[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]

/w/ - vloggers, lolita, cosplay

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Youtube
Password
(For post deletion)

Discuss the future of the farm
Mark your calendars for the last Townhall of the year

Apply as Administrator
Apply as Farmhand


File: 1632111348059.jpeg (352.17 KB, 1167x1800, 3C8A40F0-3BE7-4F43-9D08-EFC205…)

No. 173262

Before posting: Read lolcow.farm rules and follow them. Sage your non-contribution, tinfoil and non-milk. Don’t rehash old milk discussed in previous threads. No appearance nitpicking unless you have something new to add (new fillers, plastic surgery, etc). Don’t hi cow, not everyone that disagrees with you is a whiteknight or Nicole, the same way not everyone is vendetta posting. If an anon is breaking the rules, report them instead of infighting. Complaints go in /meta/

Previous Thread (#4) >>163459
(#3): >>155594
(#2): >>95156
(#1): >>82304

All previous threads have been heavily saturated with stretched milk and vendetta posts. In an attempt to keep this new thread on a linear path- we will be posting
>valid milk (no accusations without a screen cap or comment linked to said milk)
>no stretching (anons need to quit bouncing their references and continuations off other anons who:
a) didn’t provide sold milk with evidence to back up their claims
b) are splurging personally fueled emotional attachment or anger towards the cow in question (ie creating unnecessary, obsessive collages you edited of the cow that don’t add sustenance or align with the point of the thread)
>when posting milk provide time stamps without cropping or manipulating milk (due to past issues with anons posting screenies from years prior to fuel current affairs)
>cow edits her pictures enough as it is so don’t go the extra mile and add on exaggerated editing for goofs. (Anons caught previously taking still shots of videos and editing features to post milk) there are more than enough examples without creating your own before and afters
>for the love of god sage your shit if it’s not a necessary information on Nicole

>linear timeline includes:


• SPECULATION of cheating
Nobody has come forth and accused Nicole of cheating or has publicly outed her for adulterous behavior but anons have pieced together a timeline of overlapping hangouts with people who have later dated her and can be concluded as suspicious activity

•Skinwalking other costhots

•Providing the bare minimum of content due to reoccurring “mental and physical health issues” (yet to be publicly proven with doctors diagnosis)

•ebegging on Onlyfans and social media to your generic breed of scotes and spimps

•Excessively shows immaturity through prioritizing childlike hobbies and interests like Pokémon and Yugioh for the past decade(tripfag)

No. 173263

>>173262
Omfg, thank you. There are so many threads of this girl and you can't even navigate it because of the vendetta posters. Seriously, the clarification actually helps weed out the ridiculous milk that gets posted. 10/10 thread summary and thank you for catching it before the anons made it and added all the laughable grooming and pedophilia posts from the last day.

No. 173264

>>173263
The vendetta in the past thread was so keen to bringing up destery over and over for some reason and when nobody would take the bait and change topic with them they had to try comparing the two on a more scandalous level. Which ended up being idiotic and laughable. That’s why this thread needs to do it’s best to stay on track because of anons with agendas keep popping up non of the real milk will be taken seriously

No. 173265

>>173262
>Same thread pic
>Splurging
>Entire op dedicated to dictating what can and can't be posted with minimal breakdown
In the words of admin, stfu already Nicole anon.

No. 173267

>>173264
Well, you did an awesome job and thank you for including the timestamps thing. Posting together random bits of conversations 7 years back has nothing to do with recently, but the cropping of the timestamps and dates to pretend it is recent has been the biggest issue with the milk. It fed into fake storylines that anons would make up to make Nicole out to be worse than just basic douchebaggery. Also the armchairing.

The Destery thing too I agree with. I really hope this thread gives good milk. She seems like she can supply some good milk, but nitpicking her still owning a shirt and equating it to somehow being some power-play move, isn't exactly milk and it becomes this massive retardation that drags on. I'm actually looking forward to the thread again like I did in thread 1. It's hard to even interact because anons constantly go to meta and complain that everyone is a whiteknight for questioning anything and the mods don't actually read the thread to see how much the anons manufacture milk. Which is probably whats going to happen to your thread, anon. Watch, they will try to get is taken down as a 'shit thread.

No. 173271

>>173265
Take it to meta is you don’t like it but most anons have heavily agreed there needs to be a change in the thread

No. 173272

>>173262
This thread doesn’t even have a name (you didn’t include anything in the subject field) and this would have been a good new thread pic. >>>/w/171133
I am salty af about that otherwise thanks for creating a thread

No. 173273

>>173272
Why would anyone include a pic from the vendetta anon that’s throwing the order of the site off in the first place? Again as stated, anons are keeping it factual and providing relevant milk in this new thread since everything else has obviously been rehearsed over twice more than it should have been to the point of becoming stale and manifesting inaccuracy

No. 173274

>>173272
Kind of grateful because the bs anons put in the last thread info was full of random crap they came up with without anything to actually back stuff up besides massive speculation. They are a bit of a game of anons having to pick what is real and what is exaggerated for the benifit of storytelling. Like it was mentioned, probably better to have a bio with clarity and the calling out the timestamps thing is super important. I didn't notice the lack of thread name though, but this thread would get bumped all the time and at least it's in the OP.

