Gotta Move ASAP

They gotta move. Gotta do it quick. ASAP.  They are in fear.

Seriously, this is utter bullshit.

It’s followed by the predictable comments:  “We are praying for your lovely family.”  “This is terrible.”  “Why do such awful people keep doing all these awful things to you?”

But you see, Nicole just says “the level of attack continues to escalate.”

What?

The sentence carries with it the idea that the “attacks” have been ongoing, and constantly getting worse.

She offers no examples or proof of anything at all. The one real biggy she tried to foist off on people was the Blessed Little Excursion.

Nothing happened that night, except that Joe drank a beer while standing in the road, impeding traffic.  But that’s supposedly an “attack.”

For the record, I was in Breckinridge County on Monday, for much of the day.  I was at Al Wilson’s house.  He and I and Dave and Al’s wife cut up a huge hog and two large lambs. Four people, working as hard as we could go. Then we had dinner and some nice conversation.

Dave and I left before dark, mostly because we had to get home to milk Frances.

The subject of the Naugler family barely was mentioned. Nobody went to their nearby property and “attacked” them.

The comments also included the usual “why don’t you call the police” and the usual “we do and the police won’t do anything.”

Someone suggests guard dogs, not understanding that the Nauglers go through dogs the way my cow goes through hay.

haveyour6

So the issue here is the land.  It’s not the business. They don’t want to move out of the area, just off the land to some other land, because they are in danger.

Her brain-dead followers just go ape shit without knowing the first thing.

I asked Al to explain to me what “have your 6” means.  He said that it’s an aviation term, referring to the 6:00 position on a clock-face. This is the place where the pilot can’t see, so if you “have his 6” you’re telling him that you’re watching his back.

But then somebody asks an obvious question: “Do you think these people will follow you?”

She has no idea who “these people” might be, but it would seem that if somebody is threatening you to the point that you think you have to flee, questioning whether the would-be assailant would follow is a reasonable thing to ask.

willfollow

Nicole totally ignores the “will they follow you” stuff until somebody brings up social media. Then she makes it clear that no way is she leaving social media.

Let’s understand this.

She is so afraid of these nameless “attackers” that she is willing to move. They have a land contract. Leaving would mean that they would simply forfeit every payment they have made. They would have to pay somebody to haul their two garden sheds to a new location and set them up.  She is terrified, and has to do this “ASAP” because the level of these “attacks” is “escalating.”

Yet she makes it clear that she’s going to go right on posting anything and everything about her entire family, her children’s names, faces, detailed information about their likes and dislikes, information about everything you can think of, including Joe posting shit about sex.  And she’s fully aware that this means that the supposed “attackers” will simply “follow,” but they will do their best.

Will do their best to what?

In Syria, there are now and have been people fleeing for their lives from Aleppo. This is not a joke. It’s a massacre and has been happening for several years.  The level of attacks is truly and for real escalating.  And some of those folks have been on social media documenting the events. But do you suppose for a single second that if they could escape, and if they thought that the Syrian army would follow them and subject them to the same horror they currently are living through, that they would just continue to post on social media?

It’s this comment, this one comment, that tells me that nothing at all has happened, that this is Nicole making shit up about “attackers.”  I have  a couple of personal theories about why she does this, but it has nothing to do with “attackers.”

animalschildren

And here’s the second one. If you are in fear, you simply get rid of the animals. Obviously, she isn’t going to ditch the kids, but nobody is forcing her to take a horse she can’t even afford to feed.

shameshoot

trash

Jenna, you dumbass, she already “dropped” a whole pile of names. She’s done it repeatedly. She “dropped” my address as well, and invited people to visit. Nobody took her up on it.

But notice how quick Jenna is to call unknown people “trash” and then follow it up with “prayers”?  Fuck you, Jenna, and your “prayers.”

directneighbor

Beth, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Nicole is not “far from stupid.”  She is actually quite close to it.  In fact, I think she sleeps with it every night.

But now we’re getting someplace.  It’s the “direct neighbors” that she is talking about. The evil, dangerous “direct neighbors.”

Seriously?

Beth says, “We all know the lengths these people will go to.”

We do?  What lengths?  Exactly what?  Riding down the fucking road?  Making some commentary on the internet?  Reporting them for dumping shit on the ground?  Reporting them because they allowed their livestock to run loose all over the damned place and refused to contain them even after they’d been asked to do so?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. “Vehicular assault.”  The assault that didn’t happen.

Do the Naugler neighbors want the Nauglers to move?

