>ubject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 1/30/2005 3:35 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <364un2F4sam2aU9@individual.net>Marcy wrote:<snip>And as I said, it is not my day job. I do the adoptions because it isso gratifying.My fee. not a secret,$7500 for minority adoptions,$9800 for Caucasian adoptions.All facilitators, attorneys, and agencies charge less for minorityadoptions because there are fewer families for minority children and itassists them in finding families.Still, bit expensive just for inclusion in a shared advertisement in theYellow Pages though isn't it?Robin

No it isn't Robin, I run ads in all the major cities in nine states, some of
the ads are over $3000 a month. I also have T.V ads in one state that are very
expensive.

I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions total under
$15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S. wide. Definitely
cheaper than if someone did everything through an agency. Most agency adoptions
are running about $25,000 dollars now, however, I see them popping up at over
,$30,000.in some states. Oklahoma is notorious for throwing over $10,000 in
living expenses at the birthmoms. Almost none of my adoptions give living
expenses. They are high risk, unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.

Here are some yahoo groups you should lurk on Robin, for the real world of
todays adoptions. Not on alt.adoption. The best is probably adoptionscams, and
ethics in adoptions, also sign on to 2adopt it the most active group. You can
get on their e-mails lists, They are not newsgroups, but they are the most
active U.S. adoption sites. Adoption.com is also great, go on the forums.

In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>,
chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote:

I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions total under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S. wide.


Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.

Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high risk, unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.


They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer, right?






steve

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>, chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote: I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions total under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S. wide.Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse. Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high risk, unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer, right?steve

If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, that makes
them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You see if
it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with, and they
wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.

Chosenchildinc1 wrote:
Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>,chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote:I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions totalunder $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S.wide.Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high risk,unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer, right?steveIf I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, that makesthem mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You see ifit wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with, and theywouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.


But I thought you said you didn't have anything to with children? What
about the infant involved how do you know whether s/he is going to be
pleased. You do realise that at the end of the process there is an
individual who has no say in his or her own adoption? In *your*
adoptions who represents the child's interests? You know given that
there is no guardian or curator ad litem, no one who is just an
interfering civil servant getting in the way asking questions about the
child's best interests.

Robin

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/1/2005 1:48 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <369mrpF4sl7kkU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050130164329.21851.00000339@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>, chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote:> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions total> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S.> wide.Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high risk,> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer, right?steve If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, thatmakes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You seeif it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act youengage in.Kathy 1

My "real" clients? Tell me more?

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050130164329.21851.00000339@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Steve White steve@spam.me.neverDate: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>, chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote: I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions total under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S. wide.Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse. Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high risk, unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer, right?steve If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, that
makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You see
if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,


Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*
your help.


and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.

Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act you
engage in.

Kathy 1

"Chosenchildinc1" <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050201111527.27516.00000276@mb-m17.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/1/2005 1:48 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <369mrpF4sl7kkU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050130164329.21851.00000339@mb-m05.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption >From: Steve White steve@spam.me.never >Date: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com> > >In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>, > chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote: > > >> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions total >> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S. >> wide. > > >Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse. > > >> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high risk, >> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming. > > >They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer, >right? > > > > > > >steve > > > > > > If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, thatmakes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You seeif it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act youengage in.Kathy 1 My "real" clients? Tell me more?

****...now who's being purposely obtuse?

KL



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "KL" klbjornme@aohell.comDate: 2/1/2005 7:26 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <42002a93_3@127.0.0.1>"Chosenchildinc1" <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050201111527.27516.00000276@mb-m17.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/1/2005 1:48 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <369mrpF4sl7kkU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050130164329.21851.00000339@mb-m05.aol.com...> >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption> >From: Steve White steve@spam.me.never> >Date: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time> >Message-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>> >> >In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>,> > chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote:> >> >> >> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions total> >> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S.> >> wide.> >> >> >Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.> >> >> >> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high risk,> >> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.> >> >> >They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer,> >right?> >> >> >> >> >> >> >steve> >> >> >> >> >> >>> If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah,> thatmakes> them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You> seeif> it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*your help. and they> wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act youengage in.Kathy 1 My "real" clients? Tell me more?****...now who's being purposely obtuse?KL----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure UsenetNews==----http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+Newsgroups----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me, What
real clients are she referring to. Names should be forthcoming with such a
serious allegation.

KL wrote: "Chosenchildinc1" <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message news:20050201111527.27516.00000276@mb-m17.aol.com...
My "real" clients? Tell me more? ****...now who's being purposely obtuse? KL



"Now"? Ms Meshes, sorry Ms Zubrick I mean, I think, has always been purposely
and for that matter purposively, obtuse. Well at least she has ever since people
first stated asking awkward questions about her flesh peddling, sorry, adoption
facilitation, business.


Robin

in article 20050201205151.10996.00000416@mb-m28.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1
at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 1:51 am:

<snip>
>>>> If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,
yeah, that>> makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you
notes.>> You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I
matched her>> with,>>
> Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families
*without*> your help.
> and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.

> Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers
act you> engage in.

> Kathy 1

My "real" clients? Tell me more?

****...now who's being purposely obtuse?
KL


No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising
me, What real clients are she referring to. Names should be forthcoming with
such a serious allegation.


Umm… my guess'd be that she had the cork out of the bottle a bit early this
evening.


