On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:08:54 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
Having read a few of these posts I've come to the conclusion that you guyshave some bizarre need to create your own drama. Why anyone would take anyof you seriously is beyond me. Your childish antics and the "he said shesaid" wore thin after about a 3 posts.


What if these 'searchers' are doing things they should not be doing..

What if these 'searchers' are telling people (at a very vulnerable
time) that they are wanting a reunion for all the wrong reasons..

IMO this is another mind control issue in adoption..

I believe that stuff like this should be exposed.

Jackie

in article gpc2pvo9fsveb2fvatisjfb6vp1g7jfqt8@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 18/10/03 1:39 pm:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:08:54 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote: Having read a few of these posts I've come to the conclusion that you guys have some bizarre need to create your own drama. Why anyone would take any of you seriously is beyond me. Your childish antics and the "he said she said" wore thin after about a 3 posts. What if these 'searchers' are doing things they should not be doing.. What if these 'searchers' are telling people (at a very vulnerable time) that they are wanting a reunion for all the wrong reasons.. IMO this is another mind control issue in adoption.. I believe that stuff like this should be exposed. Jackie


Do you think the US should go the way England & Wales is going and bring in
a law preventing anyone who is not registered as an adoption support agency
under the Care Standards Act 2000, from providing advice about adoption?
This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providing
advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. Anyone who does provide
such a service whilst un-registered, whether for payment or pro bono, will
be liable to a fine up to 5000 pounds and up to three months imprisonment.
The fee for registration will be 1000 pounds and strict inspection
procedures will be in place, both before and after registration.

Robin

>This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providingadvice or counselling on adoption search or reunion.

I never knew that England had such a law as I have only been involved in this
whole search thing since late July when the need for medical history arose. I
do know that I do support open records but I think its essental to have
boundries such as minors having access and confidentiality as far as identities
as some states have. Its too bad that just as we progress and take another
step toward having records open, that some groupa like ALIA encourage and
promote minor searches, stalking and harassing. They may say that the don t
but they cheer that kind of stuff on.(remembering an incident in FL this
summer). I live in MA and I know for a fact it one of the hardest states to
have adoption records unsealed as they are very much for the protection of
birthfamilies and justifibly so.

in article 20031018104749.08068.00000403@mb-m16.aol.com, Lipstik43 at
lipstik43@aol.com wrote on 18/10/03 3:47 pm:
This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providing advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion.

I never knew that England had such a law as I have only been involved in this whole search thing since late July when the need for medical history arose.


It's not yet in effect, the specific regulations should have been published
for consultation this summer and the law in effect by next year, but genuine
adoption support agencies have asked for longer to prepare for registration
requirements. It is part of the Adoption and Children Act 2002

I do know that I do support open records but I think its essental to have boundries such as minors having access and confidentiality as far as identities as some states have. Its too bad that just as we progress and take another step toward having records open, that some groupa like ALIA encourage and promote minor searches, stalking and harassing.


That is the sort of thing the English legislation is intended to prevent but
as far as I can see will not prevent *anyone* from helping with a search
only from offering advice and counselling concerning searching and reunion
along with every other aspect of adoption, e.g. no counselling pregnant
mothers etc. Other parts of the Act will make searching for a minor both
illegal and virtually impossible. Most of the few adoptions in England now
take place only because there was a damn good reason to separate the child
from the mother.

They may say that the don t but they cheer that kind of stuff on.(remembering an incident in FL this summer). I live in MA and I know for a fact it one of the hardest states to have adoption records unsealed as they are very much for the protection of birthfamilies and justifibly so.


I think it's more about protecting everyone involved here in England & Wales
but I hope they haven't gone too far, we'll not know until we see the actual
regulations that have to be worked to.

I'm glad this nonsense wasn't going on when the bill went through
parliament, I do know that some legislators were scanning the internet
looking for some justification to make a law against putting search details
on the internet. What better justification could they have hoped for.

Robin

"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBB720BC.24E7C%nospam@harritt.net... in article 20031018104749.08068.00000403@mb-m16.aol.com, Lipstik43 at lipstik43@aol.com wrote on 18/10/03 3:47 pm: This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from
providing advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. I never knew that England had such a law as I have only been involved in
this whole search thing since late July when the need for medical history
arose. It's not yet in effect, the specific regulations should have been
published for consultation this summer and the law in effect by next year, but
genuine adoption support agencies have asked for longer to prepare for
registration requirements. It is part of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 I do know that I do support open records but I think its essental to
have boundries such as minors having access and confidentiality as far as identities as some states have. Its too bad that just as we progress
and take another step toward having records open, that some groupa like ALIA
encourage and promote minor searches, stalking and harassing. That is the sort of thing the English legislation is intended to prevent
but as far as I can see will not prevent *anyone* from helping with a search only from offering advice and counselling concerning searching and reunion along with every other aspect of adoption, e.g. no counselling pregnant mothers etc. Other parts of the Act will make searching for a minor both illegal and virtually impossible. Most of the few adoptions in England now take place only because there was a damn good reason to separate the child from the mother. They may say that the don t but they cheer that kind of stuff
on.(remembering an incident in FL this summer). I live in MA and I know for a fact it
one of the hardest states to have adoption records unsealed as they are very
much for the protection of birthfamilies and justifibly so. I think it's more about protecting everyone involved here in England &
Wales but I hope they haven't gone too far, we'll not know until we see the
actual regulations that have to be worked to. I'm glad this nonsense wasn't going on when the bill went through parliament, I do know that some legislators were scanning the internet looking for some justification to make a law against putting search
details on the internet. What better justification could they have hoped for. Robin

The Top Mods are extremely silly and stupid, but also dangerous to the real
work that we do. They are totally insignificant, yet are latched on to as
examples of why records need to remain sealed. Do you want these nutbars
knocking at your door on Christmas morning?

Posts of this nature from alt.adoption and other fora are collected,
scrutinized, quoted and distributed to legislative committees,
politicians, and the press by anti-adoptee organizations and open records
opponents in identity rights and openr records campaigns. (check out FB3 if
you don't believe me.)

I urge anybody who has been touched by this vermon to consider real open
records activism, not the frumpy middle-aged Heathers club.

Marley

Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news Do you think the US should go the way England & Wales is going and bring in a law preventing anyone who is not registered as an adoption support agency under the Care Standards Act 2000, from providing advice about adoption? This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providing advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. Anyone who does provide such a service whilst un-registered, whether for payment or pro bono, will be liable to a fine up to 5000 pounds and up to three months imprisonment. The fee for registration will be 1000 pounds and strict inspection procedures will be in place, both before and after registration.

Does this place alt.a in violation? We keep providing lots of advice,
much of it contradictory, but advice all the same.

Rupa

>I urge anybody who has been touched by this vermon to consider real openrecords activism, not the frumpy middle-aged Heathers club.
I agree
110% This certainly defies anyone sincerely invoved in open record activism.
As I said before I knew nothing of this until July 2003. I now realize how
hard it is to obtain sometimes lifesaving information. I just happened to get
lucky in my situation as my bmother happened to be my aunt. I can only imagine
what I would be going through if things were different. I would like to be
able to do my part to help those in this type of bind and I don t want to be
one of these self professed search angels or wannabe PIs. I d like to consider
myself an intellegent person dispite getting involved in this bantering frenzy
lol. I just see so much injustice in the whole adoption thing all around, from
the rich having their choice of babies, to this whole sealed record thing. I
will say as much as I would love to be invoved I would have to research the
facts before I would be able to engage in any type of debate. So at this point
I m just keeping all avenues open I unsubed from all groups in question. I
haven t been to adoption.com to remark either way. Trust me at some point I
will check that out too.

in article e5619372.0310180936.a49f572@posting.google.com, Rupa Bose at
rkbose@pacific.net.sg wrote on 18/10/03 6:36 pm:
Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news Do you think the US should go the way England & Wales is going and bring in a law preventing anyone who is not registered as an adoption support agency under the Care Standards Act 2000, from providing advice about adoption? This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providing advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. Anyone who does provide such a service whilst un-registered, whether for payment or pro bono, will be liable to a fine up to 5000 pounds and up to three months imprisonment. The fee for registration will be 1000 pounds and strict inspection procedures will be in place, both before and after registration. Does this place alt.a in violation? We keep providing lots of advice, much of it contradictory, but advice all the same. Rupa

Perhaps we'll have to inquire carefully as to their exact nationality i.e.
are they specifically English or Welsh? This legislation doesn't cover
adoption in Scotland or Northern Ireland, which have their own laws.