I haven’t really interviewed all of them to ask that question, but my guess is yes, they do.  I know I would if I were them. As far as I can tell, every single person who has ever lived in arm’s reach of the Nauglers was glad to see them move.   That doesn’t translate into wishing the Nauglers harm, or doing anything to “attack” them.  It just means that the Nauglers are not well-liked.

I cannot imagine why that is.

leavework

And what would that be, Michelle? All they have worked for?  They have done almost nothing. There are no permanent structures on that property.  There have been zero improvements made to the land.  In fact, they have polluted the land with human waste.

sniper

I don’t even believe this for a second.

However:

good shot

She was referring there to her youngest daughter.

pullpocket

And here we finally get the “escalation” event.

Somebody stopped in front of their property, got out of his truck and pulled “something” from his pocket.

His phone?  A candy bar?  A hand grenade? A love letter?

Who the hell knows?

This, though, is threatening and an attempt to “set us up.”  Remember, this is a woman who turned a small fender-bender (that didn’t even bend the fender) into “vehicular assault.”  If I’d been the person in the truck, I’d have gotten in my vehicle and left immediately as well.

Nicole then further attempts to prove that the “level of attacks” is “escalating” by posting a screen shot of a status from one of the critic sites, the Great and Stupid Show or whatever it’s called.

That was a public status.

Nicole calls it a “kryptic message.”  [Nicole, the word is “cryptic.”  #unschooling ]  She’s trying to make it appear like a private message, but it was completely public.

scarycrypticmessage

This whole thing is ridiculous.  Nicole knows it’s ridiculous. Nobody has threatened them, ever.  They don’t get along well with their neighbors, but that’s not new. They have never gotten along well with any neighbors.

This is not about neighbors or threats or fear.

This is more than likely about not paying the land payment and facing eviction.

Or it’s about it’s damned cold today and will be again tonight and that garden shed is miserable and maybe they are living in the salon and want to have “documented” an excuse for that.

Frankly, I think their neighbors have been more patient than they should have been.  If the Nauglers lived next-door to me, I would have security cameras posted all along the property line, along with a stout fence. I would be recording 24/7.  And I would have shot the goats (and I don’t even own a gun, so I would have had to borrow one.)  I’d have a lawyer on speed-dial.

 

 

 

 

 

Enclosed

howdoisee

Nicole, who never reads this blog, read this blog.  She immediately pounced on this little gem and screen shot it.  Here’s the screen shot blown up so you can read it. It comes from this page.

clipfromhere

She posts that, and then her dumbass leghumper says that this “shows” that I have been on the Shitstead.

God, they are so dumb.

But Nicole then says “Aha! I know how she knows.”

thisishow

And here’s her screen shot from that little conclusion-leaping exercise.

drones

I said that the only enclosures I had ever seen were an unfinished chicken coop and a dog tether.

Uncompleted Chicken Coop

chickencoop

For the dumbass leghumpers, this is a screenshot from Nicole’s video that she posted on her Facebook page months ago.  It is a tour of the unfinished chicken coop/shed.

Dog Tether

dogchained

 

This is just one photo, made and posted by Nicole herself, complete with the Blessed Little Watermark, showing clearly the dog tethered.

Then I speculated that perhaps they added an actual enclosure (run) for the horse.  You know, after the Great Horse Breakout that occurred a while ago.

What I have no knowledge of at all is anything about drones or filming or documentaries. I have no contact whatever with the person/people doing all that. I don’t know if it’s just bullshit or if there is some reality to it.  Hey, Nicole, ever seen any of these drones?  I wouldn’t have any way to know about that since I live miles and miles away from the area.

criminaltrespass

But then we get this brilliant comment.  It’s a cut and paste, of course.  If you take her phrase (the part in quotes) and toss it into Google, it comes up a lot.  Here’s one site.

But I guess Jennifer didn’t bother to read it all.  In addition to the clipped part she reproduces without attribution, in the same paragraph, there’s this.

Laws vary by state, so local laws must be consulted to determine applicable requirements. It is a defense to the crime to show that an element of the crime, such as knowingly entering or remaining without authorization, is lacking. An attempted criminal trespass requires that a defendant act with the intent to commit criminal trespass, and his conduct must constitute a substantial step toward committing the aggravated criminal trespass.

Oh.  That sort  of changes things, doesn’t it?  The supposed criminal has to “act with the intent to commit criminal trespass.”  His conduct has to indicate that he’s trying to trespass without regard for the desire of the property owner.

This means that if some hunter, for example, just wanders onto the Naugler cesspool and has no idea where the boundary lines are (you know, the way the Naugler children have done repeatedly), they can’t just shoot the guy.  They can’t even report him to the police for “criminal trespass.”  He has to do something, and the something can’t just be “taking photos” or “looking around.”

