BLH demand

Well, bless her heart.

She posted this:


Nicole thinks she’s a big-time photographer. She uses a phone.  She puts her precious watermark on her photos so nobody can steal them, because they are just so valuable.  Works of art, don’t you know.

Anyway, it’s a driveway leading to a barn.

Here’s another driveway.  It doesn’t lead to a barn.


See? I put a watermark and copyright symbol on it, just because. . . It’s not pretty and I’m sure nobody wants it, but what the hell.

However taking photos of a persons home, workplace or other areas they frequent with the purpose of intimidation and harassment and using those photos on a page that targets said person and continuing unwanted contact with said person. That is stalking and harassment.

Actually, it’s not. Nicole just totally made that up.  The first part is not even an actual sentence. She is trying to sound all legal but it’s a complete flop.  #unschoolingfail  I have never once “contacted” her.  Ever.  Joe, however, has twice contacted me, once via Facebook (unwanted conversation) and once by stopping my free passage in the middle of the public road. Nicole has contacted me, by her own admission, at least once via this blog, personally, with a vile message. I suspect she is complicit in many other contacts as well. So who is doing the stalking here?

How is that photo above of the Blessed Property’s driveway in any way “intimidation” or “harassment”?  If it is, why is it not “intimidation” or “harassment” to take photos of other people’s property without their permission, even after they have asked you not to do it?

fair use
From Stanford University’s website – click image to link

Fair use.  It means that I can quote from Nicole’s blog or from her public Facebook pages. It means that I can use her photos, provided that I credit her (in other words, I don’t pretend they are my photos) and provided I don’t use them to make money, and provided I don’t take all of them.

I can do this in order to make commentary and/or criticize her public articles and comments.

That’s called Free Speech.  It’s in the First Amendment—you know, the Constitution.

And anyone can take a picture of her property from the road. Anyone. Anytime they wish.  It’s not “stalking.”  It’s not “intimidation.”  It’s not “harassment.” Nobody has used a telephoto lens in order to peer into her windows. The few photos I’ve seen (and very few have been taken of the Blessed Property) are obviously taken from the road while driving by. At least one wasn’t even taken of the Blessed Little Property at all, but was taken from the neighbor’s property and is basically of his place. The Naugler property is simply in the background.

The reason these photos were taken isn’t to “intimidate” the Nauglers.  It’s primarily to show that the Blessed Little Homestead is not really a bucolic paradise, but a crappy piece of property that is unkempt and getting worse rather than better.  It’s to illustrate that the Blessed Little Garden Shed is, in fact, just a garden shed and not a “tiny house.”  In other words, those photos serve as visual criticism of Nicole’s public claims about the place, just like I used Google Earth to show that the Blessed Little Wilderness is not wilderness at all. It’s the same thing.

. . .sharing posts from Blessed Little Homestead Facebook page, sharing posts from Nicole C. Naugler Facebook page. . .

Here’s the deal. Facebook puts a little “share” button on public comments and links and photos and stuff like that. You can “share” stuff if you just hit that little button.  Nobody can say “you can’t share my stuff.”  To stop your posts or photos from being “shared,” you need to set them to “friends only.”

If  you have a public Facebook page (a “like” page), that’s not a possibility. By definition, a “like” page is supposed to be a page where you are trying to reach as many people as possible. They even ask you to pay money so more people will see your magnificent content.  You can’t just turn around and ask Facebook to restrict who sees it.

“Facebook, I only want people who like me to see my posts.”

Then get a private page and set it to friends only.

. . .commenting on or sharing Blessed Little Homestead YouTube videos. . .

You can disable comments on YouTube videos any time you like.  You can also set them to “private,” so that only people who get the URL directly from you can even see them.

Oh, but that isn’t what Nicole wants at all. She wants only people to see them who approve of her and will say nice things about her.

I demand that it stops now.

I guess Nicole needs to introduce a bill to Congress to amend the Constitution so that it suits her better.


57 thoughts on “Demanding”

  1. But the F.B.I.

    The D.O.J.

    The militia?

    Naugler, Naugler and partners legal firm?

    You sure about this Sally?

    The Nauglers seem to spend a great deal more time in a courtroom than you.