I did discuss this with one of the government official writing the
legislation who at the time agreed with me that advice given on internet
sites or groups hosted outside the UK would be impossible to police and
there won't be much they can do about that, so they may fall clear of the
legislation. What will almost certainly be illegal is for any UK resident or
citizen to post details of a search for a minor who was adopted in England &
Wales and for anyone who is a UK resident or citizen to offer advice or
information regarding such a search.

It also looks as if it will be illegal for anyone who is not registered or
part of registered agency to offer advice or counselling about any other
aspects of adoption to birthmothers, perspective or actual adopters etc, or
to offer any other service connected with adoption in the UK or
internationally. It is already illegal for anyone other than an authorised
agency to advertise in the UK a child for adoption no matter where in the
world that child currently resides. It also an offence for anyone in the UK
to advertise their wish to adopt a child anywhere in the world. It is or
will be an offence for any UK and eventually European ISP to carry either
such advertisement. Much of that arose from the Kilshaw case. For those who
may have forgotten that case http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1193848.stm

BTW the last I head of Jude K she was raising money for Indian orphanage,
I'm not sure whether that was money to aid its running or money to buy up
its contents.

Robin

"Lipstik43" <lipstik43@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031018134343.13842.00001051@mb-m29.aol.com...I urge anybody who has been touched by this vermon to consider real openrecords activism, not the frumpy middle-aged Heathers club. I
agree 110% This certainly defies anyone sincerely invoved in open record
activism. As I said before I knew nothing of this until July 2003. I now realize
how hard it is to obtain sometimes lifesaving information. I just happened to
get lucky in my situation as my bmother happened to be my aunt. I can only
imagine what I would be going through if things were different. I would like to
be able to do my part to help those in this type of bind and I don t want to
be one of these self professed search angels or wannabe PIs. I d like to
consider myself an intellegent person dispite getting involved in this bantering
frenzy lol. I just see so much injustice in the whole adoption thing all around,
from the rich having their choice of babies, to this whole sealed record thing.
I will say as much as I would love to be invoved I would have to research
the facts before I would be able to engage in any type of debate. So at this
point I m just keeping all avenues open I unsubed from all groups in question.
I haven t been to adoption.com to remark either way. Trust me at some point
I will check that out too.

There are some excellent volunteer and for-pay searachers in the field, but
you won't find them yabering on the internet and threatening each other and
acting like they're in a little middle school club. Amateurs have mucked up
a slew of searches.

I don't know a thing about adoption.com except that I get their weekly
newsletter ad somtimes read the articles I once won a adoption music CD
from them for submitting a big list of celebrity adoptees.

Please check out Bastard Nation. www.bastards.org for the serious work of
open records and identity rights.

Marley


--
Marley Elizabeth Greiner
Executive Chair, Bastard Nation
Acting Director, BN- Great Lakes Region
Director, BN-Ohio
www.bastards.org

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:22:36 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>
wrote:
in article gpc2pvo9fsveb2fvatisjfb6vp1g7jfqt8@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 18/10/03 1:39 pm:
What if these 'searchers' are doing things they should not be doing.. What if these 'searchers' are telling people (at a very vulnerable time) that they are wanting a reunion for all the wrong reasons.. IMO this is another mind control issue in adoption.. I believe that stuff like this should be exposed. JackieDo you think the US should go the way England & Wales is going and bring ina law preventing anyone who is not registered as an adoption support agencyunder the Care Standards Act 2000, from providing advice about adoption?This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providingadvice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. Anyone who does providesuch a service whilst un-registered, whether for payment or pro bono, willbe liable to a fine up to 5000 pounds and up to three months imprisonment.The fee for registration will be 1000 pounds and strict inspectionprocedures will be in place, both before and after registration.


I was commenting on internet discussion groups and how they can go
terribly wrong..
In Canada (Ontario) we have (I believe) a rule that the adoptee
wanting reunion needs to go for therapy.. I believe that is the wrong
path.. It gets down to human respect again..
We get to set our own agenda.. and we get to say (very loudly) when we
think someone is power tripping on a person.

So to answer your question I do not think reunion therapy should be
regulated.. When I was going for therapy in Ontario in the early
nineties I went to a social worker who therapized women considering
relinquishing.. What she told me was scary..

Jackie

On 18 Oct 2003 14:47:49 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote:
This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providingadvice or counselling on adoption search or reunion.I never knew that England had such a law as I have only been involved in thiswhole search thing since late July when the need for medical history arose. Ido know that I do support open records but I think its essental to haveboundries such as minors having access and confidentiality as far as identitiesas some states have. Its too bad that just as we progress and take anotherstep toward having records open, that some groupa like ALIA encourage andpromote minor searches, stalking and harassing. They may say that the don tbut they cheer that kind of stuff on.(remembering an incident in FL thissummer). I live in MA and I know for a fact it one of the hardest states tohave adoption records unsealed as they are very much for the protection ofbirthfamilies and justifibly so.


Reunion IMO is about two people meeting and getting to know one
another KNOWING that their wishes will be respected and not bypassed..

IMO its the ones who know that their rights and or wishes will not be
respected that may well want keep the secrecy crap going.


Jackie

in article 8p15pvsv0liuur72l6bnasko58kn3etcgb@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 19/10/03 1:53 pm:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:22:36 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote: in article gpc2pvo9fsveb2fvatisjfb6vp1g7jfqt8@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 18/10/03 1:39 pm: What if these 'searchers' are doing things they should not be doing.. What if these 'searchers' are telling people (at a very vulnerable time) that they are wanting a reunion for all the wrong reasons.. IMO this is another mind control issue in adoption.. I believe that stuff like this should be exposed. Jackie Do you think the US should go the way England & Wales is going and bring in a law preventing anyone who is not registered as an adoption support agency under the Care Standards Act 2000, from providing advice about adoption? This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providing advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. Anyone who does provide such a service whilst un-registered, whether for payment or pro bono, will be liable to a fine up to 5000 pounds and up to three months imprisonment. The fee for registration will be 1000 pounds and strict inspection procedures will be in place, both before and after registration.

I was commenting on internet discussion groups and how they can go terribly wrong..


So was I, this legislation potentially includes prohibiting giving *advice*
or counselling over the Internet on anything to do with adoption including
search and reunion.

In Canada (Ontario) we have (I believe) a rule that the adoptee wanting reunion needs to go for therapy..


I suspect that is counselling rather than therapy. The new adoption
regulations in England have SFA to do with 'therapy' that is already
regulated.

I believe that is the wrong path..


I believe that it is wrong too. In Scotland any adopted person can have
access to their OBC once they are sixteen years old or over with no
obligation to have counselling. In England anyone adopted before 12 November
1975 and therefore at least 28 years old must have counselling. Those
adopted after that date don't have to have it and can get a copy of their
OBC at eighteen (of course many before that know their mothers name from the
AO and don't need to get an OBC in order to find out). So a sixteen year old
Scot can contact birth mother without counselling a 40 year old English man
has to have counselling. Which is rather ridiculous wouldn't you say? But
counselling has nothing at all to with 'therapy' or even 'psychodynamic
counselling' it's just advice about what the affects of what you are doing
might be, a bit patronising in my opinion.