Robin

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050201205151.10996.00000416@mb-m28.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "KL" klbjornme@aohell.comDate: 2/1/2005 7:26 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <42002a93_3@127.0.0.1>"Chosenchildinc1" <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050201111527.27516.00000276@mb-m17.aol.com...> >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>>Date: 2/1/2005 1:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <369mrpF4sl7kkU1@individual.net>>>>>>>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message>>news:20050130164329.21851.00000339@mb-m05.aol.com...>>> >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>> >From: Steve White steve@spam.me.never>>> >Date: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>>> >Message-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>>>> >>>> >In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>,>>> > chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote:>>> >>>> >>>> >> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptionstotal>>> >> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S.>>> >> wide.>>> >>>> >>>> >Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>> >>>> >>>> >> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are highrisk,>>> >> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>> >>>> >>>> >They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer,>>> >right?>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >steve>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah,>>> that>>makes>>> them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes.You>>> see>>if>>> it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,>>>>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families*without*>>your help.>>>>>> and they>>> wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.>>>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers actyou>>engage in.>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My "real" clients? Tell me more?****...now who's being purposely obtuse?KL----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure UsenetNews==----http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+Newsgroups----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption=---- No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me,Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?Kathy 1

No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem, she may have an innocent
"typo" problem.......

I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers to my
""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and how she
communicated with them.....

in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1
at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:
Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>

<snip>

>>>>>> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my
adoptions total>>>>>> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions
U.S.>>>>>> wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are
high risk,>>>>>> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.

>>>>> They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer,>>>>> right?>>>>>
>>>>> steve



>>>> If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,
yeah,>>>> that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and
thank you>>>> notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,I>>>> matched her with,>>>>


>>> Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>> *without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made
their>>> dream come true.>>>>>> Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to
bmothers act>>> you engage in.>>>>>> Kathy 1

>>>> My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>

> ****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>> KL>


No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me,


Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you? Kathy 1



No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,



Oh yes you do Didums


she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......



No typo problem that I can see.

I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers
to my ""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and
how she communicated with them.....



Umm… a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say.


I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether she really
is being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by
"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptions
are old enough able to communicate with anyone? It's perfectly clear to the
rest of us that "real" inverted commas, clients referred to the babies
being adopted.


I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in "your"
adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is a service
for children in need of a family, they are the primary client in any
adoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K or
whatever.


Robin

in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1
at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:
Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>

<snip>

>>>>>> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my
adoptions total>>>>>> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions
U.S.>>>>>> wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are
high risk,>>>>>> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.

>>>>> They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer,>>>>> right?>>>>>
>>>>> steve



>>>> If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,
yeah,>>>> that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and
thank you>>>> notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,I>>>> matched her with,>>>>


>>> Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>> *without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made
their>>> dream come true.>>>>>> Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to
bmothers act>>> you engage in.>>>>>> Kathy 1

>>>> My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>

> ****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>> KL>


No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me,


Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you? Kathy 1



No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,



Oh yes you do Didums


she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......



No typo problem that I can see.

I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers
to my ""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and
how she communicated with them.....



Umm… a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?


I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether she really
is being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by
"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptions
are old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's perfectly
clear to the
rest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to the babies
being adopted.


I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in "your"
adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is a service
for children in need of a family, they are the primary client in any
adoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K or
Whatever, that you demand.


Robin

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/2/2005 11:49 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36ceioF4vfvaoU7@individual.net>in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1 =at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm: Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net><snip>>>>>>>> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my=20adoptions total>>>>>>> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions =U.S.>>>>>>> wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are=20high risk,>>>>>>> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>>>>> They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-plac=er,>>>>>> right?>>>>>>>>>>>> steve>>>>> If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,=20yeah,>>>>> that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and=20thank you>>>>> notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,= I>>>>> matched her with,>>>>>>>>> Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>>> *without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made=20their>>>> dream come true.>>>>>>>> Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to=20bmothers act>>>> you engage in.>>>>>>>> Kathy 1>>>>>> My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>>>> ****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>>>> KL>>> No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising m=e, Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you? Kathy 1 No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,Oh yes you do Didums she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......No typo problem that I can see. I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers=20to my ""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and=20how she communicated with them.....Umm=85 a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether she real=lyis being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptionsare old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's perfectly=20clear to therest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to the babie=sbeing adopted.I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in "your"=adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is a servi=cefor children in need of a family, they are the primary client in anyadoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K orWhatever, that you demand.Robin

All right Robin, here's what we'll do, I want you to call all of the adoption
(whatever they are called there) agencies and tell them you are interested in
being a client. I am sure they will send you some kind of application and
agreement. See how many unborn babies of pregnant woman there are that submit a
client application. They are not the client, you are the client. You agree to
the service, pay the fees, meet the requirements and adopt, ridiculous to call
an unborn baby the client. When you have done this, get back to me.

Chosenchildinc1 wrote:
Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/2/2005 11:49 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36ceioF4vfvaoU7@individual.net>in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1 =at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>>>><snip>>>>>>>>>I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adoptions total>>>>>>>>under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions =>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>U.S.>>>>>>>>wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>high risk,>>>>>>>>unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-plac=>>>>>>>>>>>>>>er,>>>>>>>right?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>steve>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,=20>>>>>>>>>>>>yeah,>>>>>>that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and=20>>>>>>>>>>>>thank you>>>>>>notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,=>>>>>>>>>>>>I>>>>>>matched her with,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>>>>*without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made=20>>>>>>>>>>their>>>>>dream come true.>>>>>>>>>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to=20>>>>>>>>>>bmothers act>>>>>you engage in.>>>>>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>>>>>>KL>>>>>>>>>>>No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising m=>>>>e,>Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?>>Kathy 1>>No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,Oh yes you do Didumsshe may have an innocent "typo" problem.......No typo problem that I can see.I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers=20to my""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and=20how shecommunicated with them.....Umm=85 a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether she real=lyis being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptionsare old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's perfectly=20clear to therest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to the babie=sbeing adopted.I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in "your"=adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is a servi=cefor children in need of a family, they are the primary client in anyadoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K orWhatever, that you demand.RobinAll right Robin, here's what we'll do, I want you to call all of the adoption(whatever they are called there) agencies and tell them you are interested inbeing a client. I am sure they will send you some kind of application andagreement. See how many unborn babies of pregnant woman there are that submit aclient application. They are not the client, you are the client. You agree tothe service, pay the fees, meet the requirements and adopt, ridiculous to callan unborn baby the client. When you have done this, get back to me.