  2. Ma needs to stop flinging shit and her weight around.

    If she don’t want her shit shared make it private.

    Weekend is here so she is getting manic again, just like regular clockwork.

    She screamed about using the share feature to share photos per facebook rules. So when others do that she has no right to scream about anything.

    As for her suing anyone she needs to find a lawyer to do it pro bono which is doubtful other wise she can not do crap about it cause she don’t have a pit to piss in so she can not afford a lawyer.

    Just another spoiled brat hissy pissy fit from Nikki Nag.

    Their threats of the DOJ and FBI have about as much teeth as if they claimed Scotland Yard. LMAO


  3. Kinda off subject, but did anyone else notice she admitted her children are the other modernators on blh Facebook page?
    Great blog Sally.


  4. My first thought when I saw that picture of that driveway and old barn was uh oh who pissed the blessed ones off now. Who are they are attempting to intimidate now?


  5. I spelled that wrong on purpose …just in case you wonder. And it was more difficult to spell it wrong than the right way.


  6. “But the F.B.I.”

    Fucking Blithering Idiot, right? That describes Joe well but it does leave out his essence. Eau de Blowhard. Apparently he soaks in it.


  7. I usually agree with most of what’s in this blog, and no disrespect, but your take on fair use of images is incorrect. Here’s a link where a blogger will share their own experience on using images that belong to someone else.

    As a photographer and a history in journalism, I can assure you that it is not perfectly alright, or legal, to use someones images without their permission.


  8. Yeah, those were some fairly tortured sentence…fragments? Must be so frustrating to them, this darned first amendment thing. It’s not just for them and all of us are protected by it. I dunno, I just had my Mystery Science Theater 3000 vision up again with Tom and Crow commenting on the Jabba character lounging in crocs and the spouse throwing a tantrum on the ground (I would say floor but I’m not all that convinced there is one). The thesis of the tantrum is that the people they should be scamming aren’t cooperating with being scammed. They’re comparing notes of being scammed and threatened. And (hear a big adult-age toddler wail) no matter how much they tell their prey not to compare notes, they do it anyway and the sheriff won’t stop it! Neither will the FBI!


  9. I’m surprised that NN hasn’t used the spin that BLH is some kind of white trash parody, it would have been easier for her to hide the neglect of her children that way. Then when she received any negative comments, she could just say “Its a joke, I was just playing around.”


  10. Where would we be without a Friday/weekend tantrum?

    Nicole, stand on your white bucket (hopefully empty, before turned over to step on it) and stomp your foot demanding that people stop commenting on your life.

    Thing is, you don’t have that right. Just as I can’t stop you from churning out made-up drivel about your homestead life. I take your right to spout whatever idiocy you want seriously. You’re protected by the First Amendment, and so am I to call you out.

    You don’t like it? Get off flipping social media. Focus on your children, how they learn to read (!), and accomplishing your goals. Like….the cabin that was to be built this summer. The rainwater collection system? Yes, some months off social media. People really will forget about you.

    But that is what you are afraid of.


  11. Is it just me or is she just posting things to get attention? She says she wants people to leave her alone, but cannot stand it when nobody posts about her. She didn’t get the response she wanted from the breastfeeding photo so she posted photos of someone else’s property.


  12. 5 Facebook pages for 1 mother of 11? On top of that, a YouTube account? I just can’t understand why the virtual world gets so much more attention from NN, than her real world kids? It’s crazy! I have 3 grandkids that spend every other weekend with me. Trust me, when those little imps are over, I have no time for social media! Actually, I prefer to give them all my attention! They are only little for a blink of an eye!


  13. Different situation. I am making public commentary on her public commentary. That includes her photos. I can’t comment without the photos, and have it be meaningful. That blogger was basically borrowing copyrighted material to illustrate her blog, when the copyrighted material didn’t have shit to do with her blog. She needed a photo of a rose, so she went to Google and found one.

    I never do that. Ever.

    Photographs don’t fall into some special category. They are copyrighted material, just like words. Nicole regularly clips portions of this blog and reproduces them on her blog or on her FB page. Tit for tat. I never complain about it. And she has allowed dozens of my personal photographs to be posted on her pages. I’ve never said a single word about that either. She is making public commentary (and some of that public commentary is illustrated) about my public commentary. It’s the same thing I’m doing.


