Free Jinger


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


. . . 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.


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.


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.



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

Me, neither, chickie.


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.


facebook bullying
click image to link to source

This is from way last January.  Nicole was peeved with Facebook. They seemed to take down her nasty posts, but refused to take down anyone else’s when she complained about it.

It’s not fair, she said.

Today she’s back at it again. Facebook is not fair.


The article she is linking to is here.

Here’s my summary of what it says:

So-called “like” pages, unlike personal pages, do not automatically get placed on the feeds of the people who “like” those pages. That is censorship, and very wrong and bad. To get those posts shared to every single person who has “liked” the page, one has to pay money. That is also very wrong and bad. And to make matters worse, we posted something political and it was removed by Facebook because Facebook hates third parties.

That is not an exact quote, of course, but it’s the gist of what the little rant is about.

The part about Facebook “pages” having to pay to get their posts seen is accurate.  Sort of.

Here’s the deal.  If you click “like” on a page, you will see little of it in your feed unless you interact with the page. You have to go visit that page, or “like” a post, or even better, comment on a post.  If you do that, Facebook says to itself, “Hey, Sally likes that content, so we’ll show her more of it.”

Nicole is very aware of this, and it’s the reason that she posts stuff on BLH intended to encourage comments.


Like this. Nicole does not give a flying fuck what anyone else is doing about the weather.  She doesn’t even typically enter into the ensuing conversation.  She probably doesn’t even read it.  She’s trying to entice people who see this post on their wall to comment, to interact with her page. If they comment, then they will get more of her posts scrolling  by.  These “What about you?” posts are clickbait.

In addition, there’s another way.

skeptical ob

This is a page that I “like.”  (I told you all that Dr. Amy is my hero.)  In order to make sure that I see everything she posts to her page, I simply checked the “See First” option shown above.  The default is “default.”

It’s entirely within my ability to customize my own Facebook page so that I see the stuff I want to see.  There are several pages where I have done that.

There are other pages that I have “liked” but really don’t care if I ever see anything from them again. Everyone has these. They are the pages you “liked” because your cousin has a friend who is a plumber and she asked you to “like” his page, so you did.  Or you got interested in a story or situation and “liked” a page about it, but after three months, you lost interest.

If I got everything posted from every page I have “liked,” along with all the stuff my Facebook friends post, my feed would scroll faster than I could read it.

Facebook knows this, so they have attempted to create the best solution they can so that my Facebook experience is positive and I keep hanging out there.

They also allow people with “like” pages to purchase exposure.  Nicole has availed herself of this opportunity from time to time.


Remember, Facebook is free. How is that possible?  How does Facebook remain free and Mark Zuckerberg become a bazillionaire?

zuckerbergnetworthIf you’re curious about that, here’s a very good graphic that shows the whole process. Basically, Mark Zuckerberg has gotten rich by providing a super-duper advertising environment on steroids. And we all “watch” the ads willingly.  Facebook is not a benevolent public service, like a city park. Facebook is a business.

It’s called “free enterprise.”  Yes, the whole “free market” stuff that Nicole loves, loves, loves.


There’s an example. [Note: the economy had improved dramatically when Nicole wrote this, and the job market had started recovering nicely, but that’s beside the point.]

She’s all about the free market and deregulation.  No rules, by god. Do whatever the hell you like.


She goes even further, though. In her view, she can refuse service to anyone she likes for any reason at all, and they can’t say a single word. [I’d give almost anything to see somebody test out that little hypothesis. She’s wrong, and the courts have made it clear in recent years that she is entirely wrong.]

But no matter.

I say who, I say when, I say how much. It’s my business.

That applies to any business.

Well, Nicole, you colossal idiot, Facebook is a business. They say who, they say when, they say how much, according to you.

But by all means, do get mad at them.  Get irate.  Get so angry and put out by their “discrimination” that you leave.



I bet the grocery stores love Nicole and her hoard of children coming in and taping shit to the dog food bags.


Hey Mac, can you spare a dime?

Money is like manure; it’s not worth a thing unless it’s spread around encouraging young things to grow.

– Thorton Wilder


We all know someone that is always in need. Something is always wrong — always an excuse. Everyone is out to get them. Nothing is their fault.

For many, “begging” means the scruffy man at the corner liquor store, tin cup in hand, a cardboard sign. For others it’s a homeless mother with a baby. That kind of begging is easy to look at and decide whether you’re going to help or not.  You see it. You have a good gut feeling if the person will use, or abuse your donation. You can tell if the person is truly in need or just begging because they don’t want to earn an honest living. For some folks, it’s a way of life. 

They may hear the clink of a coin in the cup, and you may keep walking. You see it with your eyes. Your guts tell you if they really need help or will go grab a bottle of Thunderbird and wake up with wet pants.

