have processed it. Here I am, processing some meat.
But, you say, that’s not what people mean when they talk about “processed food.”
They mean this.
I blew that photo up and tried to identify some of the foods that are in it, and was surprised to see Jif. It made me laugh.
Peanut butter is the food that held me together when I was a kid. I love the stuff. I still eat it often. And I have eaten every kind of peanut butter there is, creamy, crunchy, “natural,” “processed,” homemade from peanuts that we grew ourselves. All of it. I love it no matter what, but I greatly prefer the processed stuff because it spreads better.
They also have Kraft Singles in there. You know, cheese.
Oh, and Wonder Bread, as though that is really bad.
Here’s a loaf of my bread. To make it, I begin by grinding whole wheat berries into flour. That’s called “processing,” by the way. When I mix up the loaf, I put chemicals in it. I add salt, gluten flour, and something called “dough conditioner.”
That’s what is in it. I use very little (that 3 tsp serving size is for a whole loaf of bread). It makes all the difference in how the bread slices and stores and everything. I’ve been using it for years, and so do the Wonder Bread people, and so does every other bakery in America.
The truth is that there is very, very little difference between my bread and Wonder Bread when it comes to nutrition. I prefer mine for two reasons: it’s cheaper and it tastes better. But if I’m in the middle of house-remodeling like I am right now, and my kitchen is torn all to hell, I have no qualms at all about buying a loaf or two of bread from the store. We grumble a little but it’s fine.
The truth is that America’s food is some of the best in the world. The quality is high.
We shop largely at Aldi. It’s cheap and so are we, so it’s a good fit for us. One major reason that Aldi is cheap is that there are few choices. If you go in there and want a bottle of ketchup, you will find one size, one brand. Take it or leave it.
Do you want eggs? Aldi has eggs. One size, one kind. That’s it.
The other day, I had to shop at Kroger for the first time in about three years (other than running in there for an occasional item that Aldi doesn’t carry). I found that experience to be a little unsettling.
I needed those two things, among others: ketchup and eggs. There were so many choices I had difficulty. I just wanted plain-Jane ordinary ketchup, but I was faced with 15 different kinds and brands. I wanted a dozen eggs, but there were ten different brands and kinds. I nearly had a meltdown right there in the store. And that was a small Kroger. They’ve put in a very large one in a neighboring town and I’ll be damned if I will ever put my foot in it.
My point though is that we have a lot of food available and there is nothing wrong with any of it.
Take that photo of the Naugler baby and the nachos.
There is nothing wrong with nachos, even from Hardee’s. Corn chips, and cheese, and probably salsa and maybe some sour cream.
Our problem is that we have so much food that we eat too much of it, and I am guilty of that.
But, you say, we need to eat more food as it comes from nature. Why? What is the difference between my canned peaches (or the commercial canned peaches) and a peach? The answer is pretty much nothing.
Where we screw up is that instead of those canned peaches, which are identical nutritionally to a fresh peach, we eat peach ice cream or peach cobbler.
And that leads me to sugar.
It gets a bad rap. People carry on like it’s tantamount to eating arsenic. It’s not. Sugar is good stuff.
And there is virtually no difference at all between ordinary white sugar and honey or molasses or any other sweetener (artificial ones excepted). All of them are sweeteners, and all of them provide basically “empty” calories. And none of us need to eat mountains of any of them. Honey is not “better” for you than sugar.
But I think most parents already know this basic stuff.
But what about this?
Nicole posts these types of photos and I see people go off on her for it.
This particular “chili” is fine as far as I can tell. I’m not sure we’d eat it because I don’t think Dave would like it. It’s not how I make chili. But that’s okay. There is nothing at all wrong with any ingredient in it.
But it’s not what is conventionally called “real food.” It’s mostly processed foods from cans all dumped together in a pot.
And there is this. Nicole admits this is bad, and I agree with her. It’s not that it’s bad food – it’s not – but holy shit, how do you screw up something that horribly? It looks like she dumped some raw rice and water along with a package or two of frozen mixed veggies in a crock pot and thought magic would happen.
