Greetings:

I was wondering if there exists any good literature which address the
problem of the overwhelmingly strong tendency in the general
population to desirebiological children ("I want children that are
-my- -own") over adoptive children -- from a psychological and/or
anthropological standpoint; I'm especially interested in
cross-cultural comparisons of this stigma.

Thanks!

jehanne

"Linda Fortney" I suggest you try your local colllege or university library. Ask the librarian to help you use either databases or print indexes in the social sciences and psychology.

I -work- in a library.

I asked this question here because I know from productive experience
that -asking- people who know a topic well is usually just as productive (or
moreso) in finding information as database searches -- particularly when
searching for information on a topic that's admittedly a bit fuzzy and
multi-disciplinary (such as this). It allows people to be useful by sharing
their wisdom, and it cuts down on duplication of effort. It's quite a
different game than just hunting down statistics.

jehanne

jehanne_daix@hotmail.com (jehanne) wrote in message news:<8bd5e411.0307250623.7cb88b01@posting.google.com>... Greetings: I was wondering if there exists any good literature which address the problem of the overwhelmingly strong tendency in the general population to desirebiological children ("I want children that are -my- -own") over adoptive children -- from a psychological and/or anthropological standpoint; I'm especially interested in cross-cultural comparisons of this stigma. Thanks! jehanne

You see the innate biological desire/function in all living things,
both plant and animal, which was designed to ensure the continuation
of a species, as a problem?

Di

"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0307251439.71adc27e@posting.google.c om... jehanne_daix@hotmail.com (jehanne) wrote in message
news:<8bd5e411.0307250623.7cb88b01@posting.google.com>... Greetings: I was wondering if there exists any good literature which address the problem of the overwhelmingly strong tendency in the general population to desirebiological children ("I want children that are -my- -own") over adoptive children -- from a psychological and/or anthropological standpoint; I'm especially interested in cross-cultural comparisons of this stigma. Thanks! jehanne You see the innate biological desire/function in all living things, both plant and animal, which was designed to ensure the continuation of a species, as a problem? Di

That's funny, I seem to remember from Discovery Channel that not all living
things are particularly protective of their offspring and in some cases
would consider them a viable choice for dinner. Moreover, it seems to me
there are numerous examples of humans being able to modify a great number of
our natural tendencies to more baser biological instincts -- and with good
reason. Finally, for humans, the primary biological/desire to continue the
species involves intercourse (or laboratory manipulation), not necessarily
who raises the child.

"mdginzo" <mdginzo@bellsuth.net> wrote in message
news:ZblUa.3281$IE6.1652@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com.. . "Henry W. Moritz" <moc.ishcm@ztiromwh> wrote in message news:yXkUa.147603$Ph3.18800@sccrnsc04... That's funny, I seem to remember from Discovery Channel that not all living things are particularly protective of their offspring and in some cases would consider them a viable choice for dinner. Moreover, it seems to
me there are numerous examples of humans being able to modify a great
number of our natural tendencies to more baser biological instincts -- and with
good reason. Finally, for humans, the primary biological/desire to continue the species involves intercourse (or laboratory manipulation), not
necessarily who raises the child. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Dian was saying that adoption was bad, merely that wanting to raise one's own was good. Correct me if I am rong.

Dian didn't say adoption was bad, although she has done so many times in the
past. Also, I didn't say Dian said adoption was bad. I simply disputed
Dian's
assertion that "all living things, both plant and animal" prefer to raise
their own biological offspring because that behavior is "designed to ensure
continuation of a species". Her statement was simply silly. Finally, what
Dian did suggest was that "an overwhelmingly strong tendency in the general
population to desire biological children ...over adoptive children" is not a
problem -- an assertion I didn't comment on because it's much too complex an
issue to make any kind of blanket judgement on.

"Dian" wrote: You see the innate biological desire/function in all living things, both plant and animal, which was designed to ensure the continuation of a species, as a problem?

When overpopulation threatens the survival of the human race, yes, I'd
consider that desire as a contributing factor to a -major- problem, yes.