  14. Why yes, an observant one can see her hypocrisy. For example, a few months ago, Nicole was waiting outside a store while one of the kids was returning a movie rental to the Red Box. She observed a car parked in a handicapped space, in which she judged the validity of their parking in that space. She took a photo of the rear of the vehicle, license plate intentionally highlighted. She posted her opinion and the photo, on her public Facebook page. Commenting about the woman in the car, and the license plate having a particular identifiable personalized plate. Although it was her scrutiny, this woman did not have the privilege to park in that space. Her very public post and personal judgement of this woman, along with identifying information on this woman by her license plate information, is directly conflicting what Nicole demands no one do to her.

    Another was a photo of a neighbor’s dog taking a dump in a field. Her personal scrutiny and judgement of the situation, published on her very public BLH Facebook page.

    Quite a few other examples. Remember when she posted the sheriff’s photo, as her profile pic?

    So I call bull hockey. Her demanding is like a wet noodle. Floppy.

    By the way, what’s the deal with a watermark? A quick google on pros/cons of a watermark, “Ultimately, the watermark offers limited success for theft prevention. If you don’t want someone to steal your digital image, the best way to prevent that is to not put it on the Web.”

    Just as you state you have every right to photograph from public space, onto someone else’s personal domain and property…so does everyone else. Freedom!


  15. Just wanted to add some additional information regarding watermarked photos,

    “Also, as painful as it is, there have been a lot of cases of image theft in the recent past where the thieves were brought to court, but not to justice. If the unauthorized use of your photograph ends up generating financial gain or fame for someone else, you have every right to be upset and call them out on their inexcusable behavior, but if they can convince a judge that they “repurposed” your art under the Fair Use provision of copyright law, you will likely be left on the losing end of the argument with steep legal fees.”


  16. Oh Nikki your so wrong, your so wrong you blow our mind
    Hey Nikki, Hey Nikki

    You’ve been skimming folks for years, and that’s a little long. You think you have the right, well we think you have it wrong.
    Why wont you say good bye so we can leave you alone Nikki.

    Hey Nikki, Hey Nikki

    Cause when you say you’ll sue we always know you wont, your being quite the pill, Nikki shut the fuck up. Every night you still have some white buckets to dump Nikki

    Oh Nikki what a pity you don’t understand, you intrude other peoples privacy, but don’t take pictures of your land.
    Oh Nikki your so petty cant you understand, your threats wont fly Nikki
    oh what to do, what to do, we ain’t skeered Nikki.


  17. Oh Sally! And Al! You two make me laugh so much. Sally, you have bigger balls than…than….um…a bull?? Yes. Definitely bigger than bulls’ balls. lol

    I just ADORE that you two ain’t intimidated in the LEAST by her BS! You just keep rationally, calmly and verrrry succinctly refuting every. last. statement. she makes! And I’m lovin’ it!

    Proud ‘Enlightener’ (thanks other poster whose name I forget now) and Sally LegHumper. #proud

    Keep up the most excellent work.


  18. That top photo is actually pretty nicely composed. The ruts leading to the open barn door, the fenceposts framing the ruts, an overall impression of gray against green… But I would either crop the picture where pavement meets gravel, to make the sky look bigger and emphasize the lonely feeling, or go back and take a wider shot that included more of the pavement and the same amount of sky, to give a sort of “the road goes ever on and you don’t know where it will take you next, Frodo my lad” feeling.

    Imagine if Mrs. Naugler had taken some time to shop her stuff around to stock photo sites. They do pay amateurs, if the shots are good. But blaming and harassing other people for her poor life choices was more attractive, I guess.


  19. Your first line says it all, Sally. We all know, here in the South, what “Bless her heart”, means!
    It’s our very nice way of saying F#%k her! At least this is how I often use it 🙂


  20. I’m wondering how loudly they will complain when Google earth updates its maps. What is she going to do? Tent the whole property?


  21. @ Kentucky Bred

    O’Let’s not forget when Nicole posted the “Fender Bender Police Report” clearly showing the other drivers Social Security Number online.

