Robin <zenoplatsis@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BCD28CBF.41289%zenoplatsis@harritt.net>... in article 20040520111216.09103.00000773@mb-m17.aol.com, Kathy at meagan787@aol.comsthesun wrote on 20/5/04 4:12 pm: Di's an opportunist. Anything it takes to further her agenda. Kathy I know Di is, Di just doesn1t care, Di'll even tell the occasional adoptee here and there that it's a jolly good job that their mother is dead. So it's just the sort of thing you'd expect from Di.


Damn right you both are.
Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything.
She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption would
be 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'.

Of course, she defends herself by claiming 'there are no words
adequate to describe the depth of loss, etc'.

BUT a woman, such as Cindy, for instance, who's in severe emotional
pain could easily take these words as encouragement.
Especially when they come from a 'cult' leader.

I was wondering about Brenda Romanchik, I was wondering about someone who is there on the adoption.com forum alongside all the jackies. She may well be as Marley says "one of the most highly respected people in adoption reform today" her presence on adoption.com doesn1t enhance her reputation for me.



She's generally pretty cautious, IMO.

I have trouble with her stance on O.A because she seems to avoid
dealing with the loopholes (her relationship with her son's aparents
seems to have been well-maintained, for which credit is very due.
But still . . . )




Rh. Robin

>Subject: Re: Legally Enforceable Open Adoption?From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 5/20/04 3:33 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>Robin <zenoplatsis@harritt.net> wrote in messagenews:<BCD28CBF.41289%zenoplatsis@harritt.net>... in article 20040520111216.09103.00000773@mb-m17.aol.com, Kathy at meagan787@aol.comsthesun wrote on 20/5/04 4:12 pm:> Di's an opportunist. Anything it takes to further her agenda. Kathy I know Di is, Di just doesn1t care, Di'll even tell the occasional adoptee here and there that it's a jolly good job that their mother is dead. Soit's just the sort of thing you'd expect from Di.Damn right you both are.Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything.She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption wouldbe 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'.Of course, she defends herself by claiming 'there are no wordsadequate to describe the depth of loss, etc'.BUT a woman, such as Cindy, for instance, who's in severe emotionalpain could easily take these words as encouragement.Especially when they come from a 'cult' leader. I was wondering about Brenda Romanchik, I was wondering about someone whois there on the adoption.com forum alongside all the jackies. She may well be as Marley says "one of the most highly respected people in adoption reform today" her presence on adoption.com doesn1t enhance her reputation for me.She's generally pretty cautious, IMO.I have trouble with her stance on O.A because she seems to avoiddealing with the loopholes (her relationship with her son's aparentsseems to have been well-maintained, for which credit is very due.But still . . . )Rh.

Still, indeed...;)
She's got books to sell.
Kathy

>Subject: Re: Legally Enforceable Open Adoption?From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)Date: 5/20/04 3:33 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>Robin <zenoplatsis@harritt.net> wrote in messagenews:<BCD28CBF.41289%zenoplatsis@harritt.net>... in article 20040520111216.09103.00000773@mb-m17.aol.com, Kathy at meagan787@aol.comsthesun wrote on 20/5/04 4:12 pm:> Di's an opportunist. Anything it takes to further her agenda. Kathy I know Di is, Di just doesn1t care, Di'll even tell the occasional adoptee here and there that it's a jolly good job that their mother is dead. Soit's just the sort of thing you'd expect from Di.Damn right you both are.Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything.She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption wouldbe 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'.Of course, she defends herself by claiming 'there are no wordsadequate to describe the depth of loss, etc'.BUT a woman, such as Cindy, for instance, who's in severe emotionalpain could easily take these words as encouragement.Especially when they come from a 'cult' leader. I was wondering about Brenda Romanchik, I was wondering about someone whois there on the adoption.com forum alongside all the jackies. She may well be as Marley says "one of the most highly respected people in adoption reform today" her presence on adoption.com doesn1t enhance her reputation for me.She's generally pretty cautious, IMO.I have trouble with her stance on O.A because she seems to avoiddealing with the loopholes (her relationship with her son's aparentsseems to have been well-maintained, for which credit is very due.But still . . . )Rh.

Still, indeed...;)
She's got books to sell.
Kathy

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>... Robin <zenoplatsis@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BCD28CBF.41289%zenoplatsis@harritt.net>... in article 20040520111216.09103.00000773@mb-m17.aol.com, Kathy at meagan787@aol.comsthesun wrote on 20/5/04 4:12 pm:> Di's an opportunist. Anything it takes to further her agenda. Kathy I know Di is, Di just doesn1t care, Di'll even tell the occasional adoptee here and there that it's a jolly good job that their mother is dead. So it's just the sort of thing you'd expect from Di. Damn right you both are. Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything. She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption would be 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'.