No. 173275

>>173273
Nta but it's funny you somehow know for sure it's the vendetta anon. Nothing in that pic is unrelated and it's exaggerated for comical purposes. We could've at least pretend this thread was made my a farmer and not the newfag brigade.

No. 173277

>>173273
Agreeing with you, thank you because the last threads were unbearable to comprehend with lack of evidence and vendetta accusations. We’re all for milk on this site but Nicole’s threads specifically have been filled with false narratives and misleading accusations for the last year at least

No. 173280

>>173275
I agree and disagree with this, we needed a new thread away from shitty obsession anons regardless and the part I do agree on with this anon is to not spotlight the same people we’re branching away from

No. 173281

>>173275
I think it's just someone who's never made a thread before. I can see why they thought Name would put Nicole's name in the catalog under the photo. Doesn't make the thread complete shit. Better off having one that makes it clear that anons have fucked around with Nicole's info before to exaggerate her milk. Hopefully calling it out from the get-go helps too.

No. 173282

>>173273
Because this thread is just bitching about one or two anons and accusing them of being Brandon; don’t shout into the void with hypocrisy of anons tinfoiling when anon seems to be convinced everyone is Brandon lol. >>>/w/173259
That’s the most retarded reach I have ever heard in my life, Nicole has a tendency to post unshooped photos on her stories and through tagged photos from friends and the edited ones on her post feed that’s how people find the befores of shoops. It’s annoying when most of us just want to enjoy the drama but you guys are acting even more retarded and salty that admin/farmhands don’t ever ban the anons you report for “vendetta” (you’re leaving out Darcy’s commentary out of your OP which is suspicious as fuck) considering it was hilarious when farmhand put a whiteknight on full blast and told them to get a hobby outside of Nicole because they report posts for being “vendetta” “samefag” and cry in meta. The OP is retarded for mainly bitching about anons instead of talking about the cow herself. If you want things to be in a different direction then fucking report supposed vendetta posters instead of making half the thread about infighting. What even

No. 173283

>>173282
OP says nothing about anyone being Brandon. No one said anything about him in thread. lol

No. 173284

File: 1632113363701.jpeg (17.86 KB, 641x104, A552BD39-299B-42E1-A7BC-EF0E3D…)

Interesting how all of a sudden there’s an influx of anons debating in the last thread til it hit max.

>>173255
>none of my post if in defense of her personally
Questionable with how long your post is kek.

No. 173285

>>173283
I literally linked a post where someone accused anons of being Brandon. Are you blind or choosing to ignore >>>/w/173259 ? lol

No. 173286

>>173284
Probably because it's easier for more anons to interact with a thread when it isn't 900+ posts long. That's kind of how introducing cows to people works in the catalog, regardless of thread #.

No. 173287

>>173282
We’re all trying to enjoy drama anon, just real drama not delusional fantasies made by people with ulterior motives. We want the real milk to form an assessment on the cow in question. If you prefer to live in a fantasy world entertained by lies you’re not better than the cow herself. Contribute facts or go touch grass

No. 173288

The amount of minimodding in the OP and how much of a shitshow it is, is quite cringe. I don’t like vendetta posters but bitching about anons you don’t like isn’t what /w/ is for. Just report posts the next time you see someone make a vendetta post or tamper with milk, it goes without saying.

No. 173289

>>173284
This thread literally reeks of a group of Nicolefags sitting on a VPN spamming to dictate thread perception. I guess they're trying something new since sperging into the void got them exposed by a farmhand last thread. When has anything Nicole related ever been this active, let alone in the first half an hour in the most obviously newfagy and intentionally biased thread to date?

No. 173290

>>173285
There’s way more of people linking her stalker “addie” “addi” “kaitlyn” to the majority of the vendetta autismspreading

No. 173291

>>173289
That literally doesn’t make any sense and isn’t backed up by anything other than what I’m assuming are personal aggressions towards the new thread not heading in the same spiteful direction you might have wanted it to for your entertainment. Pick another thread if you want to regurgitate deeper without accountability but this is the 5th thread and we’ve elected to keep it straightforward and factual on the cow rather than anon feelings

No. 173293

These should have been mentioned in the OP: 1. >>>/w/165507 (Also mentioning how Nicole hired Cassie as a “personal assistant”, after discovering the thread Cassie is nowhere to be seen and her and Nate are not moving into the apartment they worked to get for months. Cassie and Nate are just holed in with his parents and are hiding from the spotlight)
2. Nicole making petty subtweets about her thread directly after Cassie discovers it >>>/w/166145
3. Open about the exact location/booth where she works despite creepy stalkers in the past threatening to rape her and trying to find her irl (Brandon) >>>/w/166896
4. Darcy talking about Connor and Nicole, how Nicole tried to get into Johnnie Guilbert’s pants but settled for Connor >>>/w/166957
5. Farmhand calling out whiteknight >>>/w/167098

No. 173294

>>173293
Adding it now, how convenient kek

No. 173295

>>173290
Saging as a follow up but has anyone kept updates on the addi link to Nicole? Last I saw she was drove off Twitter by people in her town or friend group for pedophilia, rape of minors, and sending nudes to minors.last I saw on her Facebook that’s still active she was going on about gloating how her roommate played in Connor’s (Nicole’s bf) band right after they went public and is still stalker worthy enough to inject into the current thread imo.