Which brings me back to the question of: is there literature anybody knows
of which addresses the psychological/anthrolopgical ramifications of this
with respect to adoption and attitudes towards adoption.

jehanne

"Henry W. Moritz" <moc.ishcm@ztiromwh> wrote in message
news:yXkUa.147603$Ph3.18800@sccrnsc04... That's funny, I seem to remember from Discovery Channel that not all
living things are particularly protective of their offspring and in some cases would consider them a viable choice for dinner. Moreover, it seems to me there are numerous examples of humans being able to modify a great number
of our natural tendencies to more baser biological instincts -- and with good reason. Finally, for humans, the primary biological/desire to continue
the species involves intercourse (or laboratory manipulation), not necessarily who raises the child.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that Dian was saying that adoption was
bad, merely that wanting to raise one's own was good. Correct me if I am
rong.

"jehanne" <jehanne_daix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:N0DUa.121148$Io.10326687@newsread2.prod.itd.e arthlink.net... "Dian" wrote: You see the innate biological desire/function in all living things, both plant and animal, which was designed to ensure the continuation of a species, as a problem? When overpopulation threatens the survival of the human race, yes, I'd consider that desire as a contributing factor to a -major- problem, yes.

I'd like to see the literature that demonstrates that humans are
overpopulating to the point of extinction. Malthus has been disproven, you
know, a long time ago. Even the much maligned China policy of one-child was
not designed to curtail species extinction, since Chinese populations had
survived famine cycles for millenia. It was designed to relieve specific
strains on rural resources to create surplus economies and social and
ecomomic equilibrium.

Ron Which brings me back to the question of: is there literature anybody knows of which addresses the psychological/anthrolopgical ramifications of this with respect to adoption and attitudes towards adoption. jehanne

"Ron Morgan" wrote: "jehanne" wrote: When overpopulation threatens the survival of the human race, yes, I'd consider that desire as a contributing factor to a -major- problem, yes. I'd like to see the literature that demonstrates that humans are overpopulating to the point of extinction.

Well, there is none, as you accurately pointed out.

But there's a carrying capacity *somewhere* out there, and unless we move
into space or curtail our rampant breeding, eventually we'll reach it. We
don't seem to be actively doing *either* as a species, at the moment, which
is a shame. You'd think that a species capable of intelligently
self-directing its evolution would start to actually *do* so at some
point... (and yes, for those who'll ask, I believe it's possible to
self-direct our evolution without resorting to state-sponsored eugenics
programs).

jehanne

"jehanne" <jehanne_daix@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<TYZUa.122275$Io.10445979@newsread2.prod.itd.earthl ink.net>... "Ron Morgan" wrote: "jehanne" wrote: When overpopulation threatens the survival of the human race, yes, I'd consider that desire as a contributing factor to a -major- problem, yes. I'd like to see the literature that demonstrates that humans are overpopulating to the point of extinction. Well, there is none, as you accurately pointed out. But there's a carrying capacity *somewhere* out there, and unless we move into space or curtail our rampant breeding, eventually we'll reach it.


Where is all this rampant breeding occurring? Most *western* countries
have a zero population growth which means we are not even replacing
ourselves.
At this rate we should be almost extinct in generations to come. Most
western countries encourage immigration, especially from Asia in order
to keep their population levels up.


We don't seem to be actively doing *either* as a species, at the moment, which is a shame. You'd think that a species capable of intelligently self-directing its evolution would start to actually *do* so at some point...

Think China's one child policy, contraception, and abortion. Why do
you
suppose they were introduced if not to begin controlling human
breeding?

Di

(and yes, for those who'll ask, I believe it's possible to self-direct our evolution without resorting to state-sponsored eugenics programs). jehanne

"Ron Morgan" wrote: "jehanne" wrote: But there's a carrying capacity *somewhere* out there, and unless we
move into space or curtail our rampant breeding, eventually we'll reach it. Then we'll reach it and population will stabilize. Typically animal populations that exceed the "carrying capacity" in their ecosystems reach equilibrium without recourse to birth control policies, eugenics, or extinction.

Either that, or we'll be growing in population so rapidly that we'll grossly
overshoot the carrying capacity, and there will ensue a population crash and
massive global turmoil
Are you sure? Have you compared the average number of offspring of women
in the 19th and 20th centuries? There are remarkable international birth control programs, which combined with inreased health care access has lessened the size of families.