Not where I live Marcy, here adoption is a service for children in need
of a family and not an oportunity for flesh peddling adoption
facilitators to make a quick $10K or whatever your cut is. We don't have
"clients" in adoption, adoption is not a business here. I don't have to
call any agencies, I know if I contacted an adoption agency in my area,
they would send a form for application to be considered as an adopter
and a load of leaflets, one of wich would explain that because of my age
I would only be considered for an older child. The only agreement that I
would be required to make would be to comply with any legal
requirments. But generaly anyone who seeks a service or has a service
sought for them, is a client, and I'll repeat, adoption is a service for
a children in need of families.


Anyway none of that changes the fact that you seem to have had a bit of
a comprehension problem regarding what Kathy 1 meant by *real* clients,
the rest of us understood it as a refernce to the babies involved.

Robin

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050201205151.10996.00000416@mb-m28.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "KL" klbjornme@aohell.comDate: 2/1/2005 7:26 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <42002a93_3@127.0.0.1>"Chosenchildinc1" <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050201111527.27516.00000276@mb-m17.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>Date: 2/1/2005 1:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <369mrpF4sl7kkU1@individual.net>>>>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message>news:20050130164329.21851.00000339@mb-m05.aol.com...>> >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>> >From: Steve White steve@spam.me.never>> >Date: 1/30/2005 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>> >Message-id: <steve-7CAFAF.15303930012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>>> >>> >In article <20050130155027.12708.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>,>> > chosenchildinc1@aol.com (Chosenchildinc1) wrote:>> >>> >>> >> I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my adoptions
total>> >> under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions U.S.>> >> wide.>> >>> >>> >Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>> >>> >>> >> Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are high
risk,>> >> unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>> >>> >>> >They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-placer,>> >right?>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >steve>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah,>> that>makes>> them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes.
You>> see>if>> it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families
*without*>your help.>>> and they>> wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act
you>engage in.>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>> My "real" clients? Tell me more?****...now who's being purposely obtuse?KL----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure UsenetNews==----http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+Newsgroups----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---- No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me,


Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?

Kathy 1

"Robin Harritt" <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in message
news:36ch7sF4vfvaoU8@individual.net... Chosenchildinc1 wrote:Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanks Date: 2/2/2005 11:49 A.M.Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36ceioF4vfvaoU7@individual.net>in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1=at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:>>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>>Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>>>>><snip>>>>>>>>>>I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my=20>>>>>>>>>adoptions total>>>>>>>>>under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions =>>>>>>>>>U.S.>>>>>>>>>wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are=20>>>>>>>>>high risk,>>>>>>>>>unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-plac=>>>>>>>>er,>>>>>>>>right?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>steve>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,=20>>>>>>>yeah,>>>>>>>that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and=20>>>>>>>thank you>>>>>>>notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,=>>>>>>>I>>>>>>>matched her with,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>>>>>*without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made=20>>>>>>their>>>>>>dream come true.>>>>>>>>>>>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to=20>>>>>>bmothers act>>>>>>you engage in.>>>>>>>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>>>>>>>>KL>>>>>>>>>>>No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising m=>>>e,>>Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?>>>>Kathy 1>>>No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,>Oh yes you do Didums>she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......>No typo problem that I can see.>I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers=20>to my>""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and=20>how she>communicated with them.....>Umm=85 a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether shereal=lyis being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptionsare old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's perfectly=20clear to therest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to thebabie=sbeing adopted.I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in"your"=adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is aservi=cefor children in need of a family, they are the primary client in anyadoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K orWhatever, that you demand.RobinAll right Robin, here's what we'll do, I want you to call all of theadoption(whatever they are called there) agencies and tell them you are interestedinbeing a client. I am sure they will send you some kind of application andagreement. See how many unborn babies of pregnant woman there are thatsubmit aclient application. They are not the client, you are the client. You agreetothe service, pay the fees, meet the requirements and adopt, ridiculous tocallan unborn baby the client. When you have done this, get back to me. Not where I live Marcy, here adoption is a service for children in need of a family and not an oportunity for flesh peddling adoption facilitators to make a quick $10K or whatever your cut is. We don't have "clients" in adoption, adoption is not a business here. I don't have to call any agencies, I know if I contacted an adoption agency in my area, they would send a form for application to be considered as an adopter and a load of leaflets, one of wich would explain that because of my age I would only be considered for an older child. The only agreement that I would be required to make would be to comply with any legal requirments. But generaly anyone who seeks a service or has a service sought for them, is a client, and I'll repeat, adoption is a service for a children in need of families. Anyway none of that changes the fact that you seem to have had a bit of a comprehension problem regarding what Kathy 1 meant by *real* clients, the rest of us understood it as a refernce to the babies involved. Robin
Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real* clients
was talking about the aparents.

Cause Marcy wrote:

"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, that
makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You
see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,"


And Kathy's response was:

"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*
your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.

Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act you
engage in."

So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream came true.
If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcy
ranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the case
because the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).