The internet is a whole new street corner.  Now you have thousands and thousands of potential handouts “walking by”.  If you can convince folks that you’re a wholesome, hardworking, reverent individual that could just use a little bit of help . . . well, you’re off to a grand start.  People have soft hearts and most will try to help someone in need.  The Nauglers are well versed in subtle online begging, the art of asking for money without being “in your face” with their desperate needs. They have been doing it for years, yet continue to add to their family despite their inability to support the children they already have.

It’s a pattern. The constant hints and subtle suggestions. But hey, you read through the repetition and make up your own mind. Are they doing this? Ask the church groups they’ve been in.

Sound harsh? maybe it is. But responsible adults do not constantly drop hints and ask for others to pay for things. Some of us consider this to be the crux of “responsibility”.




This was quite probably a rather misguided attempt at humor. But at this point, who knows.

13219754_10153681942993182_547206151_nOK, but you certainly aren’t shy about supplementing with donations.


Venmo, Paypal, Go Fund me . . . crowd source funding masters.


They ended up with over $45,000 from this effort alone.  They had a very detailed list of what the expenses were to be used for.  They have repeatedly become very hostile when people ask if they were used as promised.

13236108_10154214276951289_292946786_n (1) Interestingly, this post linked directly to a site that made it easy to send the seeds.

13249525_10154214286776289_427088175_n Untitled3

Ah yes, the subtle hints.


Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Untitled2Think about this one for a moment. They are running a business. Why would clients be dropping off food and money?

Oh yeah, get over it.


Fundraiser for a business? Wait . . .

Is it a business or a charity?

13094124_10207741242503271_525796367266982827_nHere’s an odd one. Somebody set up a Go Fund Me campaign. It’s quite probably satire. However, in exposing and explaining that they did NOT set it up, they certainly didn’t fail to ensure folks knew where they COULD “donate”.

a bThis is only a smattering of the constant posts and a bit of insight into what is going on.

Remember, they garnered over $45,000 in Go Fund Me donations. What have they done with them?

Brought to you by “Nefarious Please and others”

This was sent by a blog reader. It seems pretty benign. It’s a nice story. Charity and kids. It might actually stir up warm feelings. But please notice the comment “Put money in my hand.”

How hard are these folks to figure out?

Well “technically”. . .



Let’s make a collection. Here’s two more.

still accepting

They’re “still accepting donations.” As though there will come a day, some day, when they are no longer accepting donations.


And the vehicles. Have the Nauglers ever actually bought a car or van all by themselves?  Nicole tells us that she really doesn’t like to finance things. She much rather that “angels” just give stuff to her.

You know, like she refuses to do for her kids.

Are You Really There?

Are you really there?
Are you just a dream?
I thought you were in there somewhere, hiding from me,
Hiding from the world.

Nathan Davis, Untitled #2

keyboard warriors

‘Cause talking shit in person is too dangerous.

What follows here are excerpts from a conversation Joe Naugler had with Al Wilson. It’s a very long convo which took place over several weeks. I’ve tried to include the pertinent parts but not the whole thing because of the sheer length.

beginning 1

It began here when Joe sent Al a friend request.  Joe is a peacemaker.  He desires greatly to get to know Al better.

beginning 2

As you can see by the dates, there’s a gap. There is bunch of stuff, back and forth, that I omitted for brevity’s sake, but things began to heat up a bit when Joe made the now-infamous trip to Al’s farm and stopped to take a gander at Al’s daughter.

Please note that Joe says they stopped. This confirms Al’s daughter’s account, but Joe has often contradicted himself, asserting that they only slowed down.

Al 2

Al 3

So Al, in the interest of being up front about the whole thing, and obviously not afraid of meeting Joe in person, suggests that they do just that.  He makes it clear in what he says that Joe cannot bully him.  Joe can’t pull the shit he pulled on the other neighbor over the water because Al is not going to tolerate it.

And Joe insists that he’s a “super friendly guy” but “indifferent.”

We should totally make Joe Naugler Secretary of State.  He’s just got the touch for dealing with a hostile situation.  First, make all sorts of accusations, and then agree to have a meal and discuss stuff.  Super.

First though, he probably needs a good English course since he cannot spell and has trouble with coherent sentences. What in the world is “my god willing way of life”?

But anyway, Joe wants to meet for a meal, on Wednesday.  He’s available then. He’s not available any other time because he’s so busy with his job.

Wait.  No.  Anyway.

Al 1

So, it’s on.  Al suggested it. Joe agreed ’cause he’s a super friendly guy. Detente shall surely follow.

Joe 2

More from Joe, including a valiant attempt to placate Al with an assertion that Joe is only having the conversation out of curiosity.  That’s going to make for solid ground to form an understanding when they meet, I’m sure.

