Sometime on Thursday, May 11, in the morning, somebody using an obvious sock called “Kitty Meijer” posted some pretty horrible stuff on Nicole’s BLH Facebook page.
She appears to have removed those comments, but here’s a screen shot of a few of them.
Oddly enough, this sock sounds a whole lot like “Charles Smyth.” It also sounds a bit like the messages that were sent to me via this blog in the early days.
You know, the whole silly, taunting, childish stuff.
Nicole replied to “Kitty.”
Notice how Nicole says “. . . thanks for all these comments” and that they “. . .prove” she’s right about “harassment and stalking.”
And then Charles, the sock who does the exact same thing “Kitty” did, chimes in with how it’s probably Al Wilson.
And Joe, who is “HH,” has to pontificate about Al a bit.
But that’s not enough for him. He adds this gem at right around the same time.
So Joe (“HH”) declares that “Kitty” is a sock, something that anyone could see in just a second, and that the sock is a combined effort by all the pages, two groups, this blog and the podcast. A combined effort, for which we were all paid. Furthermore, we’ve hired specialists in Photoshop and all kinds of stuff.
And this, this, is the result of all that combined effort and money.
And that’s all that is mentioned about this for several hours.
Then Nicole posts this.
This is from Nicole’s BLH blog. This is what it looks like when a comment is awaiting moderation.
The comment is made by somebody with a screen name of “Kitty de Kuthoer.” And if you look carefully at the email address given, the first part of that long-ass shit is “kittymeijer.”
What a coincidence.
The message is, of course, awful. It’s right up there with calling somebody’s dead child a “dead junkie” and telling some blogger that you’re probably going to “punch” her and her husband in the face.
I repeat. This message is completely awful and totally unacceptable.
And she got the reaction she was looking for.
These people are so stupid. You can’t press charges because somebody sends you a message on a blog (where you solicit comments) and tells you that they hope you die and advises you to kill yourself. Nothing in that message is a threat. It’s just horrible, but it’s not threatening. What it says is “Nicole, I don’t like you.”
But notice what she includes in that screen shot? See what I have highlighted?
That’s the person’s IP address.
I grabbed it. When I did, I felt sure it was a proxy and thus useless. (Dunno what that is? Go read the link above.)
But then I punched that IP address into the search engine on this blog’s comments to see if that person had ever commented here.
And I hit pay dirt.
That person, the person who told Nicole to kill herself, has commented on this blog several times.
She has never said anything that violated any of my rules. She’s never been rude. She sounds totally normal. Doesn’t even sound like the same person, frankly.
But the IP address is identical, and the person commenting on this blog did so over a period of more than six months. That means that the computer being used kept the same IP address for that period of time.
I considered what might be going on here. I thought about it. And I considered the possibility that two different people frequent the same public wi-fi connection (you know, like Starbucks) and hence have the same IP address even though they are not related, both of them having enough interest in the Nauglers in Kentucky, USA to read this blog and comment on Nicole’s blog. I scrapped that idea.
I tried to come up with any way to explain why the person who reasonably commented here flew off the handle and wrote something that nasty to Nicole.
I have one very plausible, if slightly convoluted, explanation which I will not discuss at this point, but no proof.
So I finally decided to just ask her.
As you can see, I wrote this yesterday evening, about 24 hours ago. I used the email address she gave on this blog when she commented (it was always the same one, and it had the appearance of being genuine). And then I waited to see if it bounced (it would bounce if it was fake).
It did not bounce.
So, I decided to give this person 24 hours to respond to me, because the IP address is not American. I assumed there might be significant time zone differences and I waited.
I got no answer.
So I’m just going to move ahead.
First off, this person has done nothing untoward here on this blog. I have zero control over what anyone does, with the single exception of controlling who comments here and what they say.
I am not the internet police.
For that reason, I don’t think I owe Nicole anything, and that includes the identity of this person. I think I know her real name. I feel fairly certain I have an authentic email address. If she threatens to kill Nicole, I might consider contacting Sheriff Pate with that information, but until then, I have no obligation to reveal any of her personal information, not even the screen name she used here.
WordPress blogs have a handy feature, one which Nicole is very familiar with. If you get an obnoxious jerk trying to comment, you can block their IP address and that stops them (from that computer). I would suggest that Nicole do that.
I am going to do that here.
I am going to do it (block this person) not because she ever did anything wrong here. She didn’t. I’m going to block her because I cannot even begin to condone what she said on Nicole’s blog. I’m going to block her because this is what Nicole should do with Charles Smyth but refuses to do because she “likes” Charles, or probably more likely, finds Charles useful.
If there is a reasonable explanation for all this, I’m open to hearing it. In the meantime, the ban hammer is falling.
From “Kitty” (not the screen name she uses here):
Okay, here’s the deal. I’m responding this way because I still, in spite of all this, want to protect this person’s identity. She has done nothing that I find offensive here on this blog.
I received no email. I’m not saying that “Kitty” didn’t send one. I’m saying that I never received it.
I directed FB to the comments nic and chuck made, they decided not to block my account on that (I.e. exactly similar comments made to me).
I find that rather astonishing, frankly. Facebook didn’t care that “Kitty” is an obvious fake?
But beyond that, it doesn’t matter to me what “Charles” or Nicole had to say to “Kitty.” As small children, I think most of us learned the hard way that “he started it” didn’t work very well as a defense when it came to awful behavior.
“Charles” is often dreadful. Nicole happily allows “Charles” to be dreadful and makes no attempt to do anything about it.
I am not Nicole.
I am also not the internet police, as I think I mentioned before.
That’s why “Kitty” will remain anonymous here. She’s done nothing offensive here. But she will not be allowed to comment here further.
I didn’t do anything to prevent her from seeing this blog. Why would I do that? I don’t care if she reads here. I don’t care who reads here. I control comments, not readers.
I do appreciate “Kitty” confirming that she is, in fact, the person who wrote the comment on Nicole’s blog and she is the person behind that fake FB profile.