Oh stop exaggerating. That rhetorical comment was in response to a
discussion about a women whose child is being forcibly taken off her
when she wanted to keep it. Whatsmore it was in direct response to a
two faced foster PAPs who had
taken to feigning her vacuous two faced sympathy for the mother's loss
even though she's been salivating over the child for over a year in
the hope it will become officially hers. And no I was not going to
allow her to comfort herself by minimising the mother's loss.







Of course, she defends herself by claiming 'there are no words adequate to describe the depth of loss, etc'. BUT a woman, such as Cindy, for instance, who's in severe emotional pain could easily take these words as encouragement. Especially when they come from a 'cult' leader. I was wondering about Brenda Romanchik, I was wondering about someone who is there on the adoption.com forum alongside all the jackies. She may well be as Marley says "one of the most highly respected people in adoption reform today" her presence on adoption.com doesn1t enhance her reputation for me. She's generally pretty cautious, IMO. I have trouble with her stance on O.A because she seems to avoid dealing with the loopholes (her relationship with her son's aparents seems to have been well-maintained, for which credit is very due. But still . . . ) Rh. Robin

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>... Robin <zenoplatsis@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BCD28CBF.41289%zenoplatsis@harritt.net>... in article 20040520111216.09103.00000773@mb-m17.aol.com, Kathy at meagan787@aol.comsthesun wrote on 20/5/04 4:12 pm:> Di's an opportunist. Anything it takes to further her agenda. Kathy I know Di is, Di just doesn1t care, Di'll even tell the occasional adoptee here and there that it's a jolly good job that their mother is dead. So it's just the sort of thing you'd expect from Di. Damn right you both are. Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything. She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption would be 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'.

Oh stop exaggerating. That rhetorical comment was in response to a
discussion about a women whose child is being forcibly taken off her
when she wanted to keep it. Whatsmore it was in direct response to a
two faced foster PAPs who had
taken to feigning her vacuous two faced sympathy for the mother's loss
even though she's been salivating over the child for over a year in
the hope it will become officially hers. And no I was not going to
allow her to comfort herself by minimising the mother's loss.







Of course, she defends herself by claiming 'there are no words adequate to describe the depth of loss, etc'. BUT a woman, such as Cindy, for instance, who's in severe emotional pain could easily take these words as encouragement. Especially when they come from a 'cult' leader. I was wondering about Brenda Romanchik, I was wondering about someone who is there on the adoption.com forum alongside all the jackies. She may well be as Marley says "one of the most highly respected people in adoption reform today" her presence on adoption.com doesn1t enhance her reputation for me. She's generally pretty cautious, IMO. I have trouble with her stance on O.A because she seems to avoid dealing with the loopholes (her relationship with her son's aparents seems to have been well-maintained, for which credit is very due. But still . . . ) Rh. Robin

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0405210034.4b05aa34@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>... Damn right you both are. Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything. She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption would be 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'. Oh stop exaggerating.



No, Di, I'm not exaggerating.
*You* were when you wrote 'better off dead'.
You have no respect at all for the power of words.
Whatever suits you at any given time is grist for your mill.

To say that *any* woman in such circumstances would be 'better off
dead' is a very dangerous statement. Not that you're ever going to be
able to admit that to yourself.
Regardless of the context, those words were up there for anyone to
read.
Besides, distressed people don't look for context.
It's the kind of remark that could very well stick in the head of a
seriously depressed person.



That rhetorical comment was in response to a discussion about a women whose child is being forcibly taken off her when she wanted to keep it. Whatsmore it was in direct response to a two faced foster PAPs who had taken to feigning her vacuous two faced sympathy for the mother's loss even though she's been salivating over the child for over a year in the hope it will become officially hers. And no I was not going to allow her to comfort herself by minimising the mother's loss.


And there you have it.
Thoughtless and opportunuistic.
You exaggerated just in order to discomfort her.
With no consideration whatsoever for any possible effect those words
might have on anyone else.




Rh.
Of course, she defends herself by claiming 'there are no words adequate to describe the depth of loss, etc'. BUT a woman, such as Cindy, for instance, who's in severe emotional pain could easily take these words as encouragement. Especially when they come from a 'cult' leader. > > I was wondering about Brenda Romanchik, I was wondering about someone who is there on the adoption.com forum alongside all the jackies. She may well be as Marley says "one of the most highly respected people in adoption reform today" her presence on adoption.com doesn1t enhance her reputation for me. > > She's generally pretty cautious, IMO. I have trouble with her stance on O.A because she seems to avoid dealing with the loopholes (her relationship with her son's aparents seems to have been well-maintained, for which credit is very due. But still . . . ) Rh. Robin

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<9a095db9.0405210034.4b05aa34@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>... Damn right you both are. Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything. She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption would be 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'. Oh stop exaggerating.



No, Di, I'm not exaggerating.
*You* were when you wrote 'better off dead'.
You have no respect at all for the power of words.
Whatever suits you at any given time is grist for your mill.