First, would somebody please steal that bowl from these folks and destroy it? It looks like the inside of one of the plastic buckets they use for. . . well, you know. . .
Second, what in the hell is that?
Beans and rice or beans and noodles are good foods. You don’t need meat with every meal, even if you’re a growing child. Beans are a great food and Americans should eat more of them.
But damn, what is that?
Seriously, if Nicole can’t come up with better stuff than this, she needs to quit lecturing us about “real food.”
Here’s an example of what is so disingenuous about her. She says that she has “eliminated. . . most processed food.”
No, she hasn’t. Not even close. Not even slightly. In fact, she eats as much processed food as anyone. Do you think nobody else has ever eaten cherry tomatoes before? Or raw broccoli in a salad?
Note the photo of the “real food” for dinner. Hamburgers on white bread (store bought), sliced tomato, fried potatoes.
There is nothing at all different about that than this.
Please understand that I am not saying that Nicole’s food choices are bad. I have never said that. I know people do say that, but I’m not one of them. There’s nothing at all wrong with having a hamburger with some fried potatoes and sliced tomatoes.
I don’t find fault with her menu postings (she did some on one of her blogs and people had conniptions because of their supposed inferior nutritional content.) I sometimes make menus like that and just because I write down “Tuesday: spaghetti” that doesn’t mean that spaghetti is the only thing that will be offered. There will probably be a salad and bread and maybe some fruit for dessert.
What I am criticizing is her attempt to appear all “natural” and homesteady while the reality is that she eats just like the rest of us, only she appears to be able to consume Joe’s can-dumping “chili” and I know I couldn’t do it. I am criticizing her little memes saying that we don’t need vitamins because we should just eat “real food,” when she doesn’t eat any different from anyone else. I am criticizing her claims that they have “eliminated processed foods” when they absolutely have not done that at all.
She’s fake. You know, fake, like store-brand cola instead of the Real Thing.
You know, I tried to be really nice about this, in part because the whole thing involves a young girl who will get the blame if something really negative happens, but Nicole has to be an ass. She apparently cannot help it.
Believe me, or don’t believe me. I don’t really care. But there are some things that I just know, and this is one of them. The Naugler horse was loose. The Naugler horse was running around all over the place, on at least two of the neighboring properties, having a super-good time.
I saw the video.
The reason that Nicole Naugler will never see the video is because she would spend endless amounts of time trying to identify the angle from which the video was shot and thus come up with the supposed identity of the videographer, and she would most likely be very wrong. She would then accuse that person of “stalking” her.
Let me explain something about loose livestock. Unless you are physically present when they get loose, like the day that Somebody left our gate open and a couple of calves got out, and you never lose sight of the animal for an instant, you have no idea where they went or where they’ve been and what in the hell they have been doing.
When that bull appeared in my backyard and scared the shit out of me, he bolted and was gone, completely out of sight, in less than 30 seconds. Within a minute, the neighbors were out hunting for him. And they didn’t find him for two weeks.
Nobody knows where he was all that time or what he was doing.
And Nicole Naugler doesn’t have the slightest idea where their horse went while she was loose. Unless she went home and tied herself back up, somebody in that family knows that the horse was loose. Hell, I don’t know everywhere the horse went. I just know with absolute certainty that the horse was not on their property and was running about on two of their neighbors’ properties.
There are only two possibilities here. Either Nicole is flat-out lying, or somebody lied to Nicole about this.
I don’t actually know why she has chosen to dig in on this one, frankly. Like the beer-drinking in the road that night that she insisted didn’t happen, she is denying reality. There is nothing wrong with having your animal get loose. Nobody is going to call some authority and complain unless it were to happen every single day. It was just sort of funny, like the times our donkeys went walkabout.