    If I’m not mistaken that is a felony.


  22. O’Let’s not forget when Nicole posted the “Fender Bender Police Report” clearly showing the other drivers Social Security Number online.

    Yep. I’d forgotten about that.


  23. Sally is correct on fair usage. I teach an academic integrity course to graduate students, and we cover infringement and/or fair usage of intellectual material that is and isn’t registered. For instance if N wanted to take anyone to court over the usage of her watermarked photos, she might win an infringement case but how much money has she lost due to the usage? While the watermark suggests she is trying to lay claim to her work, it is not a substitute for actual copyright registration, so if she did try to take anyone to court, in the end, she would only recoup lost profits due to the usage (she isn’t selling anything and the bloggers who participate in fair usage aren’t making a profit on those things either), and she would have to pay her own court cost because her work isn’t registered. Nevertheless, if her work is registered, fair usage covers what Sally does on this blog. She is using a small amount of N’s work for the purpose of criticism and in some instances parody. Plus, if the work isn’t registered and has no commercial value, it really doesn’t garner much protection under the law; in fact, if N had the money to pay an attorney to take anyone to court, the lawyer would have to decide what is the reason and what would be the gain. For instance, if the judge thinks the case is coming before his court as a petty, vindictive act, then he or she would not be happy. And can you see her majesty, Blessed, screaming that the evil neighbors, government, etc. are out to get her? The judge would not be amused.


  24. Why oh why can NN not see the irony??? Sometimes I swear she has a split personality. Or is the other personality Joe? Maybe that’s why they haven’t done the evaluations, they have to be done together to put out the “approved” blathering statist mission statement.


  25. Why don’t she make up her mind? She sets her pages to public on social media, for whatever attention she seeks. My assumption is for branding, and the forwarding fundme donations.

    Sorry, Nicole, you can’t have it both ways. Seeking public attention, but only the attention you want. Very public on social media is dialed for an assortment of followers, critics included. Photos included.

    I question the statement, “I would ask that you refrain from the same of any person that comments on the above referenced social media accounts.” Practice what you preach, sister! I saw volumes of photos taken from Sally’s personal page by Nome, and posted on BLH page. And you didn’t admonish the activity.


  26. She’s taken some beautiful photos from her phone, and I know people who make good money selling photos they take with phones. But not every photo needs a watermark.

    In my state, taking pictures with the intent of threatening or intimidating is harassment. Following someone enough can cross the line into stalking. But that applies to private citizens. This is why the paparazzi can photograph celebrities in public, and their homes. When you make your life public on purpose and seek celebrity like she has, you give up some of your rights. This blog is on the internet, but Sally isn’t trying to make her personal life into entertainment. Nicole has one of her accounts listed as “entertainer,” and she does try to advertise her life and family for public interest and money. I’m not saying I agree with going to people’s homes and taking pictures, but it’s part of what comes with being a celebrity, and why a lot of people decide not to ever go after being famous.

    I’d be intimidated is someone was stopping by my home to take pictures. That’s very much an “I’m watching you” tactic. But I also don’t try to make my personal family life famous. I don’t have a blog set up solely to promote my family. She does. She’s made her life public interest, and keeps trying to do it more.

    ““Facebook, I only want people who like me to see my posts.””

    Or set up a private group and invite people to join.

    I think it’s funny that she doesn’t want people to share comments of anything that anyone makes on any of her pages, PUBLIC comments on PUBLIC pages, when she’s done so much worse than just share a comment for commentary.


  27. Couple of off topic questions:

    1. Why has N.N started a Homeschooling Blog when they are avid supporters of Un-Schooling and do not Homeschool at all?

    2. Why is BLH now calling the garden shed a ” Tiny House ” when the two are the complete opposite?

    IMO, Something fishy is going on.
    When the story first broke the Naugler’s claimed to be Off-Grid, Homeschooling and many of those type media outlet’s came to their defense. But dumped them when they saw that was not the case at all.

    3. Is BLH getting set for “Round Two” knowing those Mental Evaluations are coming?

    Is it just me, or am I smelling something being cook-up in the shit pot that doesn’t look good?