What you note is true., but descreased family sizes and birth rate hasn't
hasn't been, for the most part, an outgrowth of social planning efforts:
it's the outgrowth of a more equal role for women in society, growing middle
classes, increased urbanization... a whole host of things reason why people
demand birth control for the purposes of controlling the details of their
*own* lives, not (primarily) for improving the welfare of future
generations.
We are a species that has demonstrated an unparalleled ability to adapt. ]

I'd be curious to know how you defend this statement. How is the human race
more adaptive than any other sepcies?

jehanne

In article <XSeUa.21428$Mc.1646195@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlin k.net>,
jehanne <jehanne_daix@hotmail.com> wrote:"Linda Fortney" I suggest you try your local colllege or university library. Ask the librarian to help you use either databases or print indexes in the social sciences and psychology.I -work- in a library.I asked this question here because I know from productive experiencethat -asking- people who know a topic well is usually just as productive (ormoreso) in finding information as database searches -- particularly whensearching for information on a topic that's admittedly a bit fuzzy andmulti-disciplinary (such as this). It allows people to be useful by sharingtheir wisdom, and it cuts down on duplication of effort. It's quite adifferent game than just hunting down statistics.jehanne


I -am- a librarian. One of the first things a librarian learns is to be
skeptical of sources. Your sources here are people in a newsgroup. What
do you know of their expertise, let alone their innate prejudices? By
asking the question here, you are doing the equivalent of a chat with your
neighbor over the back fence. How do you know said neighbor knows
anything about a particular subject?

If you want to go the ask the experts route, find real experts. If you
-work- in a library (public? academic? special? private?) someone there
must know about Social Sciences Citation Index. Use that to snowball a
search to find the experts.

There are some valid shortcuts to doing good research. The particular
shortcut you used is not one of them.

Linda M.S.L.S.

"Linda Fortney" wrote:
I -am- a librarian. One of the first things a librarian learns is to be skeptical of sources. Your sources here are people in a newsgroup. What do you know of their expertise, let alone their innate prejudices?

Abolutely nothing. At first. But the same can be said of any so-called
"experts." I'd have to go and research their past work, their biases, etc.
in order to know how to interpret their "wisdom."
By asking the question here, you are doing the equivalent of a chat with your neighbor over the back fence.

Absolutely. Actually, I'm asking hundreds (potentially thousands) of
neighbors, with various intelligences, backgrounds, and biases. "Two heads
are better than one," right? (Often.) Two people know more than one;
hundreds of people (this newsgroup), presumably know even more.
How do you know said neighbor knows anything about a particular subject?

Well, the title of this newsgroup *is* "alt.adoption.issues." I'd assume
that at least -some- of the people here know more about adoption and
adoption-related issues than I do. That, and it becomes fairly obvious from
the way folks phrase their reponses and arguments roughly how much they know
about a topic and whether I can consider them at all reliable. See below for
an example of when I've actually *done* this.
If you want to go the ask the experts route, find real experts.

If I *wanted* to go the "ask the experts" route, I would have done so. I
didn't. I wanted to ask a mass of people with a passing familiarity with
adoption issues about a relatively vague and difficult-to-define topic.
Which is what I did.

The fact that I still haven't gotten a good reply to this question in this
particular group doesn't dismiss the technique, either, because I've been
successful inquiring on Usenet in the past. Again, see below.

Also, why bother experts with trivial questions like this, where it's more
than likely someone out there on Usenet, who posts and has time to share
ideas and thoughts (and comes to Usenet for the express purpose of doing
so).

Furthermore, if I go and ask an expert, only *I* directly benefit. Here,
everyone who reads this newsgroup benefits from this discussion, and it's
archived on google for years to come. That's another reason for inquiring
this way.

I stand by my approach.
If you -work- in a library (public? academic? special? private?) someone there must know about Social Sciences Citation Index. Use that to snowball a search to find the experts.

I know the SSCI, and have used it extensively. I haven't had much luck with
it in finding particularly what *I'm* interested in on this topic.

That, and I'd have to spend more time in the local university library
looking up and reading multiple articles to find what I really want.

I'm not *stupid,* y'know. I don't believe *everything* I hear or read. I
*think,* and consider, and evaluate.

Humans are amazing dynamic processors of information, much better than
computers at present - especially at organizing integrating facts and ideas
across disciplines.

Just an example to prove my point: in responding to a message on a
science-fiction newsgroup, I asked which works of Robert Heinlein refelected
or included "libertarian" social structures. Within two days, I got half a
dozen answers (some of which had replies to them), which described
particular aspects of a number of Heinlein's major works, which most visibly
included libertarian elements, which don't, where those elements tend to
manifest themselves, etc. etc. So I cross-reference these messages in my
mind, and with only five minutes of effort. And not only can I compare
various messages for consistency, but I also get some comments from *other*
people evaluating the quality of the reponses to my message. And if you read
a little bit of the newsgroup's history, you can tell pretty quickly who
gives intelligent, considered reponses, and who blurts things out only to
retract them later. So with a maximum of about ten minutes of effort, I have
a pretty solid idea of where I'd start reading if I wanted to see that side
of Heinlein's writing.