And one other thing: If the horse “has never left the property,” why do they have it? I know they carry on about their “28 acres” as though that is a massive amount of land, but it’s not. There isn’t a whole lot of space to ride there. Much of it is wooded. The short dirt “roads” on the Blessed Shithole aren’t much distance for riding. It would be pretty hard to even get up to a canter in that little bit of space.
Yet the road is dirt. Perfect riding. Why aren’t they taking the horse up and down the road?
There’s a picture of a horse that’s running
Hanging here right before my eyes
Always there to remind me
Of the best of old times
Running Horse, Poco
The Naugler’s horse got loose.
It was inevitable that the horse would get loose. She seemed to be enjoying herself immensely, running around the neighborhood happily.
I have a bit of sympathy with people whose animals get loose. We have two donkeys.
Here they are. On the left is Georgia. On the right is her mother, Cheney. (Cheney is much smaller and fatter than her daughter.)
They look so sweet, don’t they?
Do not be fooled. They are holy terrors. They are escape artists. They love to get out and go walkabout.
The neighbor has mules. Georgia and Cheney like to go visit them, and pretend to be big. They look ridiculous but they don’t know it.
The first time they got out (several years ago), Dave was out-of-state and my neighbor came over to tell me that they were out. He helped me round them up and run them into another neighbor’s paddock. I couldn’t bring them home because even though they wear halters, they do not lead.
Later that evening, the neighbor tied them behind his four-wheeler and dragged their sorry asses home.
This is the fencing that was present when we bought this place. I think this photo was made during the fencing renovation and it looks like a couple of the strands of wire have been removed, but originally there were four strands of high tensile electric wire. High tensile wire is strong and when it is spooled up, it’s very heavy.
It’s supposed to be great stuff.
I hate it.
I don’t like fiddling with the electric. I don’t like turning it off and then forgetting to turn it back on. I just despise it.
After the donkeys managed the Great Escape a couple of times, we did this.
See the wooded area beyond the fenceline? That’s the back of our property. It’s basically a ravine. It covers maybe 2 or perhaps 3 of our acres. It’s useless except that it serves as a buffer between us and the neighbors behind us.
The previous owner here ran cattle in that pasture. No way is a cow going to go down into that ravine willingly. So he didn’t worry about the fencing back in there. We didn’t realize that.
Donkeys love ravines. They have a grand time in them. And that is where our donks were getting out. The “fencing” back there wasn’t high tensile wire, four strands, with nice fence poles. It was some barbed wire strung between trees. The donkeys saw it and laughed and said, “Let’s go visit the mules.”
We fixed one place. They found another. We gave up, confined them to the paddock (otherwise known as “prison”) and redid the fencing. They haven’t escaped since (three years).
When they got out, we got them back as rapidly as we could. Our neighbors helped. I was horrified because they managed to get into one neighbor’s newly planted corn (garden, not field). I tried to get them to let me come over and replant it, or pay them , or something. They laughed and refused, and told me later there was no damage that they could see.
A year or so later, the neighbor with the garden was at our door because he had two beef calves who escaped. We went with him to help hunt them. I don’t think he ever found them.
And we’ve had our little Jersey bull calves escape a few times, mostly when somebody who shall not be named here left the gate open. Once they tore our garden to shreds before the next-door neighbor drove by, saw them, and put them up. And once we were eating breakfast and saw them trot past the window.
So we know about having livestock escape. It happens to everyone who has animals. As one neighbor said, “If you haven’t had livestock escape, you haven’t had much livestock.”
About a year ago, I walked outside with Minnie to take her potty and came face-to-face with an Angus bull. We do not raise Angus bulls. I didn’t know anyone who did.
I was so startled, and the bull seemed so big, that I screamed right in his face. I scared both me and him out of our collective wits. He ran one way, and I ran the other.
I am used to bull calves. We’ve raised dozens and dozens of them. But little Jersey bull calves are one thing. A big Angus is another.
Anyway, the same neighbor who said that to me about having livestock escape came running up a few minutes later yelling “Where did he go?” I pointed. And off he went.
It was a bull he had borrowed from a friend for breeding.