No. 173296

>>173294
I’m not the OP sadly, I just think these were my favorite drama mentions from the last thread

No. 173297

>>173293
It was already addressed in the last thread anons had the wrong person when referring to Johnnie. Darcy said the might have been friends but it wasn’t conclusive other than more tangent splurging. Rest is valid, but stop including hypothetical milk as factual milk if it’s still trying to be filtered

No. 173299

>>173297
It wasn’t the wrong person. What are you on about? There’s only one Johnnie Nicole and Connor are friend’s with, don’t be this autistic.

No. 173301

File: 1632114689305.jpeg (242.99 KB, 1201x1800, EF7C1302-2E60-4FD7-9893-6AF1AF…)

>>173297
>stop including factual milk
It’s milk from a literal person involved with Johnnie Guilbert and Connor. Stop being this cringe you aren’t involved in their friend group. Connor literally told her Nicole wants to date Johnnie. It is factual milk.

No. 173302

>>173299
You must not be caught up then, I’ll help. Anons were posting photos of a guy she tagged in photos from “Emo prom” and her Snapchat stories etc saying it was johnnie. The point anons were making was that she’s never actually met johnnie and she doesn’t have any public flirtation with him other than asking him to come visit on live with Cassie and Connor once. And Connor has made out with johnnie at least once so if anything it would make more sense to be Connor’s escapade enforced rather than Nicole’s

No. 173303

File: 1632114925556.jpeg (120.72 KB, 828x294, D13A5A41-945D-4D59-A75F-44BB08…)

>>173302
Nah you’re the one speculating, word from Darcy is factual milk and you’re twisting things lol. Nicole has known Johnnie for years because he dated a Leda skinwalker. We’ve already established every friend and ex and boyfriend in Nicole’s life is tied back to Leda. Nicole can be seen talking to Johnnie, Leda and co. as early as 2015. The milk is that Johnnie doesn’t want to be with her, and she decided to settle for Connor. Don’t twist things.

No. 173304

>>173301
How is it factual milk when 1: she confirmed Connor didn’t go after Nicole until after they spilt and 2: just because he was trying to set them up doesn’t mean it worked or that Nicole is trying to get in his pants. This is exactly why information gets mixed on their thread, there’s no evidence of them ever meeting or being close other than friends but anons will use this as a jumping point because it’s just close enough to speculate

No. 173305

>>173304
It’s not speculation, anon. Darcy is directly involved with Johnnie Guilbert and Connor. You sound desperate to change the narrative because the fact is that Johnnie doesn’t want to date Nicole and doesn’t want to be with her. If Darcy, Connor’s literal girlfriend at the time, says that they’re trying to set Nicole up with Johnnie, then it’s milk. Stop denying it at this point. Jfc lol

No. 173306

>>173303
that doesn’t hold up the way you’re implying, how do you get all that information from one tweet saying something in support. To be fair the other guy tagged was a feature on her collab channel back in the day and Leda was someone she followed so this wasn’t directed at johnnie alone. If this is the only screen cap to back up your claim it’s weak

No. 173308

File: 1632115198791.jpeg (222.31 KB, 828x582, 709BFB2B-8F64-46C2-8F5D-FDF128…)

>>173306
Please stop being cringe on purpose. She’s been talking to him for years and before she dated Connor. It makes sense she would want to date someone so closely involved with Leda

No. 173309

>>173305
Trying to set them up means a two way street anon, she seemed very interested in other men at the time and any time anons have followed her relationships it’s very obvious with their interactions. Showing how she has little to none with johnnie means it didn’t work the way Darcy is implying if that’s the truth of gospel we’re believing here

No. 173310

>>173308
How is this in any ways supporting that they were involved or flirted? They follow each other from what I can see on all media so replying to tweets that have no substance feels open ended and not exactly proof of them being romantically involved as much as you’re fighting for it to be for some reason.

No. 173311

>>173310
anon is obviously pushing a narrative of romance and false milky like in the previous threads.

No. 173312

>>173309
Sorry but you’re twisting the milk to fit your narrative because how dare a man reject Nicole!!1 It’s not my problem if you don’t want to believe Darcy but she knows much more about this than any of us random anons. She said Johnnie wasn’t interested in her, literally here >>173301 which implies romantically. Don’t be this stupid
Nicole was trying to pursue him romantically and he didn’t have feelings for her back.
Also you requested proof that they even knew each other so that’s what those tweets are regarding >>173310

No. 173313

File: 1632115542666.jpeg (196.07 KB, 828x1472, F714D137-8EC3-4540-B543-0F06C0…)

>>173311
It is romantic lol Darcy says she met Johnnie and she knows more about this than us.