It gets down to human respect again..


Yes, our government tell us just that, it's done to protect that 'respect
for birthmothers' that you consider so precious.

We get to set our own agenda.. and we get to say (very loudly) when we think someone is power tripping on a person.


Do you? I don't understand what you mean by that. Canadian post-adoption
practise is still pretty prohibitive and way behind many other countries, as
far as I hear from most Canadians that I correspond with on the subject
including those in ON. Perhaps you should shout even more 'loudly'.


So to answer your question I do not think reunion therapy should be regulated.. When I was going for therapy



I don't think it will be, because I don't think it exists, specifically as a
category of therapy.


in Ontario in the early nineties I went to a social worker who therapized women considering relinquishing.. What she told me was scary.


I think you should go look up the difference between counselling and
therapy, then if you know someone (someone who hasn't been committed under
the Mental Health Act) who is being forced to have therapy rather than
'counselling' for any reason, report it to the proper professional body.

Robin

in article ad25pvcs7b86acj5pjhfjn9bnuq9kusjv5@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 19/10/03 2:01 pm:
On 18 Oct 2003 14:47:49 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote: This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providing advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. I never knew that England had such a law as I have only been involved in this whole search thing since late July when the need for medical history arose. I do know that I do support open records but I think its essental to have boundries such as minors having access and confidentiality as far as identities as some states have. Its too bad that just as we progress and take another step toward having records open, that some groupa like ALIA encourage and promote minor searches, stalking and harassing. They may say that the don t but they cheer that kind of stuff on.(remembering an incident in FL this summer). I live in MA and I know for a fact it one of the hardest states to have adoption records unsealed as they are very much for the protection of birthfamilies and justifibly so. Reunion IMO is about two people meeting and getting to know one another KNOWING that their wishes will be respected and not bypassed..

Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work is
horrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of their
separated children trying to get to know each other.
IMO its the ones who know that their rights and or wishes will not be respected that may well want keep the secrecy crap going.

IMO the ones who believe that crap are the ones most likely to get bypassed
altogether. And who could blame anyone for bypassing someone that selfish.

Robin

>Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of theirseparated children trying to get to know each other.

I can speak from my own experience ans an adoptee. If my bmother has found me
and pressured for contact/reunuion while I wasn t ready I would have been
devastated. Thats why I have always been for a non aggressive aproach without
pressure. When an ambush contact happens and the bmother or adoptee refuses
contact the worse thing would be to pursue and insist upon anything more. To
me thats a definite invasion of privacy and ones rights. While I can certainly
appreciate one being excited about finding a lost family member, that doen t
mean that family member is so excited about being found. A very dear freind of
mine also an adoptee was found after 35 years by his birthmother. At the time
he was found he had absolutly no desire to search or be found. He was adopted
as an infant by a doctor and wife and lived a life that not many people can,
adopted or otherwise. Summer homes, travel, good schools and a loving home. By
35 he also a doctor was married with children and pretty well off. One day he
recieved a call at his office, from a woman claiming to be his birthmother. All
his life he knew he was adopted but this call came out of the blue. He did get
her number and agreed to call her back. After talking to his wife he called
her and being the type of guy he is, it wasn t very difficult for the
birthmother to convince him to meet her assuring him she did not want to
interfere or intrude in his life. So he and his wife made arrangement to meet
her at a resturant for dinner, on the premise it would only be a one time
thing. Needless to say,as he puts it,was the begining of a nightmare. From the
moment birthmother laid eye on him it became clear that this was her lifelong
obsession. Next thing you know he began recieving calls from her sisters and
brother claiming to be his aunts and uncles asking about his children and when
they could visit,informimg him of the plans his birthmother had made for him
and his family. This was a bit much. During this time his adoptive father had
suffered a stroke and he was under an enormous amount of pressure. This
birthmother was persistant and it became apparent that something had to be
done. He finally had to get an order of protection for him and his family
against this woman. The final straw was when she wanted him to inform his
adoptive family of her while his adad was in the hoispital. I know that this
story is real and though not typical and a bit extreme probably has happened
to others and can happen again. The words of claiming not wanting to interfere
or intrude somehow in many cases are only used to lure a person into contact at
least in this case they were. Its too bad things worked out as they did for my
freind because I know had the birthmother not been so selfish and insistant and
respected the adoptees wishes things would have turned out alot different.
When my freind told me of his experience I put myself in his shoes for a
minute. How violated would I feel if that happened to me? I don t know what I
would do if it were me and I thank God it wasn t. I don t know what the
answer is. The idea of a mutual registry is good because when both parties are
ready they can both agree to contact each other. At any rate there is a need
for some kind of laws to stop these things from happening. There must be a way
to organize these search situations so that the results are different.
"D"

"Lipstik43" <lipstik43@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031019125719.07040.00000388@mb-m18.aol.com...Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of
theirseparated children trying to get to know each other.

Ehhh...people get too wrapped in this. It's not a huge deal.


<snip>



When an ambush contact happens and the bmother or adoptee refuses contact the worse thing would be to pursue and insist upon anything more.
To me thats a definite invasion of privacy and ones rights.


Invasion of privacy, maybe. Abrogation of rights? Not really. Any
stranger on the street can talk to you. Why should folks seperated by the
simple legality of adoption be treated differently?



<snip>




He finally had to get an order of protection for him and his family against this woman.


Right. Just like any other citizen.


The final straw was when she wanted him to inform his adoptive family of her while his adad was in the hoispital. I know that
this story is real and though not typical and a bit extreme probably has
happened to others and can happen again.


Likely. If the person is overbearing a TRO can be issued.





.. I don t know what the answer is.

I do. Let people handle their own business.

The idea of a mutual registry is good because when both parties are ready they can both agree to contact each other.

I meet people every day that I have no desire to deal with. Can we have
mutual contact registries for everyone?


At any rate there is a need for some kind of laws to stop these things from happening.


The laws already exist. See your friend's TRO against his b/mom for an
example. Or, are you suggesting that an automatic restraining order be
placed upon all adoptees and birthparents upon relinquishment?

There must be a way to organize these search situations so that the results are different.



There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That's what
you don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. If it
goes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on.


Jack

>Invasion of privacy, maybe. Abrogation of rights? Not really. Anystranger on the street can talk to you. Why should folks seperated by thesimple legality of adoption be treated differently?

Although I can see your point I must ask what the liklihood of any stranger on
the street knowing so much about you and your past that it could possibly
destroy your family or marriage? Suppose it were an adoptee finding a
birthmother and her husband and current family know nothing of this baby she
once had? What then?

lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote in message news:<20031019125719.07040.00000388@mb-m18.aol.com>...Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work
ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of theirseparated children trying to get to know each other.
"D"

It is in (most) cases, "out of the blue"

While this is one sad scenario you shared and it screams "needy," it
is not unusual for natural parents to want to connect with their
perceived "lost" children. It's just sad when they allow their
emotions to blind them to their own offspring's needs. However,
natural parents are not alone in this type of culpability. Many
adoptive parents refuse their children information and guilt them
heavily to dissuade their searching. Parents can be egotistical and
self serving across the board.

Unfortunately (too many) natural mothers have been getting such a bad
rap on boards such as these that they have taken their right to feel
and need to be validated to private settings. The temperature in the
one environment that should allow them freedom, also turns a deaf and
cold ear.

In the history of adoption, it is the natural mother who is (more
often) tossed aside, squelched, suppressed and censored. (Some) see
themselves as being treated as mere brood mares. No more than a means
to supply an infertile couple with a child and then treated as
yesterdays rubbish.

It has been sarcastically mentioned that natural mothers are not
victims, that (many) 14-19 yr. old girls from the 50's-the 70's had a
choice. To that I say, walk a mile in a pair of their shoes! So easy
it is to spout about that which has not been lived but rather
vicariously peeped at like a voyeur.