He was gone for about two weeks. They finally found him in a guy’s field with his cows several miles away. Nobody ever figured out how he got out in the first place, or how he got in with the cows (he obviously jumped both fences), but he was brought home and everything ended well.
However, the saying around the neighborhood now is that if you have an animal you don’t want, just bring to Sally and she will scream at it and you’ll never see it again.
So anyway, when I heard that the Naugler’s horse got loose, I admit that I laughed. It’s actually a pretty dangerous situation, though. If the horse gets out in the road and a car hits it, the Nauglers will be liable for the damages to the car. And like Georgia and Cheney, the runaway donkeys, once they get out, they discover how much fun it is and then you’re in for trouble because they will try again.
There’s a huge difference between allowing your goats to run “free-range” because you think you live in the “wilderness” and it’s all homesteady, and having a horse that you actually are trying to keep contained escape. People tend to get pissed off royally at the first and are usually pretty sympathetic about the second.
That is, they are sympathetic provided you do something to correct the situation. In our case, we tried fixing the fence twice. It simply didn’t work because the terrain was terrible. So we spent some bucks (quite a few of them) and fenced the property securely.
Sounds like the Naugs need to do a bit of upgrading.
If you go over to the first page of links on this site, you’ll find that the first one listed is Free Jinger. It has been that way since the day the page went up.
I had read Free Jinger in the past. It caught my eye because I am a former Christian fundamentalist and that’s the typical subject matter over there. I have never seen a single episode of the Duggar’s television program, and at first had no idea where the name “Free Jinger” came from. [It’s the name of one of the then-minor Duggar children. Talk about irony. ]
I read a little bit and then didn’t bother going back. The minutia of the Duggar’s lives didn’t interest me even slightly.
However, I was aware that the commenters over there typically are brutal. I didn’t fully realize how brutal though until I had the misfortune of running afoul of them.
When I found out (by being told by other people) that Free Jinger had started a subgroup about the Nauglers, I was initially delighted. The more light shed on the Naugler situation, the better.
I even went over there, registered (a big, big mistake), and participated briefly. I have this blog. Everyone over there was pretty much reading over here as well, so it seemed silly to go over there. If the Free Jinger people want to know what I’m saying, they know how to find me.
After I left, it seems that I began to fall out of favor with the folks at Free Jinger. That’s fine. I didn’t particularly care then, and don’t now.
While I was there, though, I did some reading in some of the other subgroups, involving different families, and was sort of appalled by what I read there.
For instance, this.
This particular comment took me less than five minutes to find. I simply Googled “Free Jinger skinny kids” and found the subgroup about the Rodrigues family. Free Jingerites believe that this family is starving their children (and they name those children regularly). They poke fun at the kids regularly. I am not going to take time to try to find the comment about the teenage daughter sitting on the sofa—about how skinny she is. The comment above is not unusual, and that’s why it was so easy to find.
If you go to the original and click on the thumbnail of the baby (I won’t post the enlarged photo here), you’ll be able to see the child.
I hate to make fun of an innocent child. . .
Then why are you doing it? What possible good can it do? I almost understand if you think that the Rodrigues parents are literally starving their kids, but to make fun of a baby based solely on the look she has on her face?
Anyway, this, as I said, is common. Nobody said shit about it. Not only did the moderators think that was fine, somebody added this.
Hell yeah. Let’s take the innocent child’s picture and meme it.
But you get the idea. This is Free Jinger.
If I Google the oldest Naugler child’s name, I find first a link to his Facebook page, then his YouTube videos and the fifth entry is this blog, from a year ago. That is because this particular child attempted to comment here. I had to make a decision about how to handle that. I chose to not allow the comment until he reached his majority.
In removing it, I left his name in place. I haven’t removed that, so that is what Google is reporting. Nothing about him at all, except my announcement that I removed his comment because he is a minor.
Two links down from that you get Free Jinger.
If I Google the next oldest child’s name, the first two links are to Free Jinger. No links to here, because that child’s name has never appeared here.