  28. MyOhMy, look into Richard Prince. He’s an “artist” who takes photographs of other REAL artists’ photos, or screencaps things in Instagram, passes them off as his own, then sells them for major money. He’s made millions doing that. The courts have repeatedly sided with him that photographing someone else’s photograph is artistic expression, and that he has the right to claim they’re his and sell them, and same for screencapping on Instagram.

    There’s a LOT left out of that link you posted. She doesn’t say if she attributed the photo or not, and if her blog is commercial, that is, it has the intent of making money somehow (like selling her books), then using others’ photographs to illustrate her page isn’t fair use. Commentary about the photo without commercial intent is fair use. Using photos even on commercial sites can be legal if they’re for comparison purposes. Know how I know? I’ve been through it. I have a commercial website where I use certain types of copyrighted photos to draw comparisons, and I’ve gotten a major company that you’ve heard of (guaranteed you’ve heard of them) to back down.

    Roni also didn’t say if she settled out of course, or it if went to trial and was decided against her. A common and underhanded tactic cruel attorneys will use is they’ll push a suit on and on and on until the defendant finally settles because they can’t afford to fight more. Monsanto is so notorious for doing this to small farmers who don’t use their patented seeds that many farmers now just shut up shop as soon as they find out they’re getting sued because they know they can’t afford to see the fight through.

    You really shouldn’t take a blog that leaves out so many variables as representing the law.

    Sally’s use is fair use. It’s as fair use as a media outlet sharing Nicole’s photos on the news about her shitstead, as long as she’s credited. And as Richard Prince has taught us, sometimes you don’t even need to credit the photographer (but ALWAYS credit the photographer because it’s a dick-move not to).

    Here are some links on Prince to get you started:

    This poor artist thinks he has a chance when courts have already ruled in Prince’s favor for he EXACT same thing:

    And Prince has been doing this since the 70’s, when he started out photographing Marlboro cowboy ads, which he is legally allowed to still sell, Marlboro writing intact, and claim it as his own:

    So I really wouldn’t worry about using photos for commentary on a blog because an author used a photo, probably uncredited and tried covering her rear by saying she “unknowingly used a copyrighted photo”, on a blog where she advertises her books, and left out crucial info like if it actually went to court, or if she settled.


  29. Monsanto is so notorious for doing this to small farmers who don’t use their patented seeds that many farmers now just shut up shop as soon as they find out they’re getting sued because they know they can’t afford to see the fight through.

    This is actually mythical. Monsanto is demonized and it’s popular to hate them, but they don’t really do this. The farmers who have been sued by Monsanto knew exactly what they were doing – they were stealing the seed. They knew they weren’t supposed to do it. They violated the contract, or in a couple of cases, never signed one in the first place and just stole the seed outright.

    Sometimes, farmers violate the terms of the contract and Monsanto can work with those farmers and no lawsuit results. But occasionally (and it is pretty occasional, not every third minute or anything) they do sue.

    One other thing. When Monsanto does sue and wins, they donate all the money they get to charity. Did you know that? So they are not motivated to sue based on any sort of monetary gain.


  30. Well well look at that. She’s at it again. Her Nicole C Naugler page is down.

    So tired of her acting the victim when she clearly isn’t.


  31. Ok so I found wheat growing by the dog pen. It had to of come from the bad flood in February. I saved the seeds so I could replant it next year. It was maybe 15 stalks. If I replant and it’s “their seed” is it stealing?


  32. Ok so I found wheat growing by the dog pen.

    Live it up. Plant it. There is no such thing as commercially grown Roundup Ready wheat. It’s been tested, but never marketed.

    But let’s use your hypothetical and change the species to corn.

    First, if you did that – saved corn that you found growing on your property just because for some reason you liked the looks of it, and it was “maybe 15 stalks,” you aren’t going to grow much corn. Monsanto doesn’t care. You wouldn’t know if it was “their” seed or not.

    Second, here’s an example of what a man did who was actually sued by Monsanto. He knew that his neighbor was growing Roundup Ready soy. So he planted soy in a neighboring field, purposely, in order to get cross-contamination. Then he purposely saved the seed and replanted. He sprayed that soy with Roundup. That killed all the plants that hadn’t gotten the GMO genes and left the ones that had. He harvested that crop and saved the seed. He redid this something like three or four times.