The highlighted part illustrates part of why my husband was concerned about me doing this blog.  Joe thinks this is really nothing, not even worth mentioning (only he mentions it).  But you know what?  If you do a search for my criminal record, or my husband’s criminal record, you know what you will find?


And then comes the little sermonette. Screw your religion, Joe.  The church you claim to believe in doesn’t even want you.

Joe 3

. . . yes, I did call them cunts. . .

And then he has the temerity to say that’s why she became so “vile.”

No wonder he took a plea.

All of which are saved.

Right.  Something like the video of the vehicular assault, showing the neighbor’s daughter clearly admitting that she rammed the Naugler van on purpose for Reasons.

. . . we went to work.

Oddly, we cannot tell.  Why can’t we tell? They’ve been there two years and we can’t tell.

. . . testified to the awesomeness I profess to be.

The poor judge had a headache, I’m sure, confronted with that awesomeness.

Joe 4

So going by somebody’s house, and slowing down (and in Joe’s case, stopping) and having a bit of a look is not a crime.  Glad to know that.  Then quit bitching about people going by the Blessed Little Dump.

I am looking forward a finding common grounds of understanding.

That’s JoeSpeak, of course, but it means he’s going to be there Wednesday for breakfast.


And when Al arrived at the appointed time and at the appointed place, here is what he found.

empty seat

Sometime later, Joe came over to my wall because he found my photo of an injured chicken to be threatening and starting yammering about lawsuits.  During that conversation, all of which is posted here, he made this comment when asked about his no-show.


No. Al didn’t not ask Joe to meet after school at 3 o’clock. He asked him to have breakfast with him on Wednesday at 7:30, the day Joe said he was free to meet with Al.

Al was there.

Joe was not.

I guess it was just too “dangerous” to “talk shit in person,” and Joe finds being a keyboard warrior more to his liking.


Trolling For Pages

veiled threat

I love this veiled threat. “You trolls.”  Don’t approach her property or family “to do (them) harm.”

One thing Nicole does all the time is use the expression “you trolls.”  It’s a mathematical set to her (look it up, Nicole. I know math is hard, but try.) All “trolls” are in a set.  All “trolls” are guilty of any and all activity and criticism expressed by any “troll.”

Anyone who criticizes her is lumped together and found equally guilty.

Well, turnabout is fair play, Nicole.

I’m not running any of the pages and profiles you accuse as me. In fact, I don’t even know who is.

You gotta be kidding.  You don’t even know who is.  You’ve got these folks running around spending their entire lives (hours and hours every day) making pages and doxxing people and harassing them, and stalking folks online—all to defend you and your family—and you don’t know who they are.


Here’s a bit of a list.

Naugler Camptruth and liesLike It Or Notstewbert

PrestonTextrovertKentucky Laws

This might be my personal favorite for creativity.  The Nauglers do not believe there should be any laws, yet they do not hesitate to cite them if they think it will advance their position.


In case you find that hard to read “Darrell” says:

Please do, they will laugh at you.  You don’t know who I am, dipshit! The Government doesn’t give ten shits about people on fb talkin shit about lowlifes. Al should be able to school you there.

I think maybe “Darrell” and “Kentucky Laws” need to get together and have a chat.  It seems that when it comes to the Nauglers engaging in doxxing and libel and online threats, the government doesn’t give ten shits, but when it comes to anyone criticizing them even slightly, they are being threatened and will undoubtedly sue everyone in sight.

My personal position on all this legal posturing is that I do not engage in it.  I’m not going to sue anyone, and nobody is going to sue me.  I’m just going to go right on making information available.  Make of it what you will.

exposedJohnny B Badd

For anyone who might not know, that photo is of Breckinridge County’s Sheriff Pate, who Nicole and Joe despise beyond all reason and do not hesitate to taunt and defame online whenever possible.

Donny Cook

There are several incarnations of this, I believe. There is also much speculation as to whether or not this is a real person.  I don’t care much one way or the other.

Mindy Thundertroll

And this one was created solely to mock a critic.  No other reason.

Beastly Troll

As was this one.

T frog TrollWhoratioCharles SmythPeurile Strawman

Johnny B Badd incarnation 2

This the second incarnation of this page.

Seymour Hiney

And the second incarnation of that one follows.

Seymour Hiney version 2

Mindy Thundertroll 2

The second version of the Mindy page.

Jack SchittDonny Cook page

Donny as a “community” page instead of a personal page.

jack ball

Charles Smyth 2

A second version of Charles Smyth.  Some of these second incarnations occurred because Facebook removed the first one.

Anita Mandalay

Screaming Memey

real truth Teresa

Get Your Facts StraightFFS


Stewie Schizoid

These comments refer to a critic who they thought had lost a child.