Find me an indexed and referreed database which can do -that-.

No, it's not material you can cite in a bibliography. But it's a darn good
resource.

jehanne (just recently accepted to grad. school for library science)

In article <MmhVa.25557$Mc.1982621@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlin k.net>,
jehanne <jehanne_daix@hotmail.com> wrote:"Linda Fortney" wrote: I -am- a librarian. One of the first things a librarian learns is to be skeptical of sources. Your sources here are people in a newsgroup. What do you know of their expertise, let alone their innate prejudices?Abolutely nothing. At first. But the same can be said of any so-called"experts." I'd have to go and research their past work, their biases, etc.in order to know how to interpret their "wisdom."

Ah, I've run into this attitude before. You really see no difference
between information found on a newsgroup and something published in a
scholarly journal? Granted psychology isn't a hard science by any
means. When one reads the Freudians one has to remember that Freud is
*religion* and not science. Nevertheless I sincerely hope your attendance
at library school will teach you that all opinions are NOT equal, and that
the scholarly peer review system, although far from perfect, is the best
method we have for ensuring that an author has some notion of what he or
she is talking about.

Absolutely. Actually, I'm asking hundreds (potentially thousands) ofneighbors, with various intelligences, backgrounds, and biases. "Two headsare better than one," right? (Often.) Two people know more than one;hundreds of people (this newsgroup), presumably know even more.


If you are going to accept anything on this newsgroup as valid, you'd
better do a background check on people's prejudices. Di, for instance is
uttterly irrational on the subject of adoption. She thinks it is nothing
by kidnapping.

You aren't even asking the question in the right newsgroup. I won't
direct you to a more appropriate one because the people there have enough
stress in their lives.


And, there aren't hundreds of people on this group either.

Also, why bother experts with trivial questions like this, where it's morethan likely someone out there on Usenet, who posts and has time to shareideas and thoughts (and comes to Usenet for the express purpose of doingso).

Information published by scholars is a better source of information than
what you find here. If you are don't want to search the right way, then
it
is your problem. I suggested a method for you to find what you wanted and
you chose to get defensive.
Furthermore, if I go and ask an expert, only *I* directly benefit. Here,everyone who reads this newsgroup benefits from this discussion, and it'sarchived on google for years to come. That's another reason for inquiringthis way.


This precludes the notion that you could share findings acquired through
*real* research on usenet.
I stand by my approach.

Fine, do it your way. The validity of the information you acquire is
highly suspect.
I know the SSCI, and have used it extensively. I haven't had much luck withit in finding particularly what *I'm* interested in on this topic.

You might have to (gasp) look in books.
I'm not *stupid,* y'know. I don't believe *everything* I hear or read. I*think,* and consider, and evaluate.

No one said you were stupid, I merely suggested a legitimate method of
finding information, and you got extremely defensive.

Humans are amazing dynamic processors of information, much better thancomputers at present - especially at organizing integrating facts and ideasacross disciplines.Just an example to prove my point: in responding to a message on ascience-fiction newsgroup, I asked which works of Robert Heinlein refelected


And you could have found the same information by looking at some lit crit
re Heinlein.Find me an indexed and referreed database which can do -that-.

See above. And try Dissertation Abstracts as well.
No, it's not material you can cite in a bibliography. But it's a darn goodresource.

It's fine *as far as it goes*, but newsgroups are a collection of people's
opinions. And cripe, it isn't even a representative sample of
opinions. Only the truly committed post here.

jehanne (just recently accepted to grad. school for library science)



If you can possibly avoid it, don't take cataloging. They'll try to
disguise it by calling it "Organization of Materials" or something equally
begnin. Doubt you'll be able to get out of it though, most schools demand
that you suffer through it. Reference classes are usually a hoot. They
bring trucks of books into class, give you a rundown on them, and then set
you loose in the reference room for a treasure hunt. I am sure that
they've added strong electronic components to this course since I took it
many years ago. See if you can take a social sciences research methods
class outside of the Library School. Best course I ever took.

Take all the computer classes you can, without becoming an Information
Scientist. Courses in Web site design and administration will help you
get a job when you graduate. Take anything you can about databases--I
don't mean stuff like Access. If you can find a course on relational
databases, take it. It will help you talk to OPAC producers and
manipulate their badly designed systems.