If I Google the oldest daughter’s name, it takes a couple of pages before one begins to find stuff (the name is more common than the other one I mentioned). There are a few articles from the news when the kids were taken and then a link to Nicole blog, and then Free Jinger. No links to here.
If I Google one of the tiny kids’ names, the third link down is Free Jinger. The next is Nicole’s blog. There is a link to this blog way down due to a commenter using the child’s name and it being overlooked. I corrected that just now.
And it goes on like this. For people who are so worried about “the children” and how horrible I am, they do not seem to care that these kids can Google their own names and find Free Jinger and all the snark and nasty shit that is said about them. I am well aware that it is quite likely that the Naugler children who are literate know all about this blog already, but at least it does not show up on a Google search of their personal first names. Potential employers in the future will not find this by Googling their names.
They were all bent because they thought I should not have included any reference to what the daughter said about the Naugler son. Please keep the above two screen shots in mind here as you read this. They got on their little high horses because I quoted Al’s daughter, but don’t mind one bit making fun of a little baby and posting actual photos of her.
But then came the pregnancy thing.
I began with a post that never even mentioned the impending grandchild. At the time that I wrote it, I knew all about the girlfriend, but was waiting because it just wasn’t public enough to make me feel comfortable talking about it. I danced all around it instead.
Later the same day, I got the public confirmation I was waiting for. Not the comment that was removed from Nicole’s page, but public postings (note the plural there) on Facebook by locals discussing the pregnancy. That’s what I do here. I write about public stuff. Not some teenager’s private stuff set to friends only. Public stuff. I have no way to get into anyone’s Facebook page’s private postings. I don’t know how and I wouldn’t try to do it if I did.
Even then, I didn’t mention which kid it was or the circumstances. I only have talked about the details (about a week later) when Nicole chose to harshly criticize her very innocent next-door neighbor just because she doesn’t like her. And even then, I have never used or permitted anyone commenting to use either the name of the girlfriend or the name of the still-minor father. [And yes, I know that people were able to find the girl’s FB page with ease. That is not my fault. ]
Anyway, that series of posts has caused great consternation over at Free Jinger. I strongly suspect it’s because they didn’t see this coming, had not a clue and I scooped them.
These are grown women who hide behind screen names and regularly gossip publicly about all kinds of people, anyone they don’t like. The Nauglers are just one family that has caught their ire.
Rest assured about one thing: Free Jinger does not stay online because it is run by people who are altruistic and just want to provide a free place for women to vent anonymously. It’s a money-making operation. There are ads on Free Jinger. They are doing what they can to drive traffic their way.
I know that we’ve talked about all this pretty extensively in the comment section and I don’t want to beat a dead horse. However, I thought it might be a good idea to put it all on one post. Right now, the comments are scattered everywhere.
But here’s my bigger question and the main reason I did this post. Why is it that Nicole considers me “the tabloid blogger” and pretty much her Enemy #1 and yet never mentions Free Jinger? Why is that? She made a silly little list on her imitation blog of all the “trolls.” Free Jinger is not among them. It’s certainly not because she thinks they are nice.
I know she reads it. She reads everything. Besides, she posted a photo once that had her tablet screen showing in the background and it was open to Free Jinger.
But somehow, they are not a “tabloid forum.”
I find that odd.
So Nicole, who never reads this blog, ever, has responded to my question, in oh, about two hours.