KL



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Robin Harritt" <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in message
news:36ch7sF4vfvaoU8@individual.net... Chosenchildinc1 wrote:Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanks Date: 2/2/2005 11:49 A.M.Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36ceioF4vfvaoU7@individual.net>in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1=at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:>>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>>Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>>>>><snip>>>>>>>>>>I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my=20>>>>>>>>>adoptions total>>>>>>>>>under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions =>>>>>>>>>U.S.>>>>>>>>>wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are=20>>>>>>>>>high risk,>>>>>>>>>unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-plac=>>>>>>>>er,>>>>>>>>right?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>steve>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,=20>>>>>>>yeah,>>>>>>>that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and=20>>>>>>>thank you>>>>>>>notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,=>>>>>>>I>>>>>>>matched her with,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>>>>>*without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made=20>>>>>>their>>>>>>dream come true.>>>>>>>>>>>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to=20>>>>>>bmothers act>>>>>>you engage in.>>>>>>>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>>>>>>>>KL>>>>>>>>>>>No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising m=>>>e,>>Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?>>>>Kathy 1>>>No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,>Oh yes you do Didums>she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......>No typo problem that I can see.>I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers=20>to my>""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and=20>how she>communicated with them.....>Umm=85 a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether shereal=lyis being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptionsare old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's perfectly=20clear to therest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to thebabie=sbeing adopted.I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in"your"=adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is aservi=cefor children in need of a family, they are the primary client in anyadoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K orWhatever, that you demand.RobinAll right Robin, here's what we'll do, I want you to call all of theadoption(whatever they are called there) agencies and tell them you are interestedinbeing a client. I am sure they will send you some kind of application andagreement. See how many unborn babies of pregnant woman there are thatsubmit aclient application. They are not the client, you are the client. You agreetothe service, pay the fees, meet the requirements and adopt, ridiculous tocallan unborn baby the client. When you have done this, get back to me. Not where I live Marcy, here adoption is a service for children in need of a family and not an oportunity for flesh peddling adoption facilitators to make a quick $10K or whatever your cut is. We don't have "clients" in adoption, adoption is not a business here. I don't have to call any agencies, I know if I contacted an adoption agency in my area, they would send a form for application to be considered as an adopter and a load of leaflets, one of wich would explain that because of my age I would only be considered for an older child. The only agreement that I would be required to make would be to comply with any legal requirments. But generaly anyone who seeks a service or has a service sought for them, is a client, and I'll repeat, adoption is a service for a children in need of families. Anyway none of that changes the fact that you seem to have had a bit of a comprehension problem regarding what Kathy 1 meant by *real* clients, the rest of us understood it as a refernce to the babies involved. Robin
Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real* clients
was talking about the aparents.

Cause Marcy wrote:

"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, that
makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. You
see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,"


And Kathy's response was:

"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*
your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.

Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act you
engage in."

So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream came true.
If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcy
ranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the case
because the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).

KL



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

KL wrote:
"Robin Harritt" <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in messagenews:36ch7sF4vfvaoU8@individual.net...Chose nchildinc1 wrote:>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>From: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanks Date: 2/2/2005 11:49 A.M.>Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <36ceioF4vfvaoU7@individual.net>>>in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1>=>>at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>>>Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>>>Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>>>>>>>>>>>>>><snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>adoptions total>>>>>>>>>>>>>under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions =>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>U.S.>>>>>>>>>>>>>wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>high risk,>>>>>>>>>>>>>unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-plac=>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>er,>>>>>>>>>>>>right?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>steve>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yeah,>>>>>>>>>>>that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thank you>>>>>>>>>>>notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,=>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I>>>>>>>>>>>matched her with,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>>>>>>*without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>their>>>>>>>>>>dream come true.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bmothers act>>>>>>>>>>you engage in.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>>>>>>>>>>KL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising m=>>>>>>>>>>>>>e,>>>>>>>>>Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,>>>>>>>Oh yes you do Didums>>>>>>>>she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......>>>>>>>No typo problem that I can see.>>>>>>>I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers=20>>>>>>>to my>>>>>""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and=20>>>>>>>how she>>>>>communicated with them.....>>>>>>>Umm=85 a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?>>>I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether she>real=>ly>is being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by>"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptions>are old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's perfectly=20>clear to the>rest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to the>babie=>s>being adopted.>>>I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in>"your"=>>adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is a>servi=>ce>for children in need of a family, they are the primary client in any>adoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K or>Whatever, that you demand.>>>Robin>>>>>>>>>>All right Robin, here's what we'll do, I want you to call all of theadoption(whatever they are called there) agencies and tell them you are interestedinbeing a client. I am sure they will send you some kind of application andagreement. See how many unborn babies of pregnant woman there are thatsubmit aclient application. They are not the client, you are the client. You agreetothe service, pay the fees, meet the requirements and adopt, ridiculous tocallan unborn baby the client. When you have done this, get back to me.Not where I live Marcy, here adoption is a service for children in need ofa family and not an oportunity for flesh peddling adoption facilitators tomake a quick $10K or whatever your cut is. We don't have "clients" inadoption, adoption is not a business here. I don't have to call anyagencies, I know if I contacted an adoption agency in my area, they wouldsend a form for application to be considered as an adopter and a load ofleaflets, one of wich would explain that because of my age I would only beconsidered for an older child. The only agreement that I would be requiredto make would be to comply with any legal requirments. But generalyanyone who seeks a service or has a service sought for them, is a client,and I'll repeat, adoption is a service for a children in need offamilies.Anyway none of that changes the fact that you seem to have had a bit of acomprehension problem regarding what Kathy 1 meant by *real* clients, therest of us understood it as a refernce to the babies involved.Robin
Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real* clientswas talking about the aparents.Cause Marcy wrote:"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, thatmakes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. Yousee if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,"And Kathy's response was:"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act youengage in."So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream came true.If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcyranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the casebecause the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).KL


Yea I thought that might be what K1 meant, but then I thought, no client
ought to mean the child involved not the paymasters who ever they may
be. And it still makes sense despite Marcy's protest. I'm willing to
concede that I might doing a bit of wishful thinking though.

Robin

KL wrote:


<snip>
(Someone other than Marcyranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the casebecause the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).KL


Well sometimes perhaps the birthmother is her client, but then she
relies on free ads

http://marcy.postadoption.info perhaps the adopters were her clients and
it all fell through.


Robin

Robin Harritt wrote:
KL wrote: <snip> (Someone other than Marcy ranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the case because the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime). KL Well sometimes perhaps the birthmother is her client, but then she relies on free ads http://marcy.postadoption.info perhaps the adopters were her clients and it all fell through. Robin



Or a current one, http://www.abcadoptions.com/guestlog.htm how come it
seems to be only African Americans that she advertises on these free
sites, do they not warrent an ad in the Yellow Pages?

