The blogger, her troll, and their minions are all in the same [sic].
Now you see why I posted that stuff about the business yesterday. I knew she would do this. And I knew she’d do it no matter what I said.
I am not exactly sure, though, who “the troll” is. I am also not certain who my “minions” are. People who comment here? Dunno. Do I communicate with people who comment here? Sure. They comment. I sometimes reply. That’s called “communication.”
Am I in contact with some of them apart from this blog? Yes, I am. Some of them have become my very good friends. There is positive community that has developed from this.
But I want to talk a bit about friends.
Real-life friends are sometimes virtual. I have real-life friends who I have never met in person. I have one friend I would consider to be a very good friend (and she is not in any way associated with the Naugler thing, so quit speculating, Nicole) and yet we’ve never met face-to-face. We talk on the phone frequently, sometimes for lengthy periods. We talk about not just issue that drew us together in the first place, but about life and philosophy and art and music and you-name-it.
I have other online friends who I have gone out of my way to meet in real life, and they have become my real-life friends.
There’s nothing wrong with this.
But Nicole confabulates a bunch of stuff to make her claim that somehow every critic she has is connected to me personally.
My Facebook page is wide open. It’s almost entirely public. I did that several years ago in part because the Romancing people were doing their best to get into it and find stuff. It was just easier to not bother with trying to keep it all private. My attitude was “fuck ’em” and I opened it up. For another thing, by having it wide open, I collect what a friend of mine and I call “butterflies.” A butterfly is a loonie who wanders onto my page and begins making ludicrous statements and outrageous arguments. They are sort of fun, when I’m in the mood for that.
However, I keep my friend list private. Nobody can see it, not even my friends. I do that because the Romancing folks started attacking my friends just for being my friends. I don’t want to subject my friends to the fun that comes from these blogs.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that people can’t figure out that somebody is my Facebook friend. If the friend has their friend list public, then I will show up as their friend. There are also other less common ways to figure it out.
But going by who comments on my page, or who “likes” something won’t tell you anything. Anyone on earth can comment on my page, and anyone can “like” anything.
Furthermore, because my Facebook page is wide open and almost entirely public, I am not really very picky about who my friends are. I don’t really care. Send me a friend request, Nicole. I’ll accept it. The only friend requests I ignore are the ones from people in Bangladesh and the very obvious fakes. I also have “following” set up, so I have followers as well as friends.
I’m saying all this because Nicole has decided that I am in cahoots with the person who put up the fake grooming page solely on the basis of interaction on Facebook. Her take on it is that if somebody “likes” something on my page, or somebody is my Facebook friend, or somebody comments on my Facebook page, then it follows that we are close personal friends.
This is simply not true. I am a blogger. One blog has a very limited audience. The other, this one, has a much wider appeal. People send me friend requests just because they “know” me from the blog. They read here and they send me a request. That’s great and I accept them.
It does not mean that we’re bosom buddies and collude daily about the evil Naugler family. Hell, Joe was “following” me for a while. Does that mean Joe and I were colluding?
The truth is much simpler. The truth is that the Nauglers have made a lot of enemies. They’ve been at this making-enemy thing for years. They have left a trail of burnt-out bridges behind them that stretches out for miles, from Maine to Texas to Kentucky.
This is not my fault.
. . . there would be evidence. There is not.
Well, actually there is. At least, around here, there is. I didn’t post the piece about the horse until I was absolutely sure there was a horse. Nor did I make claims about whether or not the horse was a permanent addition because at that point I wasn’t sure.
Every word I said about the bucket-shitting was proven in court.
I’ve posted articles about Joe’s criminal record. What is not factual about those?
I rely heavily on screen shots and Nicole’s own words.
She retorts with vague “you make stuff up” comments. She says “there would be evidence and there is not.” What “evidence”?
There were, in fact, white buckets being shat in and dumped on the ground. There were, in fact, goats running loose. There were, in fact, multiple batches of chicks being killed willy-nilly. Maggie does, in fact, go down to the neighbor’s house frequently when she manages to get loose. Angel did, in fact, threaten somebody’s dogs and behave aggressively and got shot. Nobody “stole” her, which is what Nicole accused people of doing.
She did, in fact, threaten to kill her own dog if people didn’t find a home for him.
Of course, I offer my opinions on this stuff. That’s what a blog is, for Pete’s sake. That’s what I get to do. But I am pretty sure that nobody reading any of this has trouble determining what is fact and what is opinion.
If my goal was to be liked, I wouldn’t be so opinionated.
Well, it’s a relief to know that.