No. 173314

>>173309
>>173310
>>173311
Using different devices and IPs doesn't make your samefagging any less obvious.

No. 173315

>>173312
Why would we believe a cow with her own thread and the ex of a suspect in question? Even if we did believe everything word for word and it was all true to fact, there’s literally nothing that creates current milk between her and Johnnie unless something comes up in the future between them and we can reference back to this evidence. As it stands there’s no public proof they’re involved and even Darcy says it was a years ago attempt to set them up but given how Nicole treats her relationships publicly it’s pretty certain to say nothing came of it. No matter how badly you want to push this agenda it just doesn’t hold up at this point in time anon

No. 173316

The milk:
Darcy met Johnnie personally and dated Connor for years
Darcy says Connor and Nicole were trying to set her up with Johnnie, that was the original plan but Johnnie wasn’t interested in her

The retarded anons:
“Where’s the proof it was romantic” “Stop giving false narratives”

This is so retarded. The thread cannot even function as intended if the gatekeeping and denying of evidence won’t stop. Someone seems keen on denying milk that THE Nicole was rejected by a man.

No. 173317

>>173315
It wasn’t a years ago attempt. You’re making that part up lol

No. 173318

>>173316
Nobody is saying it doesn’t contribute to evidence, just not the stake in the heart the previous anon was implying. It’s evidence to use if anything unfolds between them later on but for now it lines up as non threatening. Hell even as the anon in the last thread stated, Connor was kissing johnnie while him and Darcy were together

No. 173319

>>173317
Then why are anons screen capping 2015 if this wasn’t a years ago involvement?

No. 173320

>>173315
>Why would we believe a cow with her own thread
Unless her thread is about being a pathological liar this has nothing to do with it. All evidence, dates, and timestamps and history of skinwalking Leda shows Nicole wanted to be with Johnnie but he rejected her.

No. 173321

>>173319
This is literally the point of making this new thread CURRENT and factual milk.

No. 173322

>>173319
Because anon was insisting that Nicole didn’t know who Johnnie was, hence the tweets of her knowing him personally. It’s clear she tried dating Johnnie in 2020 after her split with Dennis and Destery. Unless you’re saying she cheated on her boyfriend? (2011-2020)

No. 173323

>>173320
There’s literally nothing that confirms that because even her breakups and falling outs are public so if we’re basing this on pattern why does she have no public intimacy or flirtatious interactions with Johnnie

No. 173324

>>173319
Why would she try dating Johnnie in 2015 when he was an underage child? He would have been 17 during that tweet, while she was in her 20s. Is that what you’re trying to say?

No. 173325

>>173262
I didn't even realize this was a new thread since you used the same image again…and reading the OP it's useless and unfunny, anyone want to make a better new thread since this one seems geared towards infighting

No. 173326

>>173322
The anons wasn’t saying that she didn’t know who he was, just that they weren’t romantic because none of it on their of their ends holds up to a romantic relationship of any kind. Just because you try to set two people up doesn’t mean they’ll want to date, that’s the cringe part of this accusation

No. 173327

>>173323
Why would she have public flirtations when she was dating Dennis from 2011 to 2020 and Destery almost the entirety of 2020? And Connor 2021. She isn’t an idiot, but Darcy confirmed plain and simple that Nicole got rejected by Johnnie

No. 173328

>>173318
>You cannot have a differing opinion than me even if your opinion is formed on posted evidence… Because uh… the evidence is non-threatening?

No. 173329

>>173325
Admins should shut down Nicole’s thread in general, it’s excessive autism and vendetta in every post. Nothing alines anymore

No. 173330

>>173326
This is a stupid argument fyi. You can’t gatekeep when factual milk is given. You just don’t want to believe the narrative that Nicole was rejected by a man despite a literal person involved in the drama came forward and said Johnnie wasn’t interested in her after trying to be set up with Nicole.

No. 173331

>>173329
Kek, you'd like that wouldn't you.

No. 173332

>>173327
If she had public flirtatious comments woth destery and Connor and they’re who she dated regardless of timeline why wouldn’t she be trying with anyone else she’s interested in

No. 173333

>>173329
That’s what bans are for. It’s almost as if retarded OP created this thread to focus on anons infighting instead of discussing Nicole. There’s no way an adult made this thread.

No. 173334

>>173332
Why would we need public flirtations as proof of romantic relationship when that’s tinfoil? Anons are just going to pick that apart too and say it’s subjective tinfoil. You’re not slick denying factual milk from Darcy’s messages.

No. 173335

>>173330
I don’t think the anon is denying it, they even said use it when it’s necessary in the future. They’re implying that there’s not enough evidence to create a scenario based off a pattern that doesn’t align and two people who don’t public interact much. The rest is up for interpretation but not milk(learn2sage)

No. 173336

>>173273
Who else recognizes this attempt at using a larger vocabulary while not understanding what the words mean because I sure do…manifesting inaccuracy kek

No. 173337

I hope when this thread gets locked a charitable anon adds this retarded intentionally disingenuous fiasco to a new, comprehensive, thread description. Nicolefags are the gift that keeps on giving.