Robin

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "KL" klbjornme@aohell.comDate: 2/2/2005 5:00 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <42014d22_3@127.0.0.1>"Robin Harritt" <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in messagenews:36ch7sF4vfvaoU8@individual.net... Chosenchildinc1 wrote:>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>From: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanks Date: 2/2/2005 11:49 A.M.>Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <36ceioF4vfvaoU7@individual.net>>>in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com, Chosenchildinc1>=>>at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:>>>>>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>>>Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>>>Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>>>>>>>><snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my=20>>>>>>>>>>>adoptions total>>>>>>>>>>>under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions =>>>>>>>>>>>U.S.>>>>>>>>>>>wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are=20>>>>>>>>>>>high risk,>>>>>>>>>>>unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the ad-plac=>>>>>>>>>>er,>>>>>>>>>>right?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>steve>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,=20>>>>>>>>>yeah,>>>>>>>>>that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and=20>>>>>>>>>thank you>>>>>>>>>notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family,=>>>>>>>>>I>>>>>>>>>matched her with,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>>>>>>*without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made=20>>>>>>>>their>>>>>>>>dream come true.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to=20>>>>>>>>bmothers act>>>>>>>>you engage in.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>>>>>>>>>>KL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising m=>>>>>e,>>>>>>>Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,>>>>Oh yes you do Didums>>>>>>she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......>>>>No typo problem that I can see.>>>>>I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she refers=20>>>to my>>>""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to, and=20>>>how she>>>communicated with them.....>>>>Umm=85 a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?>>>I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether she>real=>ly>is being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by>"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky adoptions>are old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's perfectly=20>clear to the>rest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to the>babie=>s>being adopted.>>>I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in>"your"=>>adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is a>servi=>ce>for children in need of a family, they are the primary client in any>adoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K or>Whatever, that you demand.>>>Robin>>>>>>>>All right Robin, here's what we'll do, I want you to call all of theadoption(whatever they are called there) agencies and tell them you are interestedinbeing a client. I am sure they will send you some kind of application andagreement. See how many unborn babies of pregnant woman there are thatsubmit aclient application. They are not the client, you are the client. You agreetothe service, pay the fees, meet the requirements and adopt, ridiculous tocallan unborn baby the client. When you have done this, get back to me. Not where I live Marcy, here adoption is a service for children in need of a family and not an oportunity for flesh peddling adoption facilitators to make a quick $10K or whatever your cut is. We don't have "clients" in adoption, adoption is not a business here. I don't have to call any agencies, I know if I contacted an adoption agency in my area, they would send a form for application to be considered as an adopter and a load of leaflets, one of wich would explain that because of my age I would only be considered for an older child. The only agreement that I would be required to make would be to comply with any legal requirments. But generaly anyone who seeks a service or has a service sought for them, is a client, and I'll repeat, adoption is a service for a children in need of families. Anyway none of that changes the fact that you seem to have had a bit of a comprehension problem regarding what Kathy 1 meant by *real* clients, the rest of us understood it as a refernce to the babies involved. RobinGee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real* clientswas talking about the aparents.Cause Marcy wrote:"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, thatmakes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes. Yousee if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,"And Kathy's response was:"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come true.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act youengage in."So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream came true.If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcyranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the casebecause the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).KL----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure UsenetNews==----http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+Newsgroups----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Of course I saw that as the client having their dream come true, not the
birthmother, that is why I wanted to know which "real clients", (adoptive
parents) that Kathy has talked to who told her about my syrupy, whatever. I was
right from the beginning, which of my real adoptive parents has Kathy talked
to.

Robin, by the way, you proved my point, the client is the one who adopts,
anywhere. Nice to call it the unborn baby, unfortunately newborn babies don't
engage in adoption services, anywhere in the world. Of course the key is to
serve the baby, that is why birthmothers seek out adoption, (hopefully), unless
she is scamming or just hoping to get rid of her
"problem".