    And then he had “Roundup Ready” soybeans that he hadn’t paid for.

    It wasn’t an accident. It was something he did on purpose in order to rip off Monsanto.

    They have a patent on their product and a contract that farmers sign in order to the buy the seed. That patent is only good for X years. The first-generation Roundup Ready corn is either patent-free or will be very soon. At that point, anyone can grow it, save the seed, market the seed, whatever. Monsanto has only a limited time to recoup all the money they invested in developing Roundup Ready seed. These farmers seriously tried to steal from Monsanto and that’s why they were sued.

    They weren’t innocent folks who simply saved some seed without knowing what it was and oh, my, look, I have GMO plants growing in my field and I have no idea how they got there. You can’t tell the difference between Roundup Ready corn and regular field corn just by looking at it.

    One other thing is that almost no farmers ever save seed anyway. It’s not as easy as the “sustainable” people want people to think. I know because I’ve done it. My biggest success was with peanuts, but there are only a few varieties of peanuts on the market in the first place. I’ve done it with tomatoes (harder, but certainly possible). I’ve done it with squash, but that is really iffy because it cross-pollinated with other stuff like pumpkins so easily and you get these odd children. Corn? Forget it. To do it right, you have to take a few ears from here and there out of your field, let them dry on the plant (which may not be when you want to harvest the corn, especially sweet corn), and then you only save a few kernels from each ear (because the kernels are genetic clones). You have to have a lot of corn to do this right and it’s labor-intensive. Most farmers just aren’t going to bother. Seed is cheap.

    I can talk about this forever. It’s one of my pet peeves. The misinformation is just astonishing. I will spare you.


  33. Sadly I sometimes fall for the propaganda. I never would have guessed there was another side to the Monsanto story.
    Ironically, how I found this blog was because I was on team Naugler and she posted complaining about these trolls here,with a link to the blog… It didn’t take long to see thru the madness.
    Thanks again Sally for reminding me to research before I get on any bandwagon.


  34. I was so totally on the Monsanto is Evil bandwagon, it’s not even funny.

    But I was mystified by my neighbors. I just wondered why they could be so stupid as to grow the stuff. So I asked. And not being a wise-ass, I asked and really wanted to know. I listened.

    And then I did some looking around.

    I found this. And it ripped me almost to pieces. The reason I was so struck by it was that I spent so many years enmeshed in fundamentalist Christianity and discovered how badly I’d been conned, and this was like finding that out all over again (only not nearly as encompassing).

    Anyway, what really got me was when he talks about how we accept what science tells us about climate change. We accept science when we like what science says, but when we don’t like what science says, we have a tendency to reject science. And it’s not honest to do that without a really good reason. A really, really good reason.

    That’s the short version. My about-face took longer than the time it takes to listen to one speech and I read a whole lot more stuff and asked very knowledgeable people about it and then I went and bought some Roundup. 🙂


  35. Thank you. I was just amazed it just grew all by itself without being watered and in this area where nothing grows well except berries.


  36. Here’s the case I cited. I was wrong. It wasn’t soy. It was canola.

    I just remembered enough about it to know it wasn’t corn, and that he actually did it on purpose knowing what he was doing. The Canadian Supreme Court agreed and he lost his ass.


  37. I have another question. There are a lot of really smart people on here with all types of life experience. Is there a place where we can ask unblessed questions?


  38. Good idea. So I did just that. Look at the menu at the top of the page. You might need to refresh your screen. You’ll see a page called Questions.

    This will only work well, of course, if everyone knows about it and everyone checks that page every now and then to see what the new questions are, if any. But we’ll give it a go.


  39. Something is up. I know work is a verboten topic, but I think something happened in real life and she is trying to spin it under her “troll blame” banner.
    Happy pic of kids building a dog gate, closing of business pages to the public, followed by a post with ss of someone leaving a one star review.
    Eventually the true story will come out. Move along, nothing to see yet.
    Still hoping business does great and they provide everything those kids need. To success.


  40. I’m curious to see the google earth images. Do you have a link available that shows the post you made?


  41. This whole Nicole driven drama on stalking, harassing, threatening trolls is getting a little tired looking. I mean how many times can one scream “victim” without any actual proof of stalking, let alone harassing and threatening? In talking real life, not social media dramatics.