In the case of somebody wandering onto their oh-so-precious Shithole, they would be entitled, certainly, to confront the person and ask what he’s doing there, but that’s all.  No guns blazing. No threats.

. . . they have the backing of local law enforcement.

Think about that a minute. Nicole tries so hard to say that Al and Lisa and I and whoever else have some special relationship with Sheriff Pate. I don’t know Sheriff Pate, have never met him or spoken with him, and I strongly suspect he’d say “Who?” if you mentioned my name to him.

But when Nicole called the police the night of the Blessed Little Excursion, she was infuriated because they didn’t come.  They didn’t come because there was no law broken. You cannot call the police and complain that somebody rode down a public road and you don’t like it.  Well, actually,  you can call.  Nicole did.  But nobody will respond. They will just laugh at you.

physicalnotdeadly

“Charles” finds it funny.  Really?

shoottokillI don’t find this one bit funny.  I consider it a serious threat.

How dare she call you an idiot?

Because she is an idiot.

 

 

 

Threats

nicolethreats

We’re supposed to consider ourselves warned.  No matter that not one single critic I know has ever set foot on Naugler property. Not one. Nobody.

Riding down the road is not trespassing, no matter how much Nicole insists it is.

But I want to talk a bit about the threat Nicole is making here.

We will protect our life and property from anyone trespassing.

She is referring to shooting people.  She wants to “be very clear,” so let’s interpret this threat for exactly what it is. She is threatening to shoot anyone who dares put their big toe on her precious cesspool of a property.

No matter that her children have trespassed on all the neighbors’ land repeatedly. Nobody threatened to shoot her fucking children, yet here she is with the threats.  No matter that the Naugler horse was out running around all over the place in the last few weeks.  Nobody shot the damned horse.

But she’ll shoot anyone she sees as a “trespasser.”

And she links to what she thinks is relevant law.

lawkentucky

Note what this is talking about.  Read it carefully.  You too, Nicole, you idiot. Read it.

The “trespasser” has to be in the act of robbing you, or setting fire to your garden sheds.  You can’t just shoot somebody who wanders onto your land.  You can’t shoot somebody who happens to walk across your land, unless they are doing so to rob you or set fire to your “house.”

You can threaten all you like, and you can tag the sheriff if you wish, but if you act on these threats, you will very likely find yourself wearing prison garb for a very long time.

Don’t pay the slightest attention to that imbecile “Charles Smyth,” whoever s/he happened to be today.

shoottokill

What s/he is suggesting is illegal. The Nauglers need to shut up with these kinds of threats.

She’s basing all this on a claim she made today.

tampering

What’s interesting about this is that the tampering claim was made on the Blessed Little Homestead page, where she was sure to get lots of sympathy and pretty much ludicrous advice (electric fencing, anyone, for the off-grid “homesteaders”?)  But she made the Great Threat on her other page where many of the leghumpers won’t see it.  Why is that?

She doesn’t offer the “proof” she says she has, and I frankly don’t give a damn.  Hell, as I mentioned in a comment, I cannot imagine what “animal enclosures” she is talking about.  I’ve seen nothing that could be construed as an “animal enclosure” except an uncompleted chicken coop and some wire strung to run a dog.  Maybe they added an “enclosure” for the horse.

But the bottom line is this.

Nicole, you need to stop threatening to shoot people.  Nobody is doing anything to harm your family.  We’re criticizing you and Joe because you are jackasses. That’s all. Nothing more.

Tone it down. Remember, you do all the “documenting” you like, but so am I.  Every time you say some stupid thing like this, I am going to make sure it ends up right here forever.

 

Wendy

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. . .

originalcomment

comments2

comments3

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.

 

Free Jinger

freejingerlogo

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.

babyrodriques

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.

babymeme

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.

Free Jinger’s criticism of me began, I think, with the story I told about Al’s daughter. 

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.

nicoletrashywebsite

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.

 

Fake Explanation

notasock

So when Nicole creates a fake profile, it’s a “backup profile.”

When anyone else does it, it’s a “sockpuppet.”

She only uses hers, she says, to manage her pages.

I created that account because my personal page was under constant attack and I didn’t want to lose my FB pages.

See that?  That’s why she created the sock. To prevent Facebook from taking down her pages.  Oh, but that wouldn’t be her fault, of course.  It wouldn’t be because she did anything wrong at all.  It’s because of the “constant attacks.”