There is no way to contact any lost relative without disrupting their
lives. It's a shock to (many) who never believed they had a right to
search, and to those who were afraid to do so, it can be overwhelming.
Reunion is a process that takes time to digest and rejection on either
part is to be expected. But however the actual reunion turns out, it
is almost always a positive in the long run.

Selfish? The adoptive mother who refuses to let go when an adoption
falls through, what are her motivations? Unselfish?

Not all people are going to be respectful of the privacy rights of
others in reunion. The adoptee may feel it is his absolute right to
know his history and family, I happen to agree that it is. And while
society bleeds right along with the selfish motives of the adoptive
mother, society will continue to beat the natural mother into
submission and convince her she is selfish to want her hearts needs at
least acknowledged.

Mutual registries are in effect, so are many laws that will continue
to perpetuate the need for an underground movement.

Soulwhisper

Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BBB86809.250AE%

<snip>
Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work is horrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of their separated children trying to get to know each other.

Robin

You obviously didn't read the front page of the London Times in '97
where an adoptee publicly accused her mother of stalking her and
listing 34 other accusations about her, all of which were untrue. All
done out of spite
because her mother told her to cease further contact as she had had
enough of her daughters incessant abuse which had brought on a heart
attack. The mother sued. And won big time.

Di

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:10:49 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>
wrote:
Reunion IMO is about two people meeting and getting to know one another KNOWING that their wishes will be respected and not bypassed..Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of theirseparated children trying to get to know each other.

So you see *some* birth mothers as the enemy in real time as well????

IMO its the ones who know that their rights and or wishes will not be respected that may well want keep the secrecy crap going.IMO the ones who believe that crap are the ones most likely to get bypassedaltogether. And who could blame anyone for bypassing someone that selfish.

I see you Robin..

You agenda is obvious..


Jackie

On 19 Oct 2003 16:57:19 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote:
Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of theirseparated children trying to get to know each other.I can speak from my own experience ans an adoptee. If my bmother has found meand pressured for contact/reunuion while I wasn t ready I would have beendevastated. Thats why I have always been for a non aggressive aproach withoutpressure.

I agree and unfortunately Robin (sans agenda) is into adoption reunion
reform (or something like that) in England.. I shudder for the birth
moms who disagree with him and his agenda..
When an ambush contact happens and the bmother or adoptee refusescontact the worse thing would be to pursue and insist upon anything more. Tome thats a definite invasion of privacy and ones rights.

Well said!

Relinquishing my son was divisive in my family and in my life.. The
secrets were used by others to control me and my reaction to the
world.. Now some people seek control in reunion.
One side of the triangle has more power than another..
One person has more rights.. One person can bypass the other because
they do not agree with the thinking of the other..

While I can certainlyappreciate one being excited about finding a lost family member, that doen tmean that family member is so excited about being found. A very dear freind ofmine also an adoptee was found after 35 years by his birthmother. At the timehe was found he had absolutly no desire to search or be found. He was adoptedas an infant by a doctor and wife and lived a life that not many people can,adopted or otherwise. Summer homes, travel, good schools and a loving home. By35 he also a doctor was married with children and pretty well off. One day herecieved a call at his office, from a woman claiming to be his birthmother. Allhis life he knew he was adopted but this call came out of the blue. He did gether number and agreed to call her back. After talking to his wife he calledher and being the type of guy he is, it wasn t very difficult for thebirthmother to convince him to meet her assuring him she did not want tointerfere or intrude in his life. So he and his wife made arrangement to meether at a resturant for dinner, on the premise it would only be a one timething. Needless to say,as he puts it,was the begining of a nightmare. From themoment birthmother laid eye on him it became clear that this was her lifelongobsession.

That is wrong.. What the birth mother did was wrong..

Next thing you know he began recieving calls from her sisters andbrother claiming to be his aunts and uncles asking about his children and whenthey could visit,informimg him of the plans his birthmother had made for himand his family. This was a bit much. During this time his adoptive father hadsuffered a stroke and he was under an enormous amount of pressure. Thisbirthmother was persistant and it became apparent that something had to bedone. He finally had to get an order of protection for him and his familyagainst this woman. The final straw was when she wanted him to inform hisadoptive family of her while his adad was in the hoispital. I know that thisstory is real and though not typical and a bit extreme probably has happenedto others and can happen again. The words of claiming not wanting to interfereor intrude somehow in many cases are only used to lure a person into contact atleast in this case they were. Its too bad things worked out as they did for myfreind because I know had the birthmother not been so selfish and insistant andrespected the adoptees wishes things would have turned out alot different.When my freind told me of his experience I put myself in his shoes for aminute. How violated would I feel if that happened to me? I don t know what Iwould do if it were me and I thank God it wasn t. I don t know what theanswer is.

IMO the answer lies in understanding and seeing the other person in
their map of the world.. Understanding their problems and or issues
and acting accordingly. And knowing it works both ways.

Human *one on one* respect..

The idea of a mutual registry is good because when both parties areready they can both agree to contact each other. At any rate there is a needfor some kind of laws to stop these things from happening. There must be a wayto organize these search situations so that the results are different. "D"

If the records were open everyone would have to get their 'stuff'
together and work towards the inevitable contact.. No surprises..
No powertrips..

And as Marley said .. "Why don't these angel searchers put their
energy into opening the records instead of power tripping and
controlling a reunion." (<my interpretation of her words.. )

Jackie

ps... Your words here may upset some of the regulars that post here..
Be ready to have your spelling checked and your sentence structured
critiqued.. Or be ready to be called a liar.. Know this is a tactic to
shut you up and force you to go away..
Hang in there..

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That's whatyou don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. If itgoes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on.


I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..


Jackie

Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper..
I hope you stick around.

I enjoyed reading your post..

Jackie


On 19 Oct 2003 17:49:04 -0700, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)
wrote:
lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote in message news:<20031019125719.07040.00000388@mb-m18.aol.com>...Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this workishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of theirseparated children trying to get to know each other."D"It is in (most) cases, "out of the blue"While this is one sad scenario you shared and it screams "needy," itis not unusual for natural parents to want to connect with theirperceived "lost" children. It's just sad when they allow theiremotions to blind them to their own offspring's needs. However,natural parents are not alone in this type of culpability. Manyadoptive parents refuse their children information and guilt themheavily to dissuade their searching. Parents can be egotistical andself serving across the board.Unfortunately (too many) natural mothers have been getting such a badrap on boards such as these that they have taken their right to feeland need to be validated to private settings. The temperature in theone environment that should allow them freedom, also turns a deaf andcold ear.In the history of adoption, it is the natural mother who is (moreoften) tossed aside, squelched, suppressed and censored. (Some) seethemselves as being treated as mere brood mares. No more than a meansto supply an infertile couple with a child and then treated asyesterdays rubbish.It has been sarcastically mentioned that natural mothers are notvictims, that (many) 14-19 yr. old girls from the 50's-the 70's had achoice. To that I say, walk a mile in a pair of their shoes! So easyit is to spout about that which has not been lived but rathervicariously peeped at like a voyeur.There is no way to contact any lost relative without disrupting theirlives. It's a shock to (many) who never believed they had a right tosearch, and to those who were afraid to do so, it can be overwhelming.Reunion is a process that takes time to digest and rejection on eitherpart is to be expected. But however the actual reunion turns out, itis almost always a positive in the long run.Selfish? The adoptive mother who refuses to let go when an adoptionfalls through, what are her motivations? Unselfish?Not all people are going to be respectful of the privacy rights ofothers in reunion. The adoptee may feel it is his absolute right toknow his history and family, I happen to agree that it is. And whilesociety bleeds right along with the selfish motives of the adoptivemother, society will continue to beat the natural mother intosubmission and convince her she is selfish to want her hearts needs atleast acknowledged.Mutual registries are in effect, so are many laws that will continueto perpetuate the need for an underground movement.Soulwhisper