"Chosenchildinc1" <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050202190112.21900.00000466@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "KL" klbjornme@aohell.comDate: 2/2/2005 5:00 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <42014d22_3@127.0.0.1>"Robin Harritt" <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in messagenews:36ch7sF4vfvaoU8@individual.net... Chosenchildinc1 wrote:>>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>From: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanks Date: 2/2/2005 11:49 A.M.>>Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <36ceioF4vfvaoU7@individual.net>>>>>in article 20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com,>>Chosenchildinc1>>=>>>>at chosenchildinc1@aol.com wrote on 2/2/05 4:04 pm:>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>>>>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>>>>Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>>>>Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>>>>>>>>>>><snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am on the lower end of facilitator fees, most of my=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>adoptions total>>>>>>>>>>>>>under $15,000 dollars, probably at the lower 25% of adoptions>>>>>>>>>>>=>>>>>>>>>>>>>U.S.>>>>>>>>>>>>>wide.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh yummy, facilitators who are even worse.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Almost none of my adoptions give living expenses. They are=20>>>>>>>>>>>>>high risk,>>>>>>>>>>>>>unrecoverable, and ripe for scamming.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They're not "your" adoptions, snookins. You're just the>>>>>>>>>>ad-plac=>>>>>>>>>>>>er,>>>>>>>>>>>>right?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>steve>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are>>>>>>>>>pleased,=20>>>>>>>>>>>yeah,>>>>>>>>>>>that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and=20>>>>>>>>>>>thank you>>>>>>>>>>>notes. You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the>>>>>>>>>family,=>>>>>>>>>>>I>>>>>>>>>>>matched her with,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families>>>>>>>>*without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made=20>>>>>>>>>>their>>>>>>>>>>dream come true.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to=20>>>>>>>>>>bmothers act>>>>>>>>>>you engage in.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "real" clients? Tell me more?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>****...now who's being purposely obtuse?>>>>>>>>>>>>KL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising>>>>>m=>>>>>>>e,>>>>>>>>>>>>Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?>>>>>>>>Kathy 1>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,>>>>>>>Oh yes you do Didums>>>>>>>>>>>she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......>>>>>>>No typo problem that I can see.>>>>>>>>>I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite, regardless, she>>>refers=20>>>>>to my>>>>>""real' clients", I want to know which ones she is referring to,>>>and=20>>>>>how she>>>>>communicated with them.....>>>>>>>Umm=85 a tad paranoid, wouldn't you say?>>>>>>I wonder if it is simply that Marcy's is a bit thick, or whether she>>real=>>ly>>is being deliberately obtuse in failing to understand what was meant by>>"real clients". How many of the babies involved in your shonky>>adoptions>>are old enough able to communicate with anyone, Marcy? It's>>perfectly=20>>clear to the>>rest of us that "real", in inverted commas, clients referred to the>>babie=>>s>>being adopted.>>>>>>I get the impression Marcy, that you regard the babies involved in>>"your"=>>>>adoptions as a mere commodity rather than as clients. Adoption is a>>servi=>>ce>>for children in need of a family, they are the primary client in any>>adoption. But for you the client is who ever pays you your $10K or>>Whatever, that you demand.>>>>>>Robin>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All right Robin, here's what we'll do, I want you to call all of the>adoption>(whatever they are called there) agencies and tell them you are>interested>in>being a client. I am sure they will send you some kind of application>and>agreement. See how many unborn babies of pregnant woman there are that>submit a>client application. They are not the client, you are the client. You>agree>to>the service, pay the fees, meet the requirements and adopt, ridiculous>to>call>an unborn baby the client. When you have done this, get back to me. Not where I live Marcy, here adoption is a service for children in need of a family and not an oportunity for flesh peddling adoption facilitators to make a quick $10K or whatever your cut is. We don't have "clients" in adoption, adoption is not a business here. I don't have to call any agencies, I know if I contacted an adoption agency in my area, they would send a form for application to be considered as an adopter and a load of leaflets, one of wich would explain that because of my age I would only be considered for an older child. The only agreement that I would be required to make would be to comply with any legal requirments. But generaly anyone who seeks a service or has a service sought for them, is a client, and I'll repeat, adoption is a service for a children in need of families. Anyway none of that changes the fact that you seem to have had a bit of a comprehension problem regarding what Kathy 1 meant by *real* clients, the rest of us understood it as a refernce to the babies involved. RobinGee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real*clientswas talking about the aparents.Cause Marcy wrote:"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, thatmakes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes.Yousee if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with,"And Kathy's response was:"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without*your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream cometrue.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act youengage in."So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream cametrue.If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcyranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the casebecause the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).KL----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure UsenetNews==----http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+Newsgroups----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption=---- Of course I saw that as the client having their dream come true, not the birthmother, that is why I wanted to know which "real clients", (adoptive parents) that Kathy has talked to who told her about my syrupy, whatever. I was right from the beginning, which of my real adoptive parents has Kathy talked to. Robin, by the way, you proved my point, the client is the one who adopts, anywhere. Nice to call it the unborn baby, unfortunately newborn babies don't engage in adoption services, anywhere in the world. Of course the key is to serve the baby, that is why birthmothers seek out adoption, (hopefully), unless she is scamming or just hoping to get rid of her "problem".
Now this is being MORE than obtuse. She didn't type in despise, and she
didn't mean despise. She meant it like I already interpreted for you. One
would think with all that income from peddling babies, that you could afford
to buy a clue!

KL



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

KL <klbjornme@aohell.com> wrote in message news:42014d22_3@127.0.0.1...

Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real*
clients was talking about the aparents. Cause Marcy wrote: "If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah, that makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes.
You see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her with," And Kathy's response was: "Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families *without* your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come
true. Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act you engage in." So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream came
true.

You would be correct.

Kathy 1

Robin Harritt <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in message
news:36d1q0F4vfvaoU11@individual.net... KL wrote:

Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real*
clientswas talking about the aparents.Cause Marcy wrote:"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah,
thatmakes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes.
Yousee if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her
with,"And Kathy's response was:"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families
*without*your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream come
true.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers act
youengage in."So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream came
true.If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcyranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the casebecause the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).KL Yea I thought that might be what K1 meant, but then I thought, no client ought to mean the child involved not the paymasters who ever they may be.

That's the way it *should* be, I agree.



And it still makes sense despite Marcy's protest. I'm willing to concede that I might doing a bit of wishful thinking though.


What I'm wondering is how many babies *have* to be relinquished before she
starts operating in the red. How many bmothers can change their minds and
aren't under pressure? Can 8 out 10 change their minds as long as two
relinquish? Or is it reversed?

Kathy 1

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message



No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me,Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?Kathy 1 No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,



You misread despite as despise. Seems like a reading comprehension problem
to me.


she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......

That's rich. You misread it but pass it off as *my* problem.
I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite,


Well you know what they say about assuming. . . . .


Kathy 1

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050202190112.21900.00000466@mb-m05.aol.com...


Of course I saw that as the client having their dream come true, not the birthmother, that is why I wanted to know which "real clients", (adoptive parents) that Kathy has talked to who told her about my syrupy, whatever.
I was right from the beginning, which of my real adoptive parents has Kathy
talked to.

Don't need to talk to any. Your posts right here in alt. a demonstrate your
surupy, sappy, -savior of bmothers act you engage in. How they come to you
desperate because they don't know what they are going to do. How you spend
time with them down at the social services office getting them benefits, how
grateful they are that you matched them with adoptive parents, etc., etc.,
etc.,

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:31 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36er3lF52jn2cU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050202190112.21900.00000466@mb-m05.aol.com... Of course I saw that as the client having their dream come true, not the birthmother, that is why I wanted to know which "real clients", (adoptive parents) that Kathy has talked to who told her about my syrupy, whatever.I was right from the beginning, which of my real adoptive parents has Kathytalked to.Don't need to talk to any. Your posts right here in alt. a demonstrate yoursurupy, sappy, -savior of bmothers act you engage in. How they come to youdesperate because they don't know what they are going to do. How you spendtime with them down at the social services office getting them benefits, howgrateful they are that you matched them with adoptive parents, etc., etc.,etc.,Kathy 1

right Kathy, as usual you are right, I should just tell them they are on their
own. A much better (Kathy) way to look at things.