If you think you might want a reference job in an academic library, take a
course in teaching methods for librarians. Academic reference jobs are
hard
to get, but teaching library instruction classes is a large component of
the job. Having a class about it gives you gold stars.


Linda

jurol@REMOVE.hotmail.com (Julia) wrote Maybe, but I doubt it would be feasible in the current Indian economy. During my last trip to India I spent a few days with a friend who is a tax accountant in a large Indian city. He told me that people who live off the land are exempt from paying income tax, and that tax is only collected from 5% of the population. He also said that the taxation system is so complex and cumbersome that it takes half the tax collected to pay for the system - effectively meaning that tax is collected from only 2.5% of the population! So where would the money come from to pay pensions?

Right on.
And you haven't even started in on the Hindu religious imperative to
have a male heir....

Rupa

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:33:34 GMT, "jehanne" <jehanne_daix@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It's fine *as far as it goes*, but newsgroups are a collection of people's opinions. And cripe, it isn't even a representative sample of opinions. Only the truly committed post here.(sarcastically, and with humour) Perhaps we should all be committed. :) It'scrazy enough around here, that's for sure.


Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda..


Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<s23iivk0fm3lpnco9hf5dr5m9mfd379791@4ax.com>... On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:33:34 GMT, "jehanne" <jehanne_daix@hotmail.com> wrote: It's fine *as far as it goes*, but newsgroups are a collection of people's opinions. And cripe, it isn't even a representative sample of opinions. Only the truly committed post here.(sarcastically, and with humour) Perhaps we should all be committed. :) It'scrazy enough around here, that's for sure. Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda.. Jackie


But most of us don't.

Rupa

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0307311039.4a0f4e36@posting.google.c om... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<s23iivk0fm3lpnco9hf5dr5m9mfd379791@4ax.com>... On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:33:34 GMT, "jehanne" <jehanne_daix@hotmail.com> wrote:> It's fine *as far as it goes*, but newsgroups are a collection of
people's> opinions. And cripe, it isn't even a representative sample of> opinions. Only the truly committed post here.(sarcastically, and with humour) Perhaps we should all be committed. :)
It'scrazy enough around here, that's for sure. Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda.. Jackie But most of us don't.

Damn right, too.

Helen
Rupa

In article <s23iivk0fm3lpnco9hf5dr5m9mfd379791@4ax.com>,
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda..Jackie

Who's the "us," Jackie. Are you projecting again? I know you don't read
my posts, praise allah, but you are only one person, not an US.

Linda

On 1 Aug 2003 13:46:11 -0400, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)
wrote:
In article <s23iivk0fm3lpnco9hf5dr5m9mfd379791@4ax.com>,Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda..JackieWho's the "us," Jackie. Are you projecting again? I know you don't readmy posts, praise allah, but you are only one person, not an US.


"not an US" < what does that mean?


Jackie.. who used the word 'some'..

Main Entry: some

1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some
person knocked>
2 a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a
class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard> b : being of an
unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples>

in article 6qspivgmi83sq7m13pklfo3vdos33m7402@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/8/03 12:36 pm:
On 1 Aug 2003 13:46:11 -0400, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: In article <s23iivk0fm3lpnco9hf5dr5m9mfd379791@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda.. Jackie Who's the "us," Jackie. Are you projecting again? I know you don't read my posts, praise allah, but you are only one person, not an US. "not an US" < what does that mean? Jackie.. who used the word 'some'.. Main Entry: some 1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked> 2 a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard> b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples>

Where as of course what you had actually meant to say was; "one of us on
alt.adoption avoids Linda.." and not "some", or is this the old multiple
personality disorder playing up again.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

One \One\, a.

1. Being a single unit, or entire being or thing, and no
more; not multifold; single; individual.

2. Denoting a person or thing conceived or spoken of
indefinitely; a certain.


One \One\, n.

1. A single unit; as, one is the base of all numbers.

2. A symbol representing a unit, as 1, or i.

3. A single person or thing.

One \One\, indef. pron.

Any person, indefinitely; a person or body; as, what one
would have well done, one should do one's self.


