Little pink monster blog

[Anonymous]

I think Kane is an ass. I think he loves the power that his money brings and I think he doesn’t like when people say no to him (men and women alike). I think he’s shallow and immature.
I also think Natasha is melodramatic. I think she has deep emotional issues and needs constant reassurance. I think she exaggerated her illnesses/chronic pain issues because they only show up or become a problem when it’s convenient to her. I think she fell in love with him because he’s controlling and she loved the micromanaging because that’s the attention she craved.
I think both of them have made numerous mistakes and making more just because the other has made another one is a very dangerous slippery slope. I think they both love their kids and want what’s the best for them, but don’t necessarily know how to get that accomplished with their new situation.
One thing I’ll give to Kane, at least he’s not currently blasting pictures of his daughters all over social media to get likes, followers, attention and whatnot. Can’t say the same for Natasha. And the fact that she’s disguising it as “speaking her truth” is even more annoying. She could speak her truth all she wants without posting melodramatic sob posts with attention grabbing pictures of her kids. She could keep her story to her story alone and leave the kids out of it. If she wants to empower women, don’t become part of the problem and give women a bad name. I’m sick of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allegations. Maybe you are projecting your own psychological demons? Sociopath?

Looks like Peter is working late here tonight posting. Yes, sociopath, YOU.

Hi Natasha.

I'm the pp and I'm not Natasha. I'm guessing she's busy with her new husband, baby and life. How about you, Peter?

You say you’re not but you are defending her like you are or as though you know her personally. I’m guessing he’s busy with his actual job and taking care of his two kids. See how that works? You claim something and someone can claim something too.

I'm the pp who first said that spying in that way was sociopathic (but not tee immediate pp). I'm definitely not natasha and can even prove it. I live in and am posting from Maine and assume my ip address would confirm that of you want to ask Jeff.

And the ppl you are responding to aren’t Kane. Jeff can check. Just bc some posters aren’t falling over themselves to just side with Natasha doesn’t mean they are Kane. Is that really a hard concept to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Kane is an ass. I think he loves the power that his money brings and I think he doesn’t like when people say no to him (men and women alike). I think he’s shallow and immature.
I also think Natasha is melodramatic. I think she has deep emotional issues and needs constant reassurance. I think she exaggerated her illnesses/chronic pain issues because they only show up or become a problem when it’s convenient to her. I think she fell in love with him because he’s controlling and she loved the micromanaging because that’s the attention she craved.
I think both of them have made numerous mistakes and making more just because the other has made another one is a very dangerous slippery slope. I think they both love their kids and want what’s the best for them, but don’t necessarily know how to get that accomplished with their new situation.
One thing I’ll give to Kane, at least he’s not currently blasting pictures of his daughters all over social media to get likes, followers, attention and whatnot. Can’t say the same for Natasha. And the fact that she’s disguising it as “speaking her truth” is even more annoying. She could speak her truth all she wants without posting melodramatic sob posts with attention grabbing pictures of her kids. She could keep her story to her story alone and leave the kids out of it. If she wants to empower women, don’t become part of the problem and give women a bad name. I’m sick of her.

Totally agree. Neither of them are some angel. They both suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allegations. Maybe you are projecting your own psychological demons? Sociopath?

Looks like Peter is working late here tonight posting. Yes, sociopath, YOU.

Hi Natasha.

I'm the pp and I'm not Natasha. I'm guessing she's busy with her new husband, baby and life. How about you, Peter?

You say you’re not but you are defending her like you are or as though you know her personally. I’m guessing he’s busy with his actual job and taking care of his two kids. See how that works? You claim something and someone can claim something too.

I'm the pp who first said that spying in that way was sociopathic (but not tee immediate pp). I'm definitely not natasha and can even prove it. I live in and am posting from Maine and assume my ip address would confirm that of you want to ask Jeff.

And the ppl you are responding to aren’t Kane. Jeff can check. Just bc some posters aren’t falling over themselves to just side with Natasha doesn’t mean they are Kane. Is that really a hard concept to understand?