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:26 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36eqq4F4vncc8U1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message>> No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me,Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?Kathy 1 No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,You misread despite as despise. Seems like a reading comprehension problemto me.she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......That's rich. You misread it but pass it off as *my* problem. I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite,Well you know what they say about assuming. . . . .Kathy 1

Maybe if you had written a proper sentence it wouldn't have been misread. I
don't assume you are ugly and toxic, I know it, does that count?

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:26 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36eqpsF4v60b8U1@individual.net>Robin Harritt <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in messagenews:36d1q0F4vfvaoU11@individual.net... KL wrote:Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real*clientswas talking about the aparents.Cause Marcy wrote:"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah,thatmakes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you notes.Yousee if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched herwith,"And Kathy's response was:"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families*without*your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream cometrue.Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers actyouengage in."So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream cametrue.If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcyranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the casebecause the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).KL Yea I thought that might be what K1 meant, but then I thought, no client ought to mean the child involved not the paymasters who ever they may be.That's the way it *should* be, I agree. And it still makes sense despite Marcy's protest. I'm willing to concede that I might doing a bit of wishful thinking though.What I'm wondering is how many babies *have* to be relinquished before shestarts operating in the red. How many bmothers can change their minds andaren't under pressure? Can 8 out 10 change their minds as long as tworelinquish? Or is it reversed?Kathy 1
Give it up Kathy, you are beatng a dead horse, go wash your hair, I am sure it
is nasty.

Chosenchildinc1 wrote:
Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:31 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36er3lF52jn2cU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050202190112.21900.00000466@mb-m05.aol.com...Of course I saw that as the client having their dream come true, not thebirthmother, that is why I wanted to know which "real clients", (adoptiveparents) that Kathy has talked to who told her about my syrupy, whatever.I wasright from the beginning, which of my real adoptive parents has Kathy talkedto.Don't need to talk to any. Your posts right here in alt. a demonstrate yoursurupy, sappy, -savior of bmothers act you engage in. How they come to youdesperate because they don't know what they are going to do. How you spendtime with them down at the social services office getting them benefits, howgrateful they are that you matched them with adoptive parents, etc., etc.,etc.,Kathy 1right Kathy, as usual you are right, I should just tell them they are on theirown. A much better (Kathy) way to look at things.

Have you never thought of directing them to a respectable estabished
adoption agency? Ah no sorry I forget, then you wouldn't get $?K for
doing very little, from your other clients, the paps. Silly me.


Robin

Chosenchildinc1 wrote:
Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:26 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36eqq4F4vncc8U1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com...>Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption>From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com>Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net>>>>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message>>>>No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising me,>>>>>Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you?>>Kathy 1>>>>No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,You misread despite as despise. Seems like a reading comprehension problemto me.she may have an innocent"typo" problem.......That's rich. You misread it but pass it off as *my* problem.I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite,Well you know what they say about assuming. . . . .Kathy 1Maybe if you had written a proper sentence it wouldn't have been misread. Idon't assume you are ugly and toxic, I know it, does that count?



Who was it here a little while ago critisising people for acting like 10
yearold middle school kids?



Robin

Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: Robin Harritt no.spam.for@me.thanksDate: 2/3/2005 10:24 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36etv6F528h08U2@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 wrote:Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:31 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36er3lF52jn2cU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050202190112.21900.00000466@mb-m05.aol.com...>Of course I saw that as the client having their dream come true, not the>birthmother, that is why I wanted to know which "real clients", (adoptive>parents) that Kathy has talked to who told her about my syrupy, whatever.Iwas>>>right from the beginning, which of my real adoptive parents has Kathytalked>>>to.>>Don't need to talk to any. Your posts right here in alt. a demonstrateyoursurupy, sappy, -savior of bmothers act you engage in. How they come to youdesperate because they don't know what they are going to do. How you spendtime with them down at the social services office getting them benefits,howgrateful they are that you matched them with adoptive parents, etc., etc.,etc.,Kathy 1right Kathy, as usual you are right, I should just tell them they are ontheirown. A much better (Kathy) way to look at things.Have you never thought of directing them to a respectable estabishedadoption agency? Ah no sorry I forget, then you wouldn't get $?K fordoing very little, from your other clients, the paps. Silly me.Robin

They do get referred to respectable agencies or attorneys, by me, remember? You
keep leaving that part out.

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050203101951.22012.00000364@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:26 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36eqpsF4v60b8U1@individual.net>Robin Harritt <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in messagenews:36d1q0F4vfvaoU11@individual.net... KL wrote: >Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real*clients >was talking about the aparents. > > >Cause Marcy wrote: > >"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah,that >makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank you
notes.You >see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched herwith," > > >And Kathy's response was: > >"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families*without* >your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream cometrue. > >Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers actyou >engage in." > >So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream cametrue. >If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcy >ranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't the
case >because the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime). > >KL > > > Yea I thought that might be what K1 meant, but then I thought, no
client ought to mean the child involved not the paymasters who ever they may be.That's the way it *should* be, I agree. And it still makes sense despite Marcy's protest. I'm willing to concede that I might doing a bit of wishful thinking though.What I'm wondering is how many babies *have* to be relinquished before
shestarts operating in the red. How many bmothers can change their minds
andaren't under pressure? Can 8 out 10 change their minds as long as tworelinquish? Or is it reversed?Kathy 1 Give it up Kathy, you are beatng a dead horse,

I didn't expect any answers from you. If they don't relinquish you don't
get paid.