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:00:13 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>
wrote:
in article 8p15pvsv0liuur72l6bnasko58kn3etcgb@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 19/10/03 1:53 pm: On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:22:36 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote: in article gpc2pvo9fsveb2fvatisjfb6vp1g7jfqt8@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 18/10/03 1:39 pm:> What if these 'searchers' are doing things they should not be doing..>> What if these 'searchers' are telling people (at a very vulnerable> time) that they are wanting a reunion for all the wrong reasons..>> IMO this is another mind control issue in adoption..>> I believe that stuff like this should be exposed.>> Jackie Do you think the US should go the way England & Wales is going and bring in a law preventing anyone who is not registered as an adoption support agency under the Care Standards Act 2000, from providing advice about adoption? This legislation will prevent anyone who is not registered from providing advice or counselling on adoption search or reunion. Anyone who does provide such a service whilst un-registered, whether for payment or pro bono, will be liable to a fine up to 5000 pounds and up to three months imprisonment. The fee for registration will be 1000 pounds and strict inspection procedures will be in place, both before and after registration. I was commenting on internet discussion groups and how they can go terribly wrong..So was I, this legislation potentially includes prohibiting giving *advice*or counselling over the Internet on anything to do with adoption includingsearch and reunion.

Scary stuff.. Bet it does not work..
In Canada (Ontario) we have (I believe) a rule that the adoptee wanting reunion needs to go for therapy..I suspect that is counselling rather than therapy. The new adoptionregulations in England have SFA to do with 'therapy' that is alreadyregulated. I believe that is the wrong path..I believe that it is wrong too. In Scotland any adopted person can haveaccess to their OBC once they are sixteen years old or over with noobligation to have counselling. In England anyone adopted before 12 November1975 and therefore at least 28 years old must have counselling. Thoseadopted after that date don't have to have it and can get a copy of theirOBC at eighteen (of course many before that know their mothers name from theAO and don't need to get an OBC in order to find out). So a sixteen year oldScot can contact birth mother without counselling a 40 year old English manhas to have counselling. Which is rather ridiculous wouldn't you say? Butcounselling has nothing at all to with 'therapy' or even 'psychodynamiccounselling' it's just advice about what the affects of what you are doingmight be, a bit patronising in my opinion.

I use a term and you play a game..

Some think of counseling as therapy..
Ya I know they are from the lower class uneducated sots...
It gets down to human respect again..Yes, our government tell us just that, it's done to protect that 'respectfor birthmothers' that you consider so precious.

That was not what I meant Robin.. But hey .. Who cares..
Dazzle them with footwork and make sure the point is not gotten
across..
We get to set our own agenda.. and we get to say (very loudly) when we think someone is power tripping on a person.Do you? I don't understand what you mean by that.

That's obvious..
Canadian post-adoptionpractise is still pretty prohibitive and way behind many other countries, asfar as I hear from most Canadians that I correspond with on the subjectincluding those in ON. Perhaps you should shout even more 'loudly'.

Ah.. Now I must get involved with the politics of adoption in order to
have something to say..

Or in order to have what I say validated..
So to answer your question I do not think reunion therapy should be regulated.. When I was going for therapyI don't think it will be, because I don't think it exists, specifically as acategory of therapy.

Ohhhhh my I used the wrong word.. Sorry I confused you Robin..
in Ontario in the early nineties I went to a social worker who therapized women considering relinquishing.. What she told me was scary.I think you should go look up the difference between counselling andtherapy, then if you know someone (someone who hasn't been committed underthe Mental Health Act) who is being forced to have therapy rather than'counselling' for any reason, report it to the proper professional body.Robin


You are a legend in your own mind Robin.. IMO as always.

Jackie

in article 23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 20/10/03 12:31 pm:
On 19 Oct 2003 16:57:19 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote: Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work is horrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of their separated children trying to get to know each other.
I can speak from my own experience ans an adoptee. If my bmother has found me and pressured for contact/reunuion while I wasn t ready I would have been devastated. Thats why I have always been for a non aggressive aproach without pressure.
I agree and unfortunately Robin (sans agenda) is into adoption reunion reform (or something like that) in England.. I shudder for the birth moms who disagree with him and his agenda..

Which birth moms? The 28 out of the 500000 who have relinquished, that came
forward to object to the fact that they could be found, when consultation
took place? Or the seven percent of already found birth mothers who say they
would have preferred not to have been found in one research project?

Robin

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43)Date: 10/19/03 5:38 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031019193847.22348.00000940@mb-m29.aol.com>Invasion of privacy, maybe. Abrogation of rights? Not really. Anystranger on the street can talk to you. Why should folks seperated by thesimple legality of adoption be treated differently?Although I can see your point I must ask what the liklihood of any strangeronthe street knowing so much about you and your past that it could possiblydestroy your family or marriage? Suppose it were an adoptee finding abirthmother and her husband and current family know nothing of this baby sheonce had? What then?

That's a risk you run when you relinquish a child. There was no legal
guarantee of anonyminity.

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: "kat" katlat24@hotmail.comDate: 10/20/03 9:25 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <bn0jpd$kf22s$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax .com... On 19 Oct 2003 16:57:19 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote:>Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work is>horrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes oftheir>separated children trying to get to know each other.I can speak from my own experience ans an adoptee. If my bmother hasfound meand pressured for contact/reunuion while I wasn t ready I would have beendevastated. Thats why I have always been for a non aggressive aproachwithoutpressure. I agree and unfortunately Robin (sans agenda) is into adoption reunion reform (or something like that) in England.. I shudder for the birth moms who disagree with him and his agenda.. When an ambush contact happens and the bmother or adoptee refusescontact the worse thing would be to pursue and insist upon anything more.Tome thats a definite invasion of privacy and ones rights. Well said! Relinquishing my son was divisive in my family and in my life.. The secrets were used by others to control me and my reaction to the world..People can only be controlled to the extent they allow themselves tobecontrolled.Kathy 1

Especially when they are already self-sufficient adults.

In article <puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That's whatyou don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. If itgoes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on.I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..

It is for some people (was for me).

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <ujf7pvsc735c8698hipfhpsb8o2e54d2fb@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:10:49 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>wrote: Reunion IMO is about two people meeting and getting to know one another KNOWING that their wishes will be respected and not bypassed..Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of theirseparated children trying to get to know each other.So you see *some* birth mothers as the enemy in real time as well???? IMO its the ones who know that their rights and or wishes will not be respected that may well want keep the secrecy crap going.IMO the ones who believe that crap are the ones most likely to get bypassedaltogether. And who could blame anyone for bypassing someone that selfish.I see you Robin..You agenda is obvious..

LOL - And YOURS isn't? Give me a break.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ujf7pvsc735c8698hipfhpsb8o2e54d2fb@4ax.com... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:10:49 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote: Reunion IMO is about two people meeting and getting to know one another KNOWING that their wishes will be respected and not bypassed..Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of
theirseparated children trying to get to know each other. So you see *some* birth mothers as the enemy in real time as well???? IMO its the ones who know that their rights and or wishes will not be respected that may well want keep the secrecy crap going.IMO the ones who believe that crap are the ones most likely to get
bypassedaltogether. And who could blame anyone for bypassing someone that
selfish. I see you Robin.. You agenda is obvious..

I don't see that Robin has an agenda at all. Some nmothersa re overbearing.
So are some adoptees and aparents. So are some bio-relatives. So are some
stereo clerks, teachers, printers, lawyers, babysitters, computer
programers, physists, and circus acrobats. It's human nature.