No. 173339

>>173335
>I don’t think anon is denying it.
Read the thread yourself lol, someone is keen on making sure nobody believes Nicole was rejected
>>173297
>>173302
>>173306
>>173311
All of these reek of gatekeeping factual milk provided by Darcy. Her having a thread is irrelevant, no1curr about your personal dislike over her, she knows more than all of us do.

No. 173340

>>173300
Anon also showed instances of all the times she did this to her nose, predating their mention. Not everything is about the thread when it's something she does regularly.

No. 173341

File: 1632116805790.jpeg (79.08 KB, 762x1024, C660791E-A012-47C9-AFD9-F58A05…)

Nicole:
>Skinwalked Leda to death
>Everyone in her life from irl friends, exs, boyfriends and online friends are all tied to Leda
>Nicole has been a fan of Johnnie’s since 2015
>Connor’s ex says Johnnie wasn’t interested in Nicole, despite Connor and Nicole trying to set her up with him
>This wouldn’t be the first time Nicole tried dating someone related to Leda


Sorry but after all the evidence, receipts, patterns of behavior, and literal word of a person involved, what about this doesn’t scream that Nicole was rejected? >>173301
(Picrel is Johnnie hanging out with Leda)

No. 173342

It seems pretty self explanatory that going to other cows for info on cows doesn't make any sense, especially when people like Darcy and known to say whatever it takes to stir the pot.

No. 173343

>>173337
100% agree, this whole thing is just Nicolefag sperging out since admin won't let them do it in /meta anymore.
Never seen so much infighting and activity in a short time, crappy OP which is clearly just them complaining about the thread existing as usual and not summarizing any of the milk (of which there was plenty last thread)

Idk why team nicole are so obsessed with the thread. I think they're desperate for autosage, so they made an infight thread with a shit/nonexistent summary to try and gaslight everyone into believing their no milk narrative.
But we've seen it all. Admin has seen it all. This is incredibly transparent.

No. 173344

>>173341
How is this on Nicole when her friend is the one who tried setting her up? Make that make sense.

No. 173345

>>173342
Kek just don’t be angry when Darcy provides receipts that Nicole tried to date Johnnie and was rejected, you’re almost tempting anons to do this, especially since farmhand gave the all clear that it’s okay to do so.

No. 173347

>>173344
>He was talking to her to set her up with Johnnie
Pretty sure Nicole and Connor both planned to set her up. That’s how talking works, anon.

No. 173348

>>173342
>>173344
>>173346
Hello fellow farmers I am sageing

No. 173363

>>173329
You’re reiterating the same shit the Nicole anon said in /meta/ over and over for over a year lol.

>>173342
Sorry, but it doesn’t matter if Darcy’s a cow if she’s adding onto Nicole and Connor’s retardation. Moo has been mentioned multiple times in Lori’s thread for example. Cows can intersect, get over it.

No. 173370

File: 1632125848082.jpeg (24.88 KB, 800x450, D07004CB-AE7E-4522-BD29-09B4E7…)

Notice how a few spergy anons always infight near the end of Nicole’s threads so it gets hard locked with their personal take/arguments as the final say. Also you autists like OP aren’t slick with your minimodding and gatekeeping when you are literal hypocrites and accuse every anon of being samefag and vendetta simple for creating a funny meme picture: >>173273 and >>>/w/173259
So in relation to this autist >>>/w/173255 who somehow defended Nicole publicly harassing Heather and making it okay, a response:
-Just because she was in the hospital once or took a picture there doesn’t mean she didn’t self-diagnose herself with ADHD, autism, and BPD. Everyone visits the hospital and that’s not proof of anything
-Johnnie is linked to Leda because they’re literally friends. Nicole gloms onto anyone who is either related to Leda, an ex, or a friend, see >>>/w/171474 how Nicole doesn’t seem to have a single online friend that doesn’t idolize Leda. And just because you don’t personally like Darcy doesn’t mean her messages aren’t worth less than whatever straws you try to grasp that Johnnie isn’t interested in a Leda clone.
-We say she’s queerbaiting because she is. Creating a narrative that Connor is “fruity” or “gay” because he kissed his friend as a joke is like white girls at parties who take photos kissing to be quirky. Connor never came out as bi or anything nor have they ever come out as in an open relationship. All we know is Nicole wants to be speshul and inclusive so bad but as >>>/w/171838 said it’s only catering to the male fantasy and all “lesbian” content is forced and unnatural with strapons or not focusing on female pleasure at all (i.e content with Heather).
-Saying Heather stole and manipulated her isn’t proof whatsoever. This isn’t the first time Nicole has accused a friend of stealing from her except here she has no proof. Heather checking to see if Nicole’s followers are talking about her isn’t proof of her being a stalker either. She is in a lot of Nicole’s content so no shit she’s going to read what people say about her.
-As for nobody saying Nicole cheated on them, Nicole only dated two men, a soyboy simp who hides from the internet and a pedophile, and if the pedophile says she cheated on him then that’s at least worth something. Also you’re acting as if her best buddies at the moment aren’t exactly pedophiles themselves and Nicole totally isn’t a pedo apologist
>Real tea is her stalker saga
-That’s what the first thread is for. We’re not going to stalk Addi for 2018 news just so you can make Nicole look good. Sorry but curb your ego on an anonymous imageboard, we just want to enjoy drama without the OP complaining about anons rather than Nicole. Report shit and move on lol

