Jump to content
Cosmic Dimensions
  • Blog Statistics

    Total Blogs
    Total Entries


Our community blogs

  1. NextDoor's standards were already lower than Connor McDavid's chances of ever returning to the Stanley Cup Final as an Oiler. And now, they've sunk to even new lows with this:  they are now condoning images of animal cruelty. Yikes.

    So here's how this started. Recently, while I was surfing the net, I stumbled upon a NextDoor post from a woman named Bridget Fagan. In it, she posted a photo of an injured cat and goes on and on claiming to be sympathetic to the poor animal. The fact that this was posted is egregious; the animal is in pain and injured, yet Bridget posts the photo after her son snaps it. And it was done all for praise and attention and all else, and even worse, there's a lot of comments actually congratulating her. Blech. Even worse:  not one person questioned the validity of Bridget's story about the cat being hit by a car. They simply saw an injured cat at an animal clinic, and just started praising Bridget without any doubts SMH.

    Here's the link to the images of Bridget's post:  https://imgur.com/a/Bo6wzRf

    And the images are all archived, and here's the link:  https://archive.is/RrQ3T

    One of the people delivering the saccharin comments is Karen Fredenhagen, who happens to own Kingsley Animal Hospital on Kingsley Ave in Orange Park, Florida. She's hurling so much praise to Bridget and her fellow attention wh**e son without asking ANY QUESTIONS. Bridget's claim was that the cat was struck by a car. Yeah, sure...

    Here's the link to Karen's comments:  https://imgur.com/a/xDT1JFV

    And that's archived as well, here's the link:  https://archive.is/VKYUi

    It's painfully clear that Bridget Fagan's doing this for clout and attention. The sad part:  she's getting it--a lot of praise. Even worse, the comments that call her out are erased by NextDoor, who also claimed that Bridget's actions didn't violate community guidelines. Great:



    Bridget's story about a car striking that cat is very suspect. The cat looks too clean. If that cat was hit by a car, that poor cat would look much worse. The image would be more graphic. Why was there no blood other than that one speck by the cat's foot? If the cat was moved from the original spot, why does it look so clean around the cat at that point? Wouldn't there be more blood coming out of the cat? Wouldn't the cat be more distorted than it is? My theory:  Bridget's son probably abused that cat and Mommy Dearest is covering for him. He also moved that cat for the sole purpose of taking that picture, and in that time, the cat could have already been in transit to an animal clinic and most likely saved. But he just had to get that picture! I wouldn't put anything past those two. Bridget's son should be ashamed of himself for taking a photo of the injured cat, Bridget should be ashamed for posting it, and NextDoor should be deeply ashamed for condoning this sh*t. Shame, shame, shame.

    Here's my video calling out this latest incident:  

    And sadly, this is NOT the only example of someone posting a picture of a cat that is injured or worse on NextDoor. There is a disturbing trend of people on NextDoor posting pictures of injured or deceased animals. Another such incident was called out in a blog, and here's the link:  

    This also isn't Bridget's first time posting grotesques photos of injured cats. Here are archive links to more pictures of injured cats posted by Bridget. WARNING:  These photos are graphic in nature; please view at your own risk.




    What I've shown is just a small portion of the posts of similar nature that I've seen on Next Door, not just in Jacksonville, FL--as I have pointed out here--but elsewhere as well. What's pathetic is the common thread in all of them:  the annoying over-anointing of the people taking such photos, dubbing them heroes and saviors without any question!

  2. I had decided to ask a simple question to be sure if The Killer Inside: The Ruth Finley Story was about that woman that had harassed herself in the late 1970s.


    Someone then chose to respond to me "crying SPOILER" with a sarcastic thanks.



    This was my response. I felt as if the sternness and tough love was necessary.



    Complaining about spoilers regarding a movie based on a true story is ridiculous because it's based on something that has happened that any one person can easily read up about. 


    Another point, I was asking a basic question. A basic question is not a spoiler. A question about a movie's plot, to see if it's the right movie, is not a spoiler.

    • 1
    • 8
    • 151

    Recent Entries

    I saw a link to a blog here while I was looking at the X page for NextDoor. So, I thought I would tell my story and look around. This is the blog that was linked that lead me here.

    I was banned permanently from Next Door around the end of the 5th season of The Rookie. I made a post about how I think we need a #Chenford engagement in season 6. I kept it simple. I got alot of responses. Alot of people were all for it. Only 1 person wasn't. One of them was a moderator named Autumn Martin that told me I needed to keep my "stupid sh*t" out of public feed. She told me I should go Mexico and stay there and to take Melissa O'Neil (Lucy on The Rookie) with me. This Autumn Martin appeared to be drunk with the way she was replying to my post and others commenting. I decided to delete it to stop the madness. 


    I sent a private message to Autumn Martin. I asked if she was okay and wanted to talk. I was raised to be the bigger person. She sent me some hateful rant. I blocked her and logged out.


    3 days later, I discovered I was permanently banned. It took a week to find out why. A staff member told me via email that I was banned for harassing a moderator. I explained that the only moderator I ever spoke with was Autumn Martin. I asked to be shown what is deemed as harassment. Apparently  asking if she was okay was deemed sarcastic. Which it wasn't. I ended up with a speech about how saying "are you okay" sarcastically is harassment. I explained over and over it was genuine. That didn't matter.



    I would further protest the ban, but it's not worth my time.

  3. Michigan wins, Washington loses. Consolation prize for the loser: dinner at the White House with Chucky the killer doll.

    • 1
    • 9
    • 172

    Recent Entries

    On August 24, 2006, Pluto was downgraded from being a planet to "dwarf planet" by the IAU. The reason Pluto is now a "dwarf planet" is because it has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. Personally I think that isn't a good enough reason to take away Pluto's planetary status. 


    I think that in the case of Pluto, an exception should be made. Also for other planets like it too. Especially if they have moons.


    What many do not know is that is the day Pluto lost its planetary status, less than 5% of the world's astronomers were able to vote.


    I think that what the IAU needs to do is to come together to redefine what it means for a planet to be a planet. 

    • 0
    • 0
    • 34

    No blog entries yet

  • Create New...