I didn't say they were! Clearly said I was not the immediate pp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allegations. Maybe you are projecting your own psychological demons? Sociopath?

Looks like Peter is working late here tonight posting. Yes, sociopath, YOU.

Hi Natasha.

I'm the pp and I'm not Natasha. I'm guessing she's busy with her new husband, baby and life. How about you, Peter?

You say you’re not but you are defending her like you are or as though you know her personally. I’m guessing he’s busy with his actual job and taking care of his two kids. See how that works? You claim something and someone can claim something too.

I'm the pp who first said that spying in that way was sociopathic (but not tee immediate pp). I'm definitely not natasha and can even prove it. I live in and am posting from Maine and assume my ip address would confirm that of you want to ask Jeff.

I'm neither as well but am team Natasha. I can prove I live in AA county. I don't know nor have I ever met Natasha or Kane. I can just relate to what she posts about and after listening to Kane on air, I decided on my OWN that he is a POS.

[Anonymous]

Her latest post says the girls are back with her and "they had lots of questions & worries." I hope Peter realizes these girls are not babies and they are not stupid. This is affecting them, so sad to read that.

[Anonymous]

Just read a comment on her post I find so disturbing:

"I remember listening to his radio show on the way to work. I think this is when you were pregnant with your first child. He said he purposely broke up with you multiple times as a means of manipulation. He breaks up with you and you want him more and try harder. I worried about you from that moment."

[Anonymous]

So she has the girls back and she’s STILL posting about the situation? Her girls are old enough to find her on social media and read it about it now. How is this any different than bashing your kids’ father to their faces? There are some things kids just don’t need to know about at that age (along with the general public).

[Anonymous]

You’re looking at it all wrong. She’s only ever showed her girls that when a man controls and uses manipulation on you, you accept it for the good of your family.

That is a dangerous message to send. I’m glad she’s speaking up now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read a comment on her post I find so disturbing:

"I remember listening to his radio show on the way to work. I think this is when you were pregnant with your first child. He said he purposely broke up with you multiple times as a means of manipulation. He breaks up with you and you want him more and try harder. I worried about you from that moment."

I saw that comment too. I didn’t listen when he was with Natasha, but I saw him often in Tampa over a decade ago. Total misogynistic pig.

[Anonymous]

The kids are old enough to google and find her blog (and probably this thread). It’s a shame that neither parent is acting like an adult and both are using the kids as pawns. Disgusting people all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re looking at it all wrong. She’s only ever showed her girls that when a man controls and uses manipulation on you, you accept it for the good of your family.

That is a dangerous message to send. I’m glad she’s speaking up now.

No, she's only ever showed her girls that accepting a man's poor behavior is fine as long as he's supporting you. All was well Kane while he was supporting her. Now that's she with her new DH all is well with him, as far as we know. Wondering how that will change once they're no longer together since she seems like the ultimate drama queen splashing her personal issues around the internet for thousands of strangers (including her kids) to see. Not sure how never holding down a job, allegedly having a slew of chronic medical issues which supposedly prevent you from working yet don't prevent you from getting pregnant and dealing with another baby, and going to rehab which temporarily makes you lose custody, makes you an example of a strong woman and mother. But somehow making sanctimonious victim posts on social media makes you a paragon of motherly sacrifice, strength and virtue? Ugh she's the worst kind of woman.

[Anonymous]

She married for money but ended up being the one paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She married for money but ended up being the one paying for it.

Does Peter really make that much money? I have seen this comment a few times where people have called her a gold digger. Or do you just mean she married someone that made enough where she didn’t have to work (before and after kids)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She married for money but ended up being the one paying for it.

Does Peter really make that much money? I have seen this comment a few times where people have called her a gold digger. Or do you just mean she married someone that made enough where she didn’t have to work (before and after kids)?

I think he makes enough that she knew she wouldn’t have to work.