No. 173372

>>173370
You hit the nail on the head. It’s interesting that the stalker saga has been brought up again, almost as though there’s an incentive to guide the thread back to people who aren’t Nicole, but rather Brandon and Addi who has been discussed plenty previously, and with no new milk beyond that. One thing that stuck out to me with Addi in particular is how there was a screenshot of her Facebook when it wasn’t even listed under her real name. >>158047 How the hell would any anon find this in the first place?

No. 173374

>>173372
Samefag - I’m not sure if it’s more ironic or creepy (well, probably both let’s be real) that Brandon was onto something with her and Destery too >>82425

No. 173390

Lol who made this thread? It’s so bad and why would you reuse pics?

No. 173394

>>173363
>>173370
>>173374
>>173372
It's so bizarre how much you twist what you see online when everyone else trying to participate in thread can tell your info is as credible as OP. The way anons rope in random crap to make what she does seem more nefarious than it is just crazy.

>>173370
A lot of what you posted is adding no credible sources to stuff or like anons have mentioned, stretching the truth to fit some warped narritive. If Connor knew Johnnie, thats not conclusive Nicole tried to force him to like her. Destery never said she cheated, taking Darcy's word isn't worth shit because she's absolutely known to lie to create drama and be needed (a narc as well), theres nothing to go against her being queerbaiting aside from anons desperately wanting it to be queerbaiting because it fits a nice little narritive (haven't posted anything not proving she is queerbaiting after all her constant mentions of loving girls, not the same as a one off kiss between bros like 'at a party'), Heather is a cunt and did go out of her way to harass Nicole too on side accounts which anons posted her screens from reddit even, but apparently that's not good enough, but a word from Darcy is lol

>just because she went to a hospital once or twice

Cool, same mentally as just because Darcy agrees and is vague when anons contact her for real facts, doesn't make it true

No. 173395

>>173372
Probably the same way anons found Koti's hotel she stayed in. It doesn't take much detective work to use Google or the fact Addi isn't hard to find.

No. 173396

>>173394
>Heather is a cunt and did go out of her way to harass Nicole too on side accounts which anons posted her screens from reddit even
This is just false information. There is no proof whatsoever that it was Heather, besides just Nicole assuming it was. Don’t be stupid.

No. 173397

>>173396
The same can be said then for all these fan accounts anons assume are Nicole's alts. That's the exact same logic.

No. 173400

>>173397
Why are you using shit logic just because one anon one time said something about fan accounts? That’s so petty and retarded. I don’t see why you need to tinfoil and create fake narratives just because one anon did it in the past. Wtf lol

No. 173401

>>173400
It was a good 1/4 of one thread where anons went on about this because Nicole can't possible have fan accounts unless she runs them. This isn't a one time bit it was brought up. The logic is the same. Most of her threads are based on spiraled out milk into conspiracies.

No. 173408

>>173401
>Most of her threads are based on spiraled out milk into conspiracies.
So why are you continuing it then? You’re completely fine creating tinfoil if it makes Nicole look good, lol

No. 173411

File: 1632141360824.jpeg (322 KB, 828x618, 1177D9EA-2971-452A-AF8F-751A57…)

>>173408
It’s cause the Nicole stans are back

No. 173412

>>173408
It does't make her look good if Heather has alts too. None of that disregards her posting about Heather?

No. 173414

>>173412
No but it’s blindly believing Nicole with no proof whatsoever. Accusing someone of harassing and making hate accounts is a serious thing and it could literally be any scrote.

No. 173423

To preface I realize this is only tinfoil, but why the fuck are these posts coming en mass around the same time? All of a sudden there’s a bunch of attempts to question milk, and it’s in bursts at that. The time framing is weird.

No. 173452

>>173423
Trying to read the thread and it not like people have never questioned milk before. A lot of supposed milk is sus because it's anons tinfoiling to fill in blanks and try to connect invisible dots. That's not really milk.

No. 173472

>>173414
Lol that's what anons do with anyone who isn't Nicole. That goes both ways

No. 173487

>>173423
The ones who hate anons questiong milk have the same pattern. Stop assuming everyone is the same person.

No. 173490

>>173423
It's when Nicolefag has some downtime and a VPN to spam the site and try and change the narrative, s/he is even a banned topic on meta due to how obsessed Nicolefag is. Someone needs to make a new actual thread with detailed OP and not a Nicolefag spam thread because this one is going round in circles.

No. 173494

Im sorry but what is this bullshit thread please? I was looking if someone made a new one, right after the unsaging WK anon returned from his ban to shit up the thread for the hundredth time about how all milk is invalid anyways and we dont really know anything about innocent Nicole blabla, who now has the fucking audicity to gatekeep what can and can not be posted. And I'm pissed you didnt use the new threadpic we agreed upon.
>>>/w/171133
Delete this wk sperging nonsense and make a new one. Seriously, these accusations and whining about vendetta are pathetic.