Just so we remember, here’s the Wiki, the one that she plagiarized on her new blog, telling us what a sock puppet is and what it is used for.

sockpuppetwiki

. . . to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website.

Get that? A sockpuppet, using the definition from the source that she herself copied word for word without attribution, says that what she did was create a sockpuppet. Not a “backup profile.”  A sockpuppet.

Facebook agreed.

removedbyfb

Most of the socks that have been created by critics have been done in an effort to guard against the sort of attacks that Nicole is so good at either doing or instigating. Disagree with her publicly and it is open season on you.  I know, because it happened to me.  I know, because it continues to happen to me.

Just because we wanted out story to go public, does not give one a free pass to verbally and emotionally abuse my family and I.

Dear FSM, Nicole, please learn how to properly write.  Nobody would say, “does not give one a free pass to verbally and emotionally abuse I.”

But beyond that, for the record, I have never verbally abused Nicole Naugler. I have never emotionally abused her.  And I have never done one single thing, ever, to any of her children. I am more protective of her children than she is.

And yes, she and Joe actively sought to get their story “public.”  Joe’s expression was “viral.”  They got their wish.  As a result, people, a whole lot of people, more than I imagined possible, are interested in the train wreck that is Joe and Nicole Naugler.  So yes, we get a “free pass” to follow the story and comment on it. She gets to write whatever she likes. I get to write whatever I like. That’s the “free pass.” It’s called the First Amendment.

I have no obligation to share the events of my life, and when I do its on my terms.

Bingo. Nicole is under no obligation to share the events of her life, but when she does, she cannot control the blow-back she gets. That’s called “life.” She does not have to have the blow-back.  Nobody is following her around (contrary to her silly claims).  I have no access to information that she does not supply me with, or that is not publicly available.

But she doesn’t get to dictate the “terms.” The only voice she can control, legally, is her own.

notasock2

Nothing I have done has been an attack. I have not stalked their homes, posted photos of their homes, businesss, or families. I have not created FB pages or websites to mock, degrade or defame them. I have not rallied people to personally attack them.

Really?  Exactly what do you call this?  I call it posting my address and a link to a Google image of my property, while mocking my dead child and “rallying people to personally attack” me.

address

 

I am not weak.
I am a fighter.
I wont back down.

Me, neither, chickie.
UPDATE:

commentsaddress

Plus how many socks do the haters have or have had?

Question asked by. . . a sockpuppet.

And then we have this astonishing attempt at spinning this.

Yes, Angela, I did post her address. On a post. Not a page dedicated to her. Not on a blog about her. I made a post.

I see. It’s different if you dox somebody on a Facebook post. That makes it better. That makes it okay.  Especially if you do it to somebody who has never done anything of the sort to you.

It’s fine to go after somebody’s child on a Facebook post, especially if it’s somebody who goes out of her way to avoid showing your children’s faces. That’s fine.

Rolling

emmy

Emmy was brave and wrote a fairly scathing comment on Nicole’s new blog. [I am not going to link there for reasons I will explain in a moment.]

She predicted that she’d be blocked for commenting with less-than-flattering statements.

actuallyroll

But Nicole, pretending to not necessarily be Nicole because she has so many friends helping her write this absolutely fascinating blog, says “Oh, no, you weren’t blocked because we don’t ever do such a thing, ever.  Having free and open discussion is how we actually roll.”

So there.

Right?

Remember the other piece where “Seeking balance” wrote a comment that was awaiting moderation (which never happened)?  Remember that?

Well, when “Seeking balance” went back to Nicole’s little blog to see what happened to the comment, this was the screen that appeared.

blocked

Of course, we all know that Nicole is heavy with the ban hammer.  She does not typically tolerate much in the way of criticism. Her favorite comments are those that say, “You are so awesome. I want to be just like you. And your children are so obviously happy and beautiful and I wish I had eleventy-million children just like you.”  That sort of drivel.

I just checked to be sure.  I have exactly four IP addresses blocked from this blog.  Four. In an entire year.  And I have made it clear that I was going to ditch all four of those folks.  (In one case, I believe that a person’s IP was blocked and then she showed up again using another IP, so I blocked that one as well.  And in one case, the person actually asked me to block her IP address, so I did as she requested.)

We’ve had few problems here.  People have come here and disagreed, but that’s fine. And most of the time, even in disagreeing, people are decent.

But Nicole just doesn’t handle it well, so she blocks and bans and deletes and ejects.

Now, back to what I promised at the start—the reason why I am not going to be linking to her blog.

She is using Wordfence.  See?  Up there in that screen shot?  Nicole has the capability even in the free version of that utility to block any IP address of anyone who comes to her blog from here.