    It just doesn’t hold any weight, in participating in social media as a public page(s). It just doesn’t. Just like when she reposts memes and photos from other public pages, like cop block and so on. And adding her opinion and comments. Her harassing, stalking and threatening ideology should transfer there, too. If it did, she likely would not do that.

    Public and privacy may both start with the letter “P”. One cannot play a victim when choosing to be a public figure on social media. No way. Choosing to be public to gain followers and $upport, is a choice. Deal with it. Or maybe it is the intent, extended palm and pouty lip.


  42. “Happy pic of kids building a dog gate, closing of business pages to the public, followed by a post with ss of someone leaving a one star review.”

    Why is it always kids building things rather than Joe?

    Given that Nicole has complete control over the reviews (she can delete any she doesn’t like) what’s the big deal about any review she receives? If all she will permit are 5 star reviews she can delete the one star [admin: I deleted the remainder of this. It wasn’t really over the cliff but got too close to the edge for my comfort. ]


  43. Nicole SAYS in the caption to the fence pic that “Dad” os helping but he’s nowhere to be seen.

    Picture or it didn’t happen!

    Also, those boys are talented carpenters…


  44. I’m curious to see the google earth images. Do you have a link available that shows the post you made?

    I’m not sure how (or if it’s possible) to link directly to Google Earth, but I can tell you how to find it for yourself, using only publicly available information. (Don’t want to be accused of “stalking,” do we?)

    If you Google “Joe Nicole Naugler,” you’ll find their address. Sometimes it’s listed as a PO Box, which of course you don’t want. But sometimes it’s listed as a street name without a street number. That’s what you want.

    Take that street name with the town to Google Earth and punch it in.

    When you arrive on that road, look up and down a bit, and you’ll see a sharp curve in the road. The neighbor’s property is right in the curve. The Blessed ShitMess is located next door.

    Here’s an image.

    The red circle is an approximation of their property line. I was totally guessing. It might be larger, might be smaller. The yellow circle is the Naugler pond. The little blue X is the location of the Blessed Little Beer-Drinking in the Road with Joe.


  45. Actually, it doesn’t extend so far to the right and it goes back past the mowed area (power lines). It is triangular though.


  46. The “better approximation” Sally posted is much narrower than I thought. They really have nothing in the front of the property (that faces the road) beyond that cleared area where the lake and the shack are.
    Is the land adjoined theirs to the east owned by anyone?
    And if they ever did make something of the land (a girl can dream), would they be free to trod back and forth in the back and make use of the area where the power lines are?


  47. Michele wrote, “Is the land adjoined theirs to the east owned by anyone?
    And if they ever did make something of the land (a girl can dream), would they be free to trod back and forth in the back and make use of the area where the power lines are?”

    I happen to know the answers to these questions.

    Yes, there is a landowner to the east; yes, they are free to do almost anything they like on the land with the easement for the power company. Nothing permanent and in the case of fences, run-in sheds and the like, the power company would only require that they can open the gates so they can do whatever they need to do with the lines.


  48. Glad I can access the blog again. From my vantage it’s been down all day. I was a little worried it might have been a denial of service attack.


  49. Oh MAN. She has links to Amazon products she has bought on her Blog. Earning money or bit coin or points..or whatever.
    Pushing products, how very homesteady? of you. Just like the Pilgrims did when they reached the shores of the New World.
    You are the real deal.


  50. I was a little worried it might have been a denial of service attack.

    My hosting service and I are not sure that it wasn’t. It’s complicated, and I don’t want to go into much detail publicly, but it’s fixed now. The hosting service believes it was one perpetrator hitting the blog over and over again. I can’t find evidence of that, and am not sure they are correct, and I tend to always have an aversion to donning a tin-foil hat.


  51. I could not get the posting of Demanding to open in Chrome but can in Explorer.
    I even deleted cookies and it would still not open in Chrome. So it appears that there is a problem with it in Chrome.


  52. The blog was down yesterday two different times. I spent much of the day on the phone with the hosting service getting it fixed. It’s fine now, even in Chrome.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.