Robin

robinjh <nospam@robinjh.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BB52D703.1D0B5%nospam@robinjh.co.uk>... in article 6qspivgmi83sq7m13pklfo3vdos33m7402@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/8/03 12:36 pm: On 1 Aug 2003 13:46:11 -0400, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: In article <s23iivk0fm3lpnco9hf5dr5m9mfd379791@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>> Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda..>>> Jackie Who's the "us," Jackie. Are you projecting again? I know you don't read my posts, praise allah, but you are only one person, not an US. "not an US" < what does that mean? Jackie.. who used the word 'some'.. Main Entry: some 1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked> 2 a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard> b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples> Where as of course what you had actually meant to say was; "one of us on alt.adoption avoids Linda.." and not "some", or is this the old multiple personality disorder playing up again. From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) One \One\, a. 1. Being a single unit, or entire being or thing, and no more; not multifold; single; individual. 2. Denoting a person or thing conceived or spoken of indefinitely; a certain. One \One\, n. 1. A single unit; as, one is the base of all numbers. 2. A symbol representing a unit, as 1, or i. 3. A single person or thing. One \One\, indef. pron. Any person, indefinitely; a person or body; as, what one would have well done, one should do one's self. Robin

Which would be accurate if *only one* person avoided Linda. Otherise
it would be some, as suggested by Jackie.

Di

in article c599139c.0308032227.33c6f62a@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 4/8/03 7:27 am:
robinjh <nospam@robinjh.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BB52D703.1D0B5%nospam@robinjh.co.uk>... in article 6qspivgmi83sq7m13pklfo3vdos33m7402@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 3/8/03 12:36 pm: On 1 Aug 2003 13:46:11 -0400, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:> In article <s23iivk0fm3lpnco9hf5dr5m9mfd379791@4ax.com>,> Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>>>> Some of us on alt.adoption avoid Linda..>>>>>> Jackie>> Who's the "us," Jackie. Are you projecting again? I know you don't read> my posts, praise allah, but you are only one person, not an US. "not an US" < what does that mean? Jackie.. who used the word 'some'.. Main Entry: some 1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked> 2 a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard> b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples> Where as of course what you had actually meant to say was; "one of us on alt.adoption avoids Linda.." and not "some", or is this the old multiple personality disorder playing up again. From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) One \One\, a. 1. Being a single unit, or entire being or thing, and no more; not multifold; single; individual. 2. Denoting a person or thing conceived or spoken of indefinitely; a certain. One \One\, n. 1. A single unit; as, one is the base of all numbers. 2. A symbol representing a unit, as 1, or i. 3. A single person or thing. One \One\, indef. pron. Any person, indefinitely; a person or body; as, what one would have well done, one should do one's self. Robin Which would be accurate if *only one* person avoided Linda. Otherise it would be some, as suggested by Jackie. Di

Ahh silly me, I'd forgotten it can't possibly be multiple personality
disorder. Jackie doesn't have even a single personality of her own, she has
to rely on Di for all her opinions, views and decisions. So if Di avoids
someone, naturally that counts for Jackie as well. I'll have to try and
remember that in future. Mind you it does mean that when Jackie and Di are
in agreement, that sill probably only counts as "one".

Robin

On 3 Aug 2003 23:27:52 -0700, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:
Which would be accurate if *only one* person avoided Linda. Otheriseit would be some, as suggested by Jackie.Di


Some (not all mind) think they know it all..

Funny eh.

Jackie

in article 2omsiv0jrfet3ruu93v7stju1068dddqeg@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 4/8/03 2:10 pm:
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:13:07 +0100, robinjh <nospam@robinjh.co.uk> wrote: Where as of course what you had actually meant to say was; "one of us on alt.adoption avoids Linda.." and not "some", or is this the old multiple personality disorder playing up again. Are you privey to my emails? Jackie

No thank goodness. Your Usenet posts are quite enough for me. I dread to
think what drivel you email to people.

Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<3rmsiv8dkpsf83bsplsd1cs05ua8ap1rv7@4ax.com>... On 3 Aug 2003 23:27:52 -0700, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote:Which would be accurate if *only one* person avoided Linda. Otheriseit would be some, as suggested by Jackie.Di Some (not all mind) think they know it all.. Funny eh. Jackie


I've noticed. <grin>

Di

in article er4vivo8tm3mlpg594n3f30eldfccbnfs4@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 5/8/03 12:23 pm:
On 4 Aug 2003 18:01:18 -0700, patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote: Some (not all mind) think they know it all.. Funny eh. Jackie I've noticed. <grin> Di I thought what she said to you was very rude.. But hey! Jackie

You thought what who said to Di, was very rude?


Robin