So, if I put up the link and you followed it there, she would know, not who you are, but she’d be able to block your IP address just because she doesn’t like anyone who reads over here, except of course herself.

Now then, if she ever linked to me (and pigs flew), and you came here, I would know it as well, but I would not block anyone for that reason ever. I encourage you to go read her nonsense.  It’s fine. But you’ll have to get there some other way because I do not want to be responsible for you being blocked.

If she does block you, please take a screen shot of the blocked page and send it to me (I’m making a collection) and I’ll help you out with a work-around.

Update:

blockedblh

And they begin to come in.  This person was blocked from the BLH blog, so it’s not just the new one.

blocked2

Infamy

headline blog

When in doubt, make a List of all the people you think are evil and bad—the key players—and start that List with your stepson’s name.

All the people listed, she tells us, are “part of the story.”

But if you look carefully at the List, you’ll see that with the single exception of the stepson, every person whose name appears is somebody she considers an enemy.  Not just “part of the story,” but the evil part.

See, there are other people who are “part of the story.”  People like

“Charles Smyth”

Euland Hibler

Dawn Renee Zimmerman

April Perez

Michelle Fischer

Gnomie the Crocheter

Amanda McMahon

Cheryl DeWitt

Larissa Beraldi

Donny Cook

Stacey Waddell Farness

and last but not least,

Pace Ellsworth.

What about these people?  Lots of folks I know have felt the wrath of some of these people pretty seriously.  They have doxxed folks. They have insulted folks. And some of them have just said dumb shit.

Pace is an enigma. He fits into the story, though. He’s an integral part.

Why aren’t their little bios on that page?

But more importantly, do you see how including the son’s name in the List makes it appear that the son is in fact considered an enemy? He is, of course. Nicole has made that clear from other remarks she’s made about him.

But when confronted with this, she responded with her usual denials.

alexcomment

He’s just a “key player.”  How in the hell is he a “key player”?  He appeared once, briefly, in court, and accused Joe of neglect, cruelty and sexual abuse.  The state of Kentucky chose to ignore his testimony.  That’s it.  That was the whole thing.

Yet he’s a “key player” and Pace, who engineered a loan that set Nicole up in business, is not.  The son is a “key player,” and yet, “Charles Smyth” who has an uncanny way of showing up to defend Nicole in a matter of seconds after she is criticized, is not. The son is a “key player,” and yet Michelle Fischer, who doxxed critics, is not.

Alex is not a “key player.”  His role lasted one day and was brief. He is on the List because, like the rest of us on there, he is persona non grata.

The question is why.  Is he considered bad because he dared testify against his father? Or is he considered bad because his testimony hit way too close to a nerve?

I know what I think.

*The screen shot of the comment awaiting moderation was sent to me, of course, by the author.  It is probably not going to see the light of day, but I thought it deserved to be read, so it’s here.

Easy

It just shouldn’t be this easy.

Someone who shall not be named wrote a comment on Nicole’s latest attempt at blogging.

Wait.  I’ll just let you see it.

messagereply

In between all this silly flattering stuff about the “beautiful family” and everyone being “sick in the head” was a very hard truth.

Why are there so many critics?  Why are all these critics so disparate?  (Not “desperate,” Nicole. “Disparate.”  Look it up.) Most of the critics have almost nothing in common apart from their visceral loathing of the Naugler parents.  Why?

Yes, some of us in course of this debacle have become friends. But we weren’t friends before this.  Regardless of Nicole’s stupid assumptions, I have no ties to the Breckinridge County Sheriff’s Office. I accepted a friend request from someone who reads my blog. That’s it.  And until Nicole discovered that this person was my Facebook friend, I didn’t know she had anything to do with the sheriff.

At any rate, this comment was not made by a supporter. It was made by a critic who wanted to point out that when everyone hates you, the problem is probably with you, not everyone else.

Nicole, being clueless, didn’t get it, but hopefully some of her brighter readers will.

It’s not her “political and philosophical beliefs.”  Nobody cares about that. I didn’t even know about the whole anarchy thing until well after this blog was started, certainly a long time after Joe came sneaking over to my Facebook page and snooped around and then threatened to sue me.

What motivates me is being told I cannot speak (by Joe), threatened with a lawsuit for having an opinion (by Joe), and then having my son called a dead junkie (by Nicole).  Similar stories are the major part of what motivates others. Joe and Nicole have earned this.

And in case Nicole doesn’t believe she’s been had, here’s the comment awaiting moderation.

awaitingmoderation