You have to ditch the idea of the adoption triad or triangle. It might have
held a useful purpose at some time, but it stands in the way of progress
now. In truth, adoption is a tangled web of fluid hierarchies and
relationships organized around secrets and shame and multiple social and
political issues that don't even have to be related, to adoption a
privatized cash cow and to keep those most effected by it--adoptees, n- and
a-parents at each other's throats. It's hard to tell who's on first: the
state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of the
social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests in keeping
the status quo in place.

As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they are pawns
in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,
nothing is going to change. That somebody "might" have a bad relationship
with somebody else is totally irrelevant. Personal relationships are just
that-- personal-- and should not be under state purview. What is relevant
is that a corrupt system of state-facilitated identity manipulation (which
now goes way beyond adoption) has been in place for 60+ years. What is
relevant is that the state controls your personal information--information
which you aren't allowed to access but that it (and its commercial and
political minions) can.

Relationships and whether or not people get along is secondary.

Marley Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ujf7pvsc735c8698hipfhpsb8o2e54d2fb@4ax.com... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:10:49 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote: Reunion IMO is about two people meeting and getting to know one another KNOWING that their wishes will be respected and not bypassed..Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of
theirseparated children trying to get to know each other. So you see *some* birth mothers as the enemy in real time as well???? IMO its the ones who know that their rights and or wishes will not be respected that may well want keep the secrecy crap going.IMO the ones who believe that crap are the ones most likely to get
bypassedaltogether. And who could blame anyone for bypassing someone that
selfish. I see you Robin.. You agenda is obvious.. Jackie

So is yours. Or are you under the allusion that you don't have an agenda?

Kathy 1

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax.com... On 19 Oct 2003 16:57:19 GMT, lipstik43@aol.com (Lipstik43) wrote:Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work ishorrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of
theirseparated children trying to get to know each other.I can speak from my own experience ans an adoptee. If my bmother has
found meand pressured for contact/reunuion while I wasn t ready I would have beendevastated. Thats why I have always been for a non aggressive aproach
withoutpressure. I agree and unfortunately Robin (sans agenda) is into adoption reunion reform (or something like that) in England.. I shudder for the birth moms who disagree with him and his agenda.. When an ambush contact happens and the bmother or adoptee refusescontact the worse thing would be to pursue and insist upon anything more.
Tome thats a definite invasion of privacy and ones rights. Well said! Relinquishing my son was divisive in my family and in my life.. The secrets were used by others to control me and my reaction to the world..

People can only be controlled to the extent they allow themselves tobe
controlled.


Kathy 1

in article ZwSkb.8084$Ec1.743289@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley
Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 20/10/03 3:44 pm:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ujf7pvsc735c8698hipfhpsb8o2e54d2fb@4ax.com... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:10:49 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote:> Reunion IMO is about two people meeting and getting to know one another> KNOWING that their wishes will be respected and not bypassed..> Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work is horrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of their separated children trying to get to know each other. So you see *some* birth mothers as the enemy in real time as well????> IMO its the ones who know that their rights and or wishes will not be> respected that may well want keep the secrecy crap going.> IMO the ones who believe that crap are the ones most likely to get bypassed altogether. And who could blame anyone for bypassing someone that selfish. I see you Robin.. You agenda is obvious..

I don't see that Robin has an agenda at all.

I've signed bits of paper promising that I don't have an agenda to pacify
people whose agenda is to make sure I don't have an agenda.

Some nmothers are overbearing. So are some adoptees and aparents. So are some bio-relatives. So are some stereo clerks, teachers, printers, lawyers, babysitters, computer programers, physists, and circus acrobats. It's human nature.
You have to ditch the idea of the adoption triad or triangle.


I'm really fed-up with the triad thing. I'm sat here trying to work out how
to get across that there is no point in the government trying to have an
arbitrary definition of family when it comes to accessing vital records of
ones family. Particularly in adoption situations, the triad concept really
gets in the way of that when brothers and sisters have been adopted or kept
by nine different "families" with other adoptees from different "natural
families" and there eight different fathers involved whose "families" they
also belong to.

It might have held a useful purpose at some time.


Adoption social workers seem quite fond of the triad as concept to try and
help them to understand the dynamics of. But it seems lead them into an even
deeper misunderstanding. But then, they probably invented it.


but it stands in the way of progress now. In truth, adoption is a tangled web of fluid hierarchies and relationships organized around secrets and shame and multiple social and political issues that don't even have to be related, to adoption.

Well I'm with you that far. But
a privatized cash cow and to keep those most effected by it--adoptees, n- and a-parents at each other's throats.

Taking the "cash" out of it doesn't necessarily seem to improve things all
that much. Things ain't all that brilliant in our cash free adoption
economy.
It's hard to tell who's on first: the state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of the social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests in keeping the status quo in place.

I think our problem must be too many SWs and legislators on study tours of
the US.

As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they are pawns in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas, nothing is going to change. That somebody "might" have a bad relationship with somebody else is totally irrelevant. Personal relationships are just that-- personal-- and should not be under state purview. What is relevant is that a corrupt system of state-facilitated identity manipulation (which now goes way beyond adoption) has been in place for 60+ years. What is relevant is that the state controls your personal information--information which you aren't allowed to access but that it (and its commercial and political minions) can.

That's the way it's going here too, TB's had his head up GWB's backside so
long that that lack of oxygen has affected his heart rhythm and he's had to
take a holiday. They're still trying to swing a law that'll let any little
jobsworth down at the Town Hall intercept our e-mail, but we're not allowed
to know if we're related to each other.
Relationships and whether or not people get along is secondary.

When the "human rights" to health and life are involved, it certainly is. I
suppose it always will be whilst some people think that the answer is to sit
and whinge about another country's problems on a NG rather than doing
something a bit more pro-active. People affected by adoption here in the UK
are largely so apathetic they can't even write to their parliamentary
representative. Which really gets up nose coz they're ones who always whinge
the loudest.

Robin

in article ppi7pv4k26c9bhgrpst1bgh7mjtvfhvs49@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 20/10/03 1:03 pm:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:00:13 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote:

<snip>
In Canada (Ontario) we have (I believe) a rule that the adoptee wanting reunion needs to go for therapy..

I suspect that is counselling rather than therapy. The new adoption regulations in England have SFA to do with 'therapy' that is already regulated.

I believe that is the wrong path..

I believe that it is wrong too. In Scotland any adopted person can have access to their OBC once they are sixteen years old or over with no obligation to have counselling. In England anyone adopted before 12 November 1975 and therefore at least 28 years old must have counselling. Those adopted after that date don't have to have it and can get a copy of their OBC at eighteen (of course many before that know their mothers name from the AO and don't need to get an OBC in order to find out). So a sixteen year old Scot can contact birth mother without counselling a 40 year old English man has to have counselling. Which is rather ridiculous wouldn't you say? But counselling has nothing at all to with 'therapy' or even 'psychodynamic counselling' it's just advice about what the affects of what you are doing might be, a bit patronising in my opinion.
I use a term and you play a game..
Some think of counseling as therapy.. Ya I know they are from the lower class uneducated sots...


Believe me, there's huge difference. Counselling is something that provides
direction or advice as to a decision or course of action. Therapy is an
arrangement whereby you visit a therapist for three quarters of an hour at a
time, between one and five times a week dependent on your wealth, for a
chat. And in the process pay of his mortgage over a period of years, without
necessarily any benefit to yourself, even though you may be persuaded that
you've benefited enormously.

Somehow I'd have thought you'd have known that by now.

Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>...


Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper.. I hope you stick around. I enjoyed reading your post.. Jackie


Thanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength here
on the board, it's quite admirable.

Soulwhisper

in article c403a139.0310200933.3bb32520@posting.google.com, soulwhisper at
soulwhisper7@aol.com wrote on 20/10/03 6:33 pm:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>... Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper..
I hope you stick around. I enjoyed reading your post.. Jackie Thanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength here on the board, it's quite admirable. Soulwhisper

Whereas those of us who've been here for at least four years are just in awe
of her un-stick-to-it-iveness. The sort of admiration you have for the
skipper of an oil tanker when he gradually turns it inch by inch right
around on its self through a 180 degrees to face the other way in narrow
river estuary. Amazing to watch. The only difference is at the end of the
exercise the skipper actually knows which way he's facing and more
importantly, how to move on.

Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax.com>... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That's whatyou don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. If itgoes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on. I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..

Jackie, we all know it ain't easy.
But it could be a whole lot easier if people were willing to make it
simpler by facing up to the fact that adults have the right to deal
with each other as adults, face on face, and to take it from there.
Straight dealing, in other words.
Part of the problem (it seems to me) is that many older birth mothers
were intimidated and infantalized by authoritarian families that lived
in fear of their own internal strictures and those imposed by
'society'.
These women's past situations created built-in tendencies that
continue to perpetuate the problem.
There are women who remain in such a state of perpetual injury and
powerlessness that they continue to plead their vulnerability in order
to maintain control.
And *that's* manipulative, whatever the reasons for their behaviour.
You talk about open records and how important they are, but it is
precisely those people who demand that contact should be an endlessly
protracted, sensitive, etc. blah process who create obstacles to open
records from becoming general policy.

Rh.
Jackie

In article <23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
Jackieps... Your words here may upset some of the regulars that post here..Be ready to have your spelling checked and your sentence structuredcritiqued.. Or be ready to be called a liar.. Know this is a tactic toshut you up and force you to go away..Hang in there..

Yeah, hang in there....cause we have SOOOO much power....we can MAKE you leave!
NOT....Geez Jackie, get real.

KL

In article <23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
Relinquishing my son was divisive in my family and in my life.. Thesecrets were used by others to control me and my reaction to theworld.. Now some people seek control in reunion.One side of the triangle has more power than another..One person has more rights.. One person can bypass the other becausethey do not agree with the thinking of the other..

Oh and having the birthmother have veto rights over any relationship between
siblings is not one person having more rights?

KL

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/20/03 12:49 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031020144952.11022.00001531@mb-m14.aol.com>In article <23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:Relinquishing my son was divisive in my family and in my life.. Thesecrets were used by others to control me and my reaction to theworld.. Now some people seek control in reunion.One side of the triangle has more power than another..One person has more rights.. One person can bypass the other becausethey do not agree with the thinking of the other..Oh and having the birthmother have veto rights over any relationship betweensiblings is not one person having more rights?KL

Making sense is not allowed..

In article <BBB9D2B3.25198%nospam@harritt.net>, Robin Harritt
<nospam@harritt.net> writes:
in article ppi7pv4k26c9bhgrpst1bgh7mjtvfhvs49@4ax.com, Jackie atjdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 20/10/03 1:03 pm: On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:00:13 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote:<snip>> In Canada (Ontario) we have (I believe) a rule that the adoptee> wanting reunion needs to go for therapy.. I suspect that is counselling rather than therapy. The new adoption regulations in England have SFA to do with 'therapy' that is already regulated.> I believe that is the wrong path.. I believe that it is wrong too. In Scotland any adopted person can have access to their OBC once they are sixteen years old or over with no obligation to have counselling. In England anyone adopted before 12November 1975 and therefore at least 28 years old must have counselling. Those adopted after that date don't have to have it and can get a copy of their OBC at eighteen (of course many before that know their mothers name fromthe AO and don't need to get an OBC in order to find out). So a sixteen yearold Scot can contact birth mother without counselling a 40 year old Englishman has to have counselling. Which is rather ridiculous wouldn't you say? But counselling has nothing at all to with 'therapy' or even 'psychodynamic counselling' it's just advice about what the affects of what you are doing might be, a bit patronising in my opinion. I use a term and you play a game.. Some think of counseling as therapy.. Ya I know they are from the lower class uneducated sots...Believe me, there's huge difference. Counselling is something that providesdirection or advice as to a decision or course of action. Therapy is anarrangement whereby you visit a therapist for three quarters of an hour at atime, between one and five times a week dependent on your wealth, for achat. And in the process pay of his mortgage over a period of years, withoutnecessarily any benefit to yourself, even though you may be persuaded thatyou've benefited enormously.Somehow I'd have thought you'd have known that by now.Robin

More charitably, perhaps: therapy is directed at healing, counseling may or may
not be so directed.

J.
A counselor, of sorts.

Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote
That's the way it's going here too, TB's had his head up GWB's backside so long that that lack of oxygen has affected his heart rhythm and he's had to take a holiday.

I probably shouldn't, but someone forwarded me a gimmick...

Type in "George Bush and Blair" into Google, and hit "I'm feeling lucky"

Hit the Blair button in the ensuing picture.

On 20 Oct 2003 18:49:52 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
In article <23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:Relinquishing my son was divisive in my family and in my life.. Thesecrets were used by others to control me and my reaction to theworld.. Now some people seek control in reunion.One side of the triangle has more power than another..One person has more rights.. One person can bypass the other becausethey do not agree with the thinking of the other..Oh and having the birthmother have veto rights over any relationship betweensiblings is not one person having more rights?


I am not addressing the issue of veto rights.. I am saying nothing
what so ever about veto rights..

This is not a black or white issue..


Jackie

On 20 Oct 2003 11:41:00 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax.com>... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That's whatyou don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. If itgoes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on. I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..Jackie, we all know it ain't easy.But it could be a whole lot easier if people were willing to make itsimpler by facing up to the fact that adults have the right to dealwith each other as adults, face on face, and to take it from there.Straight dealing, in other words.

If both parties decide to 'straight deal' I am all for it..

I read a letter last nite written by a woman who's husband has just
found out about a daughter he knew nothing about..
The daughter wants to meet the family.. Wants to meet her pre teen
brothers and sisters.. The family is in shock.. The woman wants to
have some time to decide what to do.. And to digest what is
happening..

She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet..

What if this not known about girl or teen or woman decides to just
invade that family.. Does no one care about their feelings?
Part of the problem (it seems to me) is that many older birth motherswere intimidated and infantalized by authoritarian families that livedin fear of their own internal strictures and those imposed by'society'.

And now society is deciding that its okay for her life to be totally
changed when a relinquished son or daughter comes calling..

These women's past situations created built-in tendencies thatcontinue to perpetuate the problem.

What... like wanting to be able to control their own lives?

There are women who remain in such a state of perpetual injury andpowerlessness that they continue to plead their vulnerability in orderto maintain control.

They are powerless if the adoptee decides to come/go and meet the
siblings.. They are bypassed if they say no..
And *that's* manipulative, whatever the reasons for their behaviour.

They give the baby up because they must and they allow the
relinquished son or daughter to walk all over their lives in reunion
because they must....

And they are doing the manipulation?

You talk about open records and how important they are, but it isprecisely those people who demand that contact should be an endlesslyprotracted, sensitive, etc. blah process who create obstacles to openrecords from becoming general policy.

I say information should be exchanged.. That is incredibly important..

I do not think the law should be involved in any of this..

That is the problem IMO.. Someone makes a rule and someone else
decides that they can do whatever they choose because there is a
friken rule..

Two people working out a life trauma.. IMO that is what it gets down
to.


JackieRh. Jackie

On 20 Oct 2003 10:33:25 -0700, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>...Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper.. I hope you stick around. I enjoyed reading your post.. JackieThanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength hereon the board, it's quite admirable.


Thank you so much.. I never argued or stuck to anything when I
relinquished.. I complied..


Jackie

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:51:40 +0100, Robin
<alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:
in article c403a139.0310200933.3bb32520@posting.google.com, soulwhisper atsoulwhisper7@aol.com wrote on 20/10/03 6:33 pm: Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>... Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper.. I hope you stick around. I enjoyed reading your post.. Jackie Thanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength here on the board, it's quite admirable. SoulwhisperWhereas those of us who've been here for at least four years are just in aweof her un-stick-to-it-iveness. The sort of admiration you have for theskipper of an oil tanker when he gradually turns it inch by inch rightaround on its self through a 180 degrees to face the other way in narrowriver estuary. Amazing to watch. The only difference is at the end of theexercise the skipper actually knows which way he's facing and moreimportantly, how to move on.


