One way to discredit someone is to question their mental health.
Well, I guess Nicole would know.
Here’s a nice conversation she had on her Facebook page, the BLH one with so many followers. That one. She put it there so she’d get lots of sympathy and feedback.
And as you can see, they dived right in. Nobody questioned a single word she said. All accusations are taken at face value. She presents no proof, nothing. She won’t even use my name or provide a link to this blog.
This post, by the way, was the one that inspired me to make Nicole her very own movie. I thought it might cheer her up, since she was obviously in a pissy mood.
Oh gee. They’re going to look around and see what I have hidden. Oh my.
So medication won’t help, says Darcy Dallin. I was obviously unloved as a child and nobody loves me now either. Poor me.
But notice that Darcy doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about. She says that Nicole should “delete every post/comment” I make? Exactly how would Nicole go about doing that? This is a blog, not Facebook. I don’t comment on any of the Facebook pages (and rarely read any of them), and she doesn’t own this blog.
I mention that to show that these followers are so clueless, and Nicole just goes on letting them be clueless. She starts with a whole rant about me, but it turns into “they” as this goes on. Who is “they”?
And the first person asks Nicole to post my “personal info” (Nicole doesn’t have most of my personal info, but that’s neither here nor there). Nicole doesn’t say a word.
And now Amber Rial says, “. . . punching them in the face.” Punching who? Me and who? Nicole ignores that and explain that she cannot get a restraining order.
Really? 🙂 I know she can’t. This is a public blog. I am making public commentary on her public commentary. It’s called free speech and it’s protected by the Constitution of the USA.
If I even thought of doing something I would be charged with a crime.
I’m very glad Nicole realizes that fact.
And now we’ve moved right on to “they.” A profile “was made,” a page “was made,” and clients “were contacted.” (I call bullshit on the last thing, and I have no idea about the other two.)
But who did all that? Made by who? Contacted by who? Not me, I assure you. I’m just right here on my little blog doing my little thing. It’s all I have time for, frankly.
Yet, she’s happy to allow me to be blamed.
Stalking: I have never “stalked” Nicole Naugler or any Naugler. Riding down their road, never leaving the road, is not “stalking.”
Harassment: Making public commentary on her public commentary is not harassment. It’s public commentary, protected free speech. She is free to make public commentary back. Notice how I am not whining or complaining or bitching about what she is saying about me? I am just presenting it. I counter her errors (and there are many). But she has an absolute right to speak.
And if anyone has the slightest idea what Eulanda Hibler is talking about, I’d love to know about it.
Sue her! Call the FCC! (WTF?) And more threats of violence (tar and feathers).
And then Nicole accommodates them, but it’s odd. She does so by identifying not me, but Nathan. Why? Would I identify her by saying, “She’s the mother of XXXXX Naugler?”
Nicole and Joe are limited public figures because they placed themselves in the limelight by producing audio recordings of their encounters with law enforcement, by publicly blogging about all that stuff and by encouraging the media to come to their property and take photos and write articles. They inserted themselves into the news. That’s how it works.
But even if she was not a public figure (for instance, I am not, regardless of her silly assertion), I can still make public commentary on her public commentary. It just means that the bar is a bit higher when it comes to libel claims.
Anyway, did you notice how her followers just jumped in to echo, “Yeah, Nicole, she’s mentally ill”? Notice that?
Well, here’s some more.
Now this is libel. The only thing that even slightly protects her is that she never uses my name here. She isn’t really clear about who she is talking about.
And she has no idea what she’s talking about. She’s making all sorts of claims about stuff without a single shred of evidence. In fact, all the evidence she could possibly have gathered leads in an entirely different direction. But she presents none. She just makes claims.
Throughout this blog, I have made it a point to try to use screen shots and links to pages and links to articles to prove my points. And I offer my opinions. Of course I do. That’s what this is about. It’s okay for me to offer my opinions about the evidence that I present.
Sometimes people disagree with my conclusions. And that’s okay too.
But at least there is something to argue about here. This is just Nicole fabricating a little tragic story to somehow make me look bad.
But it’s okay for her to just make up a story, because I’m abusive. At this point, she identifies me as “the blogger.” No name. No link. Just “the blogger.”
And Charles, that shining example of morality and purity, says it’s all because I’m an atheist. Sigh.
Notice though, that this is not starting out the way Nicole intended. The first comment is not exactly flattering. However, so far, nobody has questioned a single word of her story. They just accept it as true.
See? I have no Constitutional right to free speech because she has declared that I mentally abused my son to the point that he committed suicide. (I didn’t and he didn’t.)
But the comments, while critical of her, never once question the “facts” she presented. Not one.
And more of it. Even when asked where she got her information, she’s vague. No links. No information so people can read for themselves. She is the arbiter of what is true.
While I unquestionably offer my opinion here and often acerbically, I generally present my sources and if I don’t for some reason, and I’m asked, I don’t mind one bit offering that information, so you can read what I read and make up your own mind.
I don’t ask you to believe me just because it’s me. Or just because I said so.
I did not drive two hours to drive by the Naugler place. How many times do I have to say that? I drove two hours to visit my friends. The Naugler thing was an afterthought. And I had no camera with me. I wish to hell I had had one. If I had, I would have taken a photo of Joe with his beer and that shit-eating grin on his face.
None of that is true, but I’m repeating myself.
Anyway, I’m “lucky” she just made a FB post and didn’t make a blog? I don’t care if she makes a blog. Do it. Live it up. Enjoy yourself.
And the answer to her question is yes, it’s okay. As I’ve said, what I write is my opinion, backed up with what evidence I can find.
So we’re back to her original public commentary on her public blog. Who, exactly, is the “whiney [sic] blogger” who “thinks we are all crazy”?
Please show me where, on this blog, I have ever once accused Nicole of being mentally ill. I’ll wait while you look.
People have made those sorts of comments, yes, but I have not.
For a while, I even debated whether I would allow comments like that (and there have been a few that I thought went way too far and I didn’t allow them), but her behavior hasn’t exactly inspired me to be kind.
(That comment is about me.)
And this is one of the main reasons I am still here. It’s why I will stay.
I can say “fuck you” too, Nicole.