No. 173495

>>173304
you are the most pathetic OP i've ever seen in this forum and i'd hope so much you would just finally LEAVE and create your own little nicolefag forum where you can play posting police and gatekeep the entire thing with a "straight timeline" so the normal users can get on with their lifes. this thread and the op text are embarassing and so is reading each and every one of your speculative, whiny, unsaged cringeposts.

No. 173496

>>173305
Again, Darcy has a history of lying and has done this way before Nicole too fuck with other people's relationships too. She's not a go-to for all the gossip you could hope for, anon. She had never backed out up either.

No. 173497

>>173494
Tbf, mods didn't nail it as a shit thread, so theres no reason to make another. They got dinged for tripfagging. Maybe get on topic and stop complaining because it's already almost 100 posts in, anon.

No. 173498

>>173311
>>173310
>>173309
It's infuriating and retarded how you are the loudest whiner in the thread about "keeping it real" just to aggressively and persistently deny every piece of evidence or fact we have been through a million times, just because you cant get your obvious nicolesperging under control. nobody wants to crawl through your long ass novels of wking, please stop and get help. Your focus on mad tinfoiling to push Nicole into the best possible light and samefagging the thread up so your opinion looks more believable is unbearable to watch.

No. 173500

>>173490
Other anons do the same posting spurts. Your logic literally goes both ways and mods have mentioned the vendetta posters use VPNs too, so maybe just stay on topic and use the thread as intended.

And the OP doesn't gatekeep anymire than other threads that have had to issue warnings, clear fake or exaggerated milk, and most clarify to not nitpick photos just because the thread is dry.

No. 173501

>>173498
No one has given evidence. They also aren't even dating so what does this matter at all?

No. 173505

>>173370
yep, and the anon thats too retarded to sage, who has been playing little dictator about what can and cannot be done, consistently screeches about the timeline having to be recent and aligned (completely disregarding that with new finds of old proof, conclusions can change when new - as in new for US - info is presented), so they demand evidence, and if the evidence is logically older to prove something just developing now, they screech about how its not recent, so not valid. This loop concludes that either the timeline is not straight OR there is no evidence, which WK will choose either to keep complaining about. rinse and repeat.

We all know you wanna live in Nicoles butthole, but you never stopped these threads from happening and you never will.

No. 173506

>>173500
>so maybe just stay on topic and use the thread as intended.

This is blatant minimodding, which is against the rules. The disclaimers in other threads are usually as a result of repeated farmhand or admin requests for same, where the "rules" in OP is just something Nicolefag pulled out of their ass with no prior discussion.

No. 173507

>>173335
you are already banned in meta, were banned multiple times for wking, please just let lolcow go.

The pathetic OP doesnt even list all the recent milk from the past threads, there is so much missing and I wanted the other picture anon made. Its a dickmove to ignore their work just because it depicts your holy nicole in a dark/funny way.

No. 173509

>>173284
>>173282
>>173289
>>173343
>>173370
Couldn't agree more, its always this one ban evading VPN whiteknight/nicolesperg that samefaggs the threads to max the last minute so everyone thinks the entire thing was invalid, not consistant, vendetta anyways or whatever shit excuse they come up this time to defend nicoles milky as fuck behavior and her demonic friendgroup. why wouldnt this anon just leave it alone already and accept the thread for what it is? its also pretty assholy to insult anons who take the time to make all the screenshots with dates or memes for this forum.

No. 173510

>>173497
still think this thread should be mass reported and nicolefag banned permanently.

No. 173516

This thread is not usable imo. Just because it’s not locked/only redtexted for tripfagging doesn’t mean a better thread shouldn’t be created.

No. 173520

>>173516
This. The OP is attempting to minimod and they don’t even know how to make a thread properly in the first place. And tripfagging? Really? This isn’t 4chan OP kek.

No. 173524

>>173520
I made the fourth thread and tried to remain neutral (not basing milk on feelings, too subjective, stretching) because there was already so much drama overflowing with her getting fillers and the OF post about using the money to feed the family while they’re rich. I think this OP is too flaky, and scarcely talks about actual milk and instead is just fueled with hatred for anons that could easily be solved with the report function. See >>173293 which is all recent drama OP didn’t include. So I’ll make a new thread which incorporates this as long as admin/farmhands don’t mind

No. 173525

>>173524
Considering it’s been redtexted albeit only for tripfagging and the quality of it is shit (same thread pic as last, skimpy summary, attempt to keep conversation to a “linear path”, shitting on other anons who have been making proper contributions with collages plus timestamps) I’d assume it would be fine to make a new thread. Especially since this has so far mainly been sperging out trying to infight and questioning everything for the 100th time over. Like another anon said, it could be the Nicole anon getting desperate since Admin told them to shut the fuck up. If anything it’s at least worth asking in meta.