Kathy 1

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050203101532.22012.00000362@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:31 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36er3lF52jn2cU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050202190112.21900.00000466@mb-m05.aol.com... Of course I saw that as the client having their dream come true, not
the birthmother, that is why I wanted to know which "real clients",
(adoptive parents) that Kathy has talked to who told her about my syrupy,
whatever.I was right from the beginning, which of my real adoptive parents has Kathytalked to.Don't need to talk to any. Your posts right here in alt. a demonstrate
yoursurupy, sappy, -savior of bmothers act you engage in. How they come to
youdesperate because they don't know what they are going to do. How you
spendtime with them down at the social services office getting them benefits,
howgrateful they are that you matched them with adoptive parents, etc.,
etc.,etc.,Kathy 1 right Kathy, as usual you are right, I should just tell them they are on
their own. A much better (Kathy) way to look at things.

Face it. You are an unnecessary component from the bmother point of view.
They can get everything and more in today's adoption climate from any number
of sources other than yourself. It is disingenious of you to portray
yourself as doing them some type of favor.

Kathy 1

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050203101724.22012.00000363@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:26 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36eqq4F4vncc8U1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050202110452.16817.00000344@mb-m16.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption >From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com >Date: 2/2/2005 1:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <36cap4F4s9ooaU1@individual.net> > > >Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message >> >> No, you're being obtuse, she refers to my "real" clients despising
me, > > >Really? Having some reading comprehension problems are you? > >Kathy 1 > > No, I do not have a reading comprehension problem,You misread despite as despise. Seems like a reading comprehension
problemto me.she may have an innocent "typo" problem.......That's rich. You misread it but pass it off as *my* problem. I am assuming she meant despise, vs. despite,Well you know what they say about assuming. . . . .Kathy 1 Maybe if you had written a proper sentence it wouldn't have been misread.

There you go again blaming me for *your* inability to distinguish between
the word despite and despise.

I don't assume you are ugly and toxic, I know it, does that count?

Poor Marcy, never any original, gratuitous slams - just the same old ****,
over, and over, and over. . . . . . .

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 12:03 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36f3vpF50dgnvU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050203101951.22012.00000364@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 9:26 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36eqpsF4v60b8U1@individual.net>Robin Harritt <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in messagenews:36d1q0F4vfvaoU11@individual.net...> KL wrote:> >Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real*clients> >was talking about the aparents.> >> >> >Cause Marcy wrote:> >> >"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased, yeah,that> >makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank younotes.You> >see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched herwith,"> >> >> >And Kathy's response was:> >> >"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families*without*> >your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream cometrue.> >> >Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers actyou> >engage in."> >> >So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream cametrue.> >If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than Marcy> >ranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't thecase> >because the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime).> >> >KL> >> >> >>>> Yea I thought that might be what K1 meant, but then I thought, noclient> ought to mean the child involved not the paymasters who ever they may> be.That's the way it *should* be, I agree. And it still makes sense despite Marcy's protest. I'm willing to> concede that I might doing a bit of wishful thinking though.What I'm wondering is how many babies *have* to be relinquished beforeshestarts operating in the red. How many bmothers can change their mindsandaren't under pressure? Can 8 out 10 change their minds as long as tworelinquish? Or is it reversed?Kathy 1 Give it up Kathy, you are beatng a dead horse,I didn't expect any answers from you. If they don't relinquish you don'tget paid.Kathy 1


Wrong again moron, want to guess again? This is as funny as KL saying I am a
licensed agency, A Chosen Child, I am not of course, that is a licensed agency
in Florida, owned by a AAAA attorney.

Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050203122044.22012.00000376@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: Ethical AdoptionFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 2/3/2005 12:03 P.M. Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <36f3vpF50dgnvU1@individual.net>Chosenchildinc1 <chosenchildinc1@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20050203101951.22012.00000364@mb-m05.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Ethical Adoption >From: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.com >Date: 2/3/2005 9:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time >Message-id: <36eqpsF4v60b8U1@individual.net> > > >Robin Harritt <no.spam.for@me.thanks> wrote in message >news:36d1q0F4vfvaoU11@individual.net... >> KL wrote: > > >> >Gee Robin...maybe I did some misreading also. I thought the *real* >clients >> >was talking about the aparents. >> > >> > >> >Cause Marcy wrote: >> > >> >"If I match a birthmom and adoptive couple and all are pleased,
yeah, >that >> >makes them mine, and I am the first to get pictures and thank younotes. >You >> >see if it wasn't for me she wouldn't have the family, I matched her >with," >> > >> > >> >And Kathy's response was: >> > >> >"Big deal. She could have had her pick of any number of families >*without* >> >your help. and they wouldn't have the baby that made their dream
come >true. >> > >> >Your *real* clients despite your syrupy, sappy, savior to bmothers
act >you >> >engage in." >> > >> >So I saw that last sentence as referring to the one's who's dream
came >true. >> >If I am wrong, will someone please clarify. (Someone other than
Marcy >> >ranting about it being the bmother, when we all know that isn't thecase >> >because the bmother doesn't pay Marcy a dime). >> > >> >KL >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> Yea I thought that might be what K1 meant, but then I thought, noclient >> ought to mean the child involved not the paymasters who ever they
may >> be. > >That's the way it *should* be, I agree. > > > > And it still makes sense despite Marcy's protest. I'm willing to >> concede that I might doing a bit of wishful thinking though. > > >What I'm wondering is how many babies *have* to be relinquished beforeshe >starts operating in the red. How many bmothers can change their mindsand >aren't under pressure? Can 8 out 10 change their minds as long as two >relinquish? Or is it reversed? > >Kathy 1 > > > > > > > > > Give it up Kathy, you are beatng a dead horse,I didn't expect any answers from you. If they don't relinquish you don'tget paid.Kathy 1 Wrong again moron, want to guess again?


You wrote:

"I have attorneys I refer to in every state where I advertise*. When a
birthmother calls me from my ad, I take her information, and* refer her to a
local attorney. She receives counseling services and any oth*er services
through
the local law office."

Paid for by the padoptive family?

" The adoptive family that she chooses r*etains that
attorney and pays my fee."

So the padoptive family pays your fee whether the pbmother relinquishes or
not - or even whether she is pregnant or not eh?

Kathy 1