This all seems to have started, or at least been resurrected, with a couple of photos somebody took of the Blessed Little Garden Shed and the Blessed Little White Bucket House. I won’t go back over all that. You can click on the link and read all about it if you haven’t already.
But Nicole kind of went apeshit about this. No matter that she and her buddies have been posting photos of people’s houses, sending love letters, calling employers, and posting and mocking people’s children now for months. This was done to her and she threw a little tantrum.
I admit that I was completely mystified by this. Several questions came to mind immediately. First, that photo wasn’t taken recently. It was actually taken last fall, as I found out later.
Second, what does the “my” mean (highlighted in yellow)? Is she saying “my video of the accident” or “the video of my accident”? Who had the accident?
And exactly what is she talking about with “an agreement”?
After what seemed like ages, trying to piece this together, what has emerged is that last fall, some woman rear-ended the Naugler van, and Nicole insists that it was intentional. She is accusing the woman of vehicular assault.
She says she has “video” of the incident (I cannot call it an accident, because Nicole is insisting that it was not, in fact, accidental, but intentional). I’m not exactly sure how one would go about videotaping somebody ramming your van from the rear when you didn’t know it was going to happen, but I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that in typical Naugler fashion, since they always have a phone handy, she videotaped the conversation after the incident, not during it.
And she says that a law enforcement officer was present at the scene. It’s in her video. But who knows about a police report.
Notice this. Not only is she bad-mouthing the woman who hit them, but she’s also insinuating that the woman took the photographs of the shed. There is really no other conclusion to draw from all this. The rear-ending incident happened, as we have subsequently found out, in November 2015. The photos of the shed, clearly taken quite recently, were made public in the last two weeks.
But it’s the same woman, Nicole implies. And because she thinks it’s the same woman, she’s going to “make it public.”
Okay. Let’s make it public, Nicole.
The next door neighbor’s daughter is the person who isn’t “nice” and who intentionally committed vehicular assault. And Nicole is “nice” and “respectful” and “let them handle it privately.” Whatever the hell that means.
What you have to convince me of involves three things.
First, Nicole is having hysterical hissy fits because some unknown person took some photos of their horrible little shed. She is literally going apeshit over it. However, some “not nice” person intentionally rammed their van last fall and she never said a single word. Not a word that I know anything about. Convince me that is not sheer malarkey.
Second, I see no damage to that vehicle in the photo. This wasn’t a still from a video shot before the ramming incident, because how would Nicole have known ahead of time that the evil woman was going to ram her? Furthermore, the officer is in her video, so it was taken after the fact. When you hit somebody intentionally in the rear, you do it with the front of your car. Anyone see any damage there?
Third, I’m trying to imagine a state trooper coming to the scene of a wreck and the woman who rear-ended the other vehicle admits to him that she just did it on purpose because, well, whatever. She just admits that she used a weapon weighing about three thousand pounds and tried to injure/kill another person/family. And Nicole says, “Oh, gee, I don’t want to get your father upset because he lives right next door to me, and he gave us summer sausage and we liked it, so let’s just settle up privately and forget it.” And then the officer, who has an admission from this woman that she tried to injure/kill another person, just says, “Well, if it’s okay with you, that’s fine.” Because you know, who cares?
But notice some stuff here. It’s really not nice to call your neighbor a crazy bitch on public social media. Probably no summer sausage in the Naugler future. In addition, according to this account, they weren’t rear-ended at all, but instead the “crazy bitch” tried to run them off the road. Those are two very different things. I’ve got a feeling the “crazy bitch’s” car never even touched the Naugler van.
Here’s a photo of the next-door neighbor’s house and garage. the red arrow points to the roof of the Blessed Little Garden Shed. These buildings are relatively close together, much closer than I realized.
I don’t know if the Blessed Little Assault took place on the very private nobody-can-drive-on-it gravel road pictured here, or on up the road. I suspect it was on up the road some, because in the photograph of the Assault Vehicle, the road appears to be paved.
But anyway, these two families are pretty close together by country standards. They don’t seem to have had such problems getting along when the Nauglers were in the Blessed Little Shitshack, which was located way far back on the Blessed Little Property, down near the Blessed Little Cesspool Pond. They wouldn’t have been within eyesight of the neighbor’s house, I don’t imagine.
We have lots of animals here. They do not “free-range” because we don’t want them wandering all over hell and half of Georgia. The only exceptions are our two cats, who are here for rodent control and who need to wander around.
I assure you that the chickens, the dogs, and most definitely the goats visit the neighbors frequently. Often. Especially this time of year. The spring shoots are coming up and goats are browsers. The neighbor has shrubbery, because the neighbor has a normal (and nice) house and has foundation plantings. Goats love that stuff. A little nibble here and a big bite there.
The Nauglers have 8 goats. They have advertised seven of them for sale and say they are keeping one.
But here’s what is sort of odd.
What does that mark on the goat’s neck look like to you?
It, of course, looks like a gash in the goat’s neck.
It is not.
Nicole went to the trouble to take a little video of the goat’s neck to show that there is no gash. What there is, though, is a collar, along with some pink ribbon that is sort of wadded/hanging/wrapped around the collar. That’s what looks like a gash.
So why does a “free range” goat have on a collar?
In the first place, anyone who puts a collar that is not a breakaway on a goat is just asking for a dead goat. I know, because we did it once, as rank newbies. Once, about thirty years ago. And we buried a goat. And I cried for days. I felt so badly about it. Goats do not do well tied up like that. They are browsers, as I’ve mentioned, not grazers like the calf pictured below. They try to eat from trees and shrubs and it’s very easy for them to get a collar caught in a branch. And if that happens, they don’t just stand there until you come rescue them (which is more than likely what a cow would do). They fight and wiggle and hang themselves.
This is a Jersey bull calf, not a goat, but he is wearing a goat “collar.” It’s a plastic chain with one link that is breakaway. I bought them at a goat supply site. They are handy for a couple of reasons: we can differentiate between the calves by color, and they serve as a handle if you don’t tug really hard. If you try to actually catch a calf (or goat) by grabbing the chain, you’ll be left with it in your hand.
Don’t stake goats. Fence them. Of course, the fence has to be better than Naugler fencing, or it won’t keep them in.
If you don’t fence them, they will go over to the neighbor’s house and eat the shrubbery. You’ll have to try to tie them up using a makeshift collar to keep them home. And then you’ll have to sell your goats. And then you’ll have to go on social media and accuse the neighbor’s daughter of trying to kill you with her car so you can have some revenge.
All this makes me wonder who is the crazy bitch in this whole situation.
Well, golly gee, we have retreat. There is “no evidence” that the not-nice person, you know, that “crazy bitch,” who supposedly rear-ended the Naugler van on purpose is involved in “the troll pages.”
Or maybe there is evidence that accusing somebody falsely of vehicular assault on social media, complete with a photo of her car showing no damage whatever, is . . . libel.