To say that *any* woman in such circumstances would be 'better off
dead' is a very dangerous statement. Not that you're ever going to be
able to admit that to yourself.
Regardless of the context, those words were up there for anyone to
read.
Besides, distressed people don't look for context.
It's the kind of remark that could very well stick in the head of a
seriously depressed person.



That rhetorical comment was in response to a discussion about a women whose child is being forcibly taken off her when she wanted to keep it. Whatsmore it was in direct response to a two faced foster PAPs who had taken to feigning her vacuous two faced sympathy for the mother's loss even though she's been salivating over the child for over a year in the hope it will become officially hers. And no I was not going to allow her to comfort herself by minimising the mother's loss.


And there you have it.
Thoughtless and opportunuistic.
You exaggerated just in order to discomfort her.
With no consideration whatsoever for any possible effect those words
might have on anyone else.




Rh.
Of course, she defends herself by claiming 'there are no words adequate to describe the depth of loss, etc'. BUT a woman, such as Cindy, for instance, who's in severe emotional pain could easily take these words as encouragement. Especially when they come from a 'cult' leader. > > I was wondering about Brenda Romanchik, I was wondering about someone who is there on the adoption.com forum alongside all the jackies. She may well be as Marley says "one of the most highly respected people in adoption reform today" her presence on adoption.com doesn1t enhance her reputation for me. > > She's generally pretty cautious, IMO. I have trouble with her stance on O.A because she seems to avoid dealing with the loopholes (her relationship with her son's aparents seems to have been well-maintained, for which credit is very due. But still . . . ) Rh. Robin

Subject: Re: Legally Enforceable Open Adoption?
From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
Date: 5/21/04 6:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <dafc70.0405210540.20c8339b@posting.google.com>

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
news:<9a095db9.0405210034.4b05aa34@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>... Damn right you both are. Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything. She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption would be 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'. Oh stop exaggerating.



No, Di, I'm not exaggerating.
*You* were when you wrote 'better off dead'.
You have no respect at all for the power of words.
Whatever suits you at any given time is grist for your mill.

To say that *any* woman in such circumstances would be 'better off
dead' is a very dangerous statement. Not that you're ever going to be
able to admit that to yourself.
Regardless of the context, those words were up there for anyone to
read.
Besides, distressed people don't look for context.
It's the kind of remark that could very well stick in the head of a
seriously depressed person.



That rhetorical comment was in response to a discussion about a women whose child is being forcibly taken off her when she wanted to keep it. Whatsmore it was in direct response to a two faced foster PAPs who had taken to feigning her vacuous two faced sympathy for the mother's loss even though she's been salivating over the child for over a year in the hope it will become officially hers. And no I was not going to allow her to comfort herself by minimising the mother's loss.


And there you have it.
Thoughtless and opportunuistic.
You exaggerated just in order to discomfort her.
With no consideration whatsoever for any possible effect those words
might have on anyone else.

I can't think of another thing I'd like to add here, except to say that you
nailed Di's sociopathic behavior down to a science.

And now she's trying to avoid reality by pawning off her own responsibility in
the entire matter onto innocents on this ng. that are calling her on her
actions.

Totally predictable, and equally disgusting.






Kathy

Subject: Re: Legally Enforceable Open Adoption?
From: sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
Date: 5/21/04 6:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <dafc70.0405210540.20c8339b@posting.google.com>

patrice068@optusnet.com.au (Dian) wrote in message
news:<9a095db9.0405210034.4b05aa34@posting.google.com>... sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message
news:<dafc70.0405201433.69b559d4@posting.google.com>... Damn right you both are. Shockingly irresponsible. She'll say anything. She's even written that a woman who's lost a child to adoption would be 'better off dead than spending her life mourning her loss'. Oh stop exaggerating.



No, Di, I'm not exaggerating.
*You* were when you wrote 'better off dead'.
You have no respect at all for the power of words.
Whatever suits you at any given time is grist for your mill.

To say that *any* woman in such circumstances would be 'better off
dead' is a very dangerous statement. Not that you're ever going to be
able to admit that to yourself.
Regardless of the context, those words were up there for anyone to
read.
Besides, distressed people don't look for context.
It's the kind of remark that could very well stick in the head of a
seriously depressed person.



That rhetorical comment was in response to a discussion about a women whose child is being forcibly taken off her when she wanted to keep it. Whatsmore it was in direct response to a two faced foster PAPs who had taken to feigning her vacuous two faced sympathy for the mother's loss even though she's been salivating over the child for over a year in the hope it will become officially hers. And no I was not going to allow her to comfort herself by minimising the mother's loss.


And there you have it.
Thoughtless and opportunuistic.
You exaggerated just in order to discomfort her.
With no consideration whatsoever for any possible effect those words
might have on anyone else.

I can't think of another thing I'd like to add here, except to say that you
nailed Di's sociopathic behavior down to a science.

And now she's trying to avoid reality by pawning off her own responsibility in
the entire matter onto innocents on this ng. that are calling her on her
actions.

Totally predictable, and equally disgusting.






Kathy