She claims that the difference between me and Free Jinger is that Free Jinger’s folks (who include some of the same people who comment here) aren’t:
driving past my house talking [sic] photos
I didn’t take any photos, Nicole. I didn’t have a camera. Nobody in that vehicle had a camera. If we had, rest assured we’d have snapped a picture of Joe enjoying his beer.
calling old employers
I have never called any of your old employers. Hell, other than Patricia, I don’t even know who they might be.
encouraging every government agency to investigate our every breath
I have no connection with any government agency, no matter how much you want to believe that and how many times you repeat it. I have no pull with anyone. I’m not in cahoots with anyone.
trying to create a legitimate false reality of my life
I have no idea what this means. What is a “legitimate false reality”?
slander and libel (defamation) can
For the umpteenth time, slander and libel are basically the same thing. Slander is spoken. Libel is written. Neither are involved here because I have expressed only things I can prove (the Nauglers were shitting in buckets), and/or what is clearly and unquestionably my opinion (I think shitting in buckets is shitty).
so can acts such as contacting clients and making fabricated reports
Since I have never done either of those things, I’m not sure why she is bringing this up. What is a “fabricated report”? Is she talking about the obviously fake reviews of her business? Does that apply to the quite clearly fake positive reviews as well, or are they okay?
No one gives them any credibility.
I assume that this means that people do, in fact, consider me credible. Thanks so much.
Their opinions cause no harm.
Exactly how do my opinions “cause harm” but theirs don’t?
I am going to assume that what Nicole is saying here is that this blog is effective and Free Jinger is not, that this blog has cut into the grifting in a tangible way and Free Jinger has not, that this blog has shown the truth about what is going on at the Blessed Little Shitstead (for instance, shitting in buckets) and Free Jinger has not.
I consider this the ultimate compliment, but it still doesn’t answer the question. Free Jinger is not on The List. The “cosmically pathetic” Facebook pages are.
Yeah, they are doing great. Still both teenagers, and one still a minor, with jobs flipping burgers for minimum wage, and they’ve “bought” a rent-to-own shed to live in without basic plumbing or heat or a kitchen or anything. Neither one owns a car. She’s pregnant and they are not married. They’ve known each other for a matter of weeks. She had another boyfriend as recently as late August.
In today’s society, 46 percent of teen marriages will end in divorce before reaching their 10th year.
But this was written by a woman who is married, yes, with an “intact” family. Wow, she’s great, ain’t she? She has a husband.
Here they are, the happy couple.
And that is the “kitchen” the children built because that lazy good-for-nothing piece of shit standing there in his filthy clothes looking at his phone does almost nothing else except eat, fuck, and sleep.
But Nicole is all proud.
She didn’t even marry him until after she’d had several children. Six, I think? Somebody correct me if I’m wrong. And he, of course, had one by another woman while estranged from Nicole for a while. So doesn’t that mean that Joe has children by two different mothers? Why is that different from having children by two different fathers? Why does Nicole even bring that up, except to imply that having children by different fathers means that the neighbor is a whore? That is, of course, what she is wanting us to understand.
And she works at a gas station.
Unlike Joe, who does not work, and cannot keep a job even if he had one. Unlike Nicole who works washing dog butts and “owns her own business,” but only because Pace Ellsworth loaned her the money for reasons only he understands (she could not possibly get a loan for anything at a bank – she and Joe can’t even get the electricity turned on).
Please tell me what is wrong with working at a gas station.
And please explain to me why it is different that the neighbor is living with her parents, while the kid and girlfriend are also living on his parents’ property, albeit in a different shed.
Yet, with this history, Nicole has the gall to criticize the neighbor, to act like somehow her 17-year-old, who knocked up the very first girl he could find once he got some limited freedom from the Blessed Little Shithole, is doing “better than some.”
But here is the real question.
What is all this about marriage? To get married, you go down to the courthouse (gasp!) and get a license (double gasp!)
You get a license. You get permission from the state.
Why is that a virtuous thing to do, Nicole? Why is it a pejorative if the neighbor is not currently married? Why are you such a hypocrite?
There was a little conversation over at the BLH Facebook page about coyotes. It seems they are coming closer to the Blessed Shithole and might threaten the “flock,” which I assume means the hen and whatever chicks may have survived thus far. So what to do?
We have donkeys. But then, we have fences. And we’ve never had a problem with coyotes and chickens, but I suppose anything’s possible.
So, the conversation went along with people chiming in their two cents worth, and then Joe had to insert his little rant about dogs.