Stewie Rescue

Stand By the Nauglers

So, apparently there weren’t six “trolls,” but instead 55.  To quote Nicole:

I don’t ask you believe my every word. But I do ask you use logic when deciding which stories you believe and if and how they are relevant.

Let’s do that.  It’s good advice.  Is it possible that there are fifty-five people who are simultaneously spending hours and hours stalking and harassing and just trying to destroy this beautiful family that has done nothing at all to anyone and who just want to be left alone?  Is that even reasonable?

Or is it more reasonable to think that maybe, just maybe, the Naugler adults have royally pissed off some folks?

And of course, a page called “Stand By The Nauglers” without any form of identification at all insists that everyone quit talking about “him” or “her.” Or “he” or “she” will sue.  Gotta love it.


The screen shot involving the phone numbers was posted in a private group (not public at all) and as is mentioned, was only done because there were threats that the Nauglers were calling people and their places of employment.

Bless Naugler

Nasty Trolls


Others for which I do not have screen shots:

The Real Truth About the Nauglers

Big Mouths, Lousy Opinions and Losers

Questions for Nauglers

Now then, I am pretty confident that I do not have all the various pages that have been created in the last eight months.  However, I have posted screen shots of 37 and know of one for which I have no screen shot.  That makes a total of 38.

In eight months.  I know that math is hard, but let’s try it, why don’t we?

From May 6, 2015 (when the children were taken from Joe and Nicole and they catapulted into national awareness) to January 29, 2016 (today) is 268 days. Dividing 268 days by 38 pages gives us just a tiny fraction over 7.

They have been making a new page on average once a week for 8 months.  Pages with no other purpose than to dox, harass, stalk and libel anyone who criticizes them for any reason.  They have published addresses, stalked family members, threatened people, contacted employers, you name it.  And it doesn’t take much to get on their radar, as I will show.

But I will show that later on.  This post is long enough.



Told you there were more. That makes 40, or an average of one page every 6.7 days.

Another update:  Two more pages added to the list without screen shots, bringing the total to 42, or one every 6.38 days.

And more:

Sam Adams

jack tooka schitt

Running total, 44, one page every 6.09 days.

Copy Cat

FB page new

Cute little paw print in a circle, used as Nicole’s profile image, on her brandy new Facebook page that she created because Facebook put her in time out for 3 days and apparently she couldn’t stand it.

There’s a wee problem, though.

When Nicole was called out because she stole the image from somebody else, she responded with the post above.  She makes sure to explain that the folks who actually own that image have “adorable products.”

I’m sure they will be delighted to learn that.


Are you selling their stuff, Nicole?  Are you registered with Nashville Wraps?

Frankly, I would suggest that you never, ever, ever again fuss about anyone using your photos with their precious little “watermark.”

Here’s a hint:  Don’t just wander around the internet stealing pictures and images for your own use. I know people do this.  But don’t.  There are sites where you can get free images.  I do it all the time. Free images that I can use for anything at all without infringing on anyone else’s rights.

Nicole is big on rights.  She’s really big on taking “personal responsibility.”

What about the rights of Nashville Wraps?

I guess the rules don’t matter when it comes to somebody else.


click image to link

“Charles,” who is almost certainly one of the Nauglers, doesn’t know what the hell “he” is talking about.  Nicole stole that image.  She is using it without the owner’s permission.  (Unless she actually contacted them and got permission, which I doubt.  If she had, she would have produced it.)

You do not have to “register” an image to make it yours.

Here’s a really good diagram (infographic) that is helpful in making a decision about whether or not an image can be used.  Nicole, read the damn thing.



Here Comes Santa


One of the things that Nicole and to a lesser extent, Joe try to do is project an image of being “homesteaders.”  They want to promote this idea that they are living close to the land, getting what they need from the land, and that they are wildly successful in achieving this goal.

This is from one of her Facebook pages.

The irony here is two-fold.

First, that is of course not a photo of her chickens. (I know she’s just sharing a link and doesn’t claim that it is.)  Not only do her chickens not have a swing, the Naugler chickens don’t even have a house.  They are what Nicole calls “free-range,” but actually are feral.

I’m not certain that they even feed their chickens anything at all.

Second, Nicole and Joe do not celebrate Christmas. The children don’t have a tree, don’t get any presents and certainly do not have any Santa Claus.

If the children have a swing, it’s because they constructed it out of any scraps they could find and hung it themselves.

Here’s another example:



I’m not quite sure what she’s trying to say in the last one.  They do not celebrate Christmas. No tree, no presents, nothing.  But they will absolutely insist that they are Christians (Mormons, to be exact), except when Nicole is feeling agnostic, which happens from time to time.

Maybe December 12 was just one of those days. . .

At any rate, the message for the Naugler chickens (and children) is this:  Don’t get your hopes up, girls and boys.