No. 173527

>>173525
You realize the Nicole anon thing could mean the WKs or the spergs who keep spamming meta, accusing everyone of being the same ban evader, right? I feel like Nicole might be a cow mods have to just lock the threads of.

No. 173533

>>173527
But the wk is the one getting red text bans in meta, not anyone complaining about a ban evader kek

No. 173535

>>173533
There's been mass nitpicking bans in her threads too. Mods are tired of anyone related to Nicole.

No. 173539

>>173535
There’s drama and bans in every single thread. I’m not even sure why you’re here you clearly don’t like any discussion of her and are tired of her, you don’t have to ruin it for everyone else. She’s a milky cow and so long as autists stop bitching in meta and here, things will be fine.

No. 173544

>>173539
I think you're assuming I'm the tripfag. Nothing I've said mentions anything about being tired of her or hating her. The /meta/ post doesn't say if its WKs or the Nicolespergs. You guys want her to be milky, then stop complaining. Ask the mods if you can make a new thread and just wait. You're no better than the OP. Nicolefags are all toxic from both sides. No wonder the threads are unreadable.

No. 173546

>>173544
Imo a new thread is needed because not only is this a shit OP, but it incites infighting and finger pointing and critiquing past threads and this isn’t the place to do that. The top paragraph the OP copy and pasted from previous threads says >complaints go in meta, but the entire OP is a complaint. It’s going to be confusing to newfags and people new to the threads.

No. 173549

>>173546
The issue is that they do make a lot of good points. Anons have exaggerated or strung along milk to connect dots just so something makes sense to them. That's really deceptive in what gets posted. I'm not disagreeing about a new thread, someone should make one, but trying to look at the other ones and looking at some of the stuff posted, it's hard to deny that some of the stuff is a stretch. The whole grooming and pedophile thing is a really big one to mention since it filled the last thread up and saying that posts should include dates or timestamps isn't gatekeeping. That's basic lolcow etiquette when posting milk. It's basic archiving proof.

No. 173550

>>173549
I agree. I want the threads to be readable and filled with drama, just not stretched drama or writing paragraph upon paragraph blogposting about personal experiences with a narcissist.

No. 173551

>>173550
I also kind of agree with >>173496 I don't know who Darcy is because it's been hard to follow [someone please make a little summary of who everyone is so that newfags know who is being talked about], but if all she has to go of off for milk is her DMs, that's not really a source like anons have been saying, especially if she's somehow the main source for alls these different situations. That really is kind of weird.

No. 173554

File: 1632189951282.jpeg (150.55 KB, 1027x648, E8C9CF69-6C0A-4021-B618-98C6F7…)

>>173544
>>173551
Farmhand posted in the last thread thread as well as /meta/ after an anon complained about Darcy. It’s a WK.

No. 173556

>>173554
That kind of says they are talking about complaining about it being cow-tipping which no one has mentioned it is. Anons have said that using her as a source doesn't seem credible since she has past cow behavior like lying to start drama. They are talking about her credibility.

No. 173558

>>173557
When I mean no one mentioned cowtipping, I mean in this new thread. All I said is I agree that some anons think she isn't credible. For all anons know, she's lying about even being told anything.

No. 173559

>>173558
I realized I misread your post so went ahead and deleted, sorry about that anon

No. 173560

>>173559
Oh, I just refreshed and saw. I was wondering why it was green suddenly. All good. I'm just agreeing she's kind of sketchy to take as fact.

No. 173568

New thread: >>>/w/173567
I incorporated the Darcy milk but mentioned she may have twisted the story since she’s also a mentally unstable cow.

No. 173741

>>173396
How else can you disprove the fact heather wasn’t even mentioned and still saw/contacted Nicole within minutes (as stated) the attacks on Cassie were verifiably personal and heather was proven to be a lurker on multiple sites. Not to believe Nicole off the bat but she said she called her out with proof and if she CAN provide that then it should be note worthy. If not then whatever

No. 173742

>>173414
Things is nobody to our knowledge has asked Nicole directly for proof because ‘cowtipping’ maybe but when she made her IG story post post saying for heather to contact her if she has an issue we never heard from it again and has since went on about having the proof she needs to back up heather stole from her or lead her on etc. the fact heather hasn’t defended herself or harassed Nicole or her groupies since says something IMO

No. 173743

>>173535
Obviously because the real milk to anon drama is an unrealistic ratio. There’s milk on this cow for sure but not to the extent of 5 threads. I’ll really have to agree it’s mostly nitpick and anon fighting over whether we can extent topics because the truth is we lack key proof without assumption. That’s when this turns into a game of anons wanting to be right more than the actuality of what we can discuss here further

No. 173744

>>173568
I personally have incorporated Darcy milk, I can also conclude she’s a known cow with a history of lying and abuse. Also a known lurker(if that contributes or holds weight) up until know the last thread solely referred to her as Nycole to make her a closer connection so the manipulation has been implemented from the beginning. I’m not even someone who has agreed with this new thread from the beginning but circling back I think the last thread had weird tactics to add milk to the story for the sake of making dry spells spicer(sage)

No. 173751

>>173741
>>173742
>>173743
Learn to sage already samefag



Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]