He’s so upset, poor thing. Two dogs killed. How sad. One dog was hit by a car on that dirt road, he says, and the vet told them that the car was going very fast. I’m gobsmacked. Really?
First off, this incident happened when the Nauglers had fled the Shitshack to live in relative luxury on GFM money at the local motel while the kids were being babysat by the state. They were not living on the property. That’s one reason those dogs were killed. They were abandoned there.
Perhaps Joe and/or Nicole drove out to the property one day (about 25 minutes one way from the motel) to check on things and got there at just the point in time when the dog had been hit, was lying there mortally wounded but not dead, and the car was nowhere in sight. And he/she/they promptly put the dog in the car and drove madly to the nearest vet who explained that dog was irreparably wounded but that he’d been hit by a vehicle going 75 mph. He could tell, you see, because the dog was all smashed up.
And perhaps, using Occam’s Razor, this is complete bullshit.
Joe and Nicole have never, to my knowledge, taken a child to the doctor, much less a dog to the vet. But let’s say that they were flush with Go Fund Me money and felt generous and did just that.
A vet cannot tell you how fast the car was going when it hit the damn dog. If he tried to do that, he was lying.
Cars weigh a whole lot. The average weight is about 4000 pounds. Your fifty pound dog is not anything compared to the car. A 4000 pound car could hit a fifty pound dog while moving at 15 mph and squash him flatter than a pancake.
This story is bogus from start to finish.
As I believe I’ve mentioned before, we’ve been along the road beside the Blessed Shithole. And the Naugler dogs chase cars. It’s simply a fact. They chased our truck. In fact, they ran out and more or less attempted to eat our truck. We slowed down, moved around them and kept going, taking care to avoid hitting them.
If I had to drive that road all the time, that would get old quick and I probably would cease being quite so careful. So when you tell me that a Naugler dog got hit by a car, I am not even slightly surprised.
The other dog, Angel, was shot when she wandered way far from home in search of food and got aggressive with someone’s dogs, someone who did not know where she came from or anything about her, but didn’t want his dogs or the small children present hurt. They lived there. She didn’t.
None of this was about people not liking the Nauglers. It was about dogs being nuisances. Don’t keep your dogs up, don’t train them, let them aggravate folks, get aggressive with other people’s pets and run cars, and you are gonna have some dead dogs. That’s the way it is.
But then we go back to the discussion about coyotes. Well, we go back to it after Joe tosses in a few barbs at Al, who has nothing to do with any of this.
And Joe says that they are “just gonna use their .308s and do some night hunting.”
More than one high-powered rifle, hunting at night.
A shotgun. That is the only sort of gun that is legal to hunt coyotes at night. A shotgun, and one containing “shells which contain more than one projectile.”
I admit knowing almost nothing about guns. I had to ask around about this. I wanted to know why this law is in place. The answer is that it’s safer. Vision is limited at night (duh) and a single projectile (bullet) will penetrate a target and sometimes exit and hit whatever is behind the target. And at night, you often can’t see what is behind. What’s behind might be your neighbor, or even your own children.
Shotgun shells with multiple projectiles fire a shorter distance and once they hit their target, they stop.
Furthermore, a .308 is a high-powered rifle which is really overkill for hunting coyotes.
So is this statement really about coyotes? Or is Joe inferring something else? I don’t know.
And there’s that pesky, inconvenient statist stuff. You gotta have a license.
No lights until February.
You know, if you intend to break the law, it’s probably not a really good idea to announce it on Facebook. It’s like putting up photos of your sewage disposal system (white buckets) and then getting upset when the Health Department finds them.
I’ll bite, Nicole.
Your “sweet family pet” was not with a family, acting like a pet, or being sweet at the time she was killed. Nobody was hunting her, not even you. She was hungry, apparently, or maybe she was just mean. Whatever the reason, your dog, that you abandoned, wandered a long way from home and attacked a homeowner’s family pets.
She not only threatened the family dogs, she also threatened their children.
So the homeowner shot and killed her on the spot. It’s his right to do that.