When I met my son everything changed..

I saw what I had missed and I entered the anger stage of my grief..

I became aware of the manipulation in force back then.. and I am
becoming aware of the manipulation that is in force today..




Jackie

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:44:09 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You have to ditch the idea of the adoption triad or triangle. It might haveheld a useful purpose at some time, but it stands in the way of progressnow. In truth, adoption is a tangled web of fluid hierarchies andrelationships organized around secrets and shame and multiple social andpolitical issues that don't even have to be related, to adoption aprivatized cash cow and to keep those most effected by it--adoptees, n- anda-parents at each other's throats.

What I look for is human respect.. Your mother asked that she be kept
in her delusion.. You walked away from her and gave her some space..
You have said that your reunion with her was not that important in the
scheme of things..(my interpretation of your words) You just got on
with your life..

Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.
It's hard to tell who's on first: thestate or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of thesocial engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests in keepingthe status quo in place.

And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about
respecting the feelings of others..

ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its
okay to bypass this other family..
As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they are pawnsin a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,nothing is going to change.

I am not thinking about personal 'angst'.

I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights..
The right to control ones environment without state interference in
the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..
That somebody "might" have a bad relationshipwith somebody else is totally irrelevant. Personal relationships are justthat-- personal-- and should not be under state purview.

I agree with that.
What is relevantis that a corrupt system of state-facilitated identity manipulation (whichnow goes way beyond adoption) has been in place for 60+ years. What isrelevant is that the state controls your personal information--informationwhich you aren't allowed to access but that it (and its commercial andpolitical minions) can.Relationships and whether or not people get along is secondary.

I have always been in favor of open records..

Jackie

In article <f67apvo7np0ci07he37gf086e9o6p78gd7@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 20 Oct 2003 10:33:25 -0700, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>...Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper.. I hope you stick around. I enjoyed reading your post.. JackieThanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength hereon the board, it's quite admirable.Thank you so much.. I never argued or stuck to anything when Irelinquished.. I complied..

Oh baloney. Isn't it true that you had 3 months to change your mind? Didn't you
have to get up in front of a judge? You didn't "comply" - You made a decision.
I really wish you could come to terms with that fact.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031020160622.24972.00000537@mb-m17.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/20/03 12:49 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031020144952.11022.00001531@mb-m14.aol.com>In article <23g7pvklndltahqlvk0gbsarojrg6jc7rl@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:Relinquishing my son was divisive in my family and in my life.. Thesecrets were used by others to control me and my reaction to theworld.. Now some people seek control in reunion.One side of the triangle has more power than another..One person has more rights.. One person can bypass the other becausethey do not agree with the thinking of the other..Oh and having the birthmother have veto rights over any relationship betweensiblings is not one person having more rights?KLMaking sense is not allowed..

There are no words..

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:oj7apvkvhmvm4l9794ps21ostlaqvegru1@4ax.com... On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:44:09 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:You have to ditch the idea of the adoption triad or triangle. It might
haveheld a useful purpose at some time, but it stands in the way of progressnow. In truth, adoption is a tangled web of fluid hierarchies andrelationships organized around secrets and shame and multiple social andpolitical issues that don't even have to be related, to adoption aprivatized cash cow and to keep those most effected by it--adoptees, n-
anda-parents at each other's throats. What I look for is human respect.. Your mother asked that she be kept in her delusion.. You walked away from her and gave her some space.. You have said that your reunion with her was not that important in the scheme of things..(my interpretation of your words) You just got on with your life..

I never had any direct contact with her so I didn't know what she wanted.
After about 24 hours it was no big deal that she didn't want to seem to want
contact--other than as an historian I wanted family history I was able to
get some of that through reasearch. Obviousy respect or whatever you want
to call it, is part of that. The vast majority of adopted adults ae highly
respectiful of their nparents wishes. Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.

Well, in my case she had, when I found her, about 35 years or space. Her
identity was never sealed from me, and I got her address out of my
ngrandfather's will. She was listed in the phone book.

It's hard to tell who's on first: thestate or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of thesocial engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests in
keepingthe status quo in place. And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about respecting the feelings of others..

Huh? This has nothing to do with relationships. It's about state control
of identity and the play between it and social enginners. It's about
hierarachies of power. ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its okay to bypass this other family..

The law says nothing about "invading families." You can contact anybody you
want to unless there's a court order to the opposite. If the law said you
couldn't contact anybody the No Call system wouldn't have been invented.As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they are
pawnsin a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,nothing is going to change. I am not thinking about personal 'angst'. I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights.. The right to control ones environment without state interference in the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..

Unless you're Thomas Jeferson, rights don't exist. They are what the power
structure lets you have. The can give and take whatever they want at will.
People are "given" rights as a favour in order to control them. Some people
think the Patriot Act is a good idea.

Marley That somebody "might" have a bad relationshipwith somebody else is totally irrelevant. Personal relationships are justthat-- personal-- and should not be under state purview. I agree with that. What is relevantis that a corrupt system of state-facilitated identity manipulation
(whichnow goes way beyond adoption) has been in place for 60+ years. What isrelevant is that the state controls your personal
information--informationwhich you aren't allowed to access but that it (and its commercial andpolitical minions) can.Relationships and whether or not people get along is secondary. I have always been in favor of open records.. Jackie

Top Post:

You are so consumed with your "control" issues that it permeates your entire
thought process and *everything* becomes about "control" and "agendas" to
you. You can't think about issues outside of this box. What a way to view
life.

Kathy 1


Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:r46apvk2tjgcqocrqhouf4kml9sibeab5b@4ax.com... On 20 Oct 2003 11:41:00 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax.com>... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote: >There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That's
what >you don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****.
If it >goes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on. I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack.. > >Jackie, we all know it ain't easy.But it could be a whole lot easier if people were willing to make itsimpler by facing up to the fact that adults have the right to dealwith each other as adults, face on face, and to take it from there.Straight dealing, in other words. If both parties decide to 'straight deal' I am all for it.. I read a letter last nite written by a woman who's husband has just found out about a daughter he knew nothing about.. The daughter wants to meet the family.. Wants to meet her pre teen brothers and sisters.. The family is in shock.. The woman wants to have some time to decide what to do.. And to digest what is happening.. She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet.. What if this not known about girl or teen or woman decides to just invade that family.. Does no one care about their feelings?Part of the problem (it seems to me) is that many older birth motherswere intimidated and infantalized by authoritarian families that livedin fear of their own internal strictures and those imposed by'society'. And now society is deciding that its okay for her life to be totally changed when a relinquished son or daughter comes calling..These women's past situations created built-in tendencies thatcontinue to perpetuate the problem. What... like wanting to be able to control their own lives?There are women who remain in such a state of perpetual injury andpowerlessness that they continue to plead their vulnerability in orderto maintain control. They are powerless if the adoptee decides to come/go and meet the siblings.. They are bypassed if they say no..And *that's* manipulative, whatever the reasons for their behaviour. They give the baby up because they must and they allow the relinquished son or daughter to walk all over their lives in reunion because they must.... And they are doing the manipulation?You talk about open records and how important they are, but it isprecisely those people who demand that contact should be an endlesslyprotracted, sensitive, etc. blah process who create obstacles to openrecords from becoming general policy. I say information should be exchanged.. That is incredibly important.. I do not think the law should be involved in any of this.. That is the problem IMO.. Someone makes a rule and someone else decides that they can do whatever they choose because there is a friken rule.. Two people working out a life trauma.. IMO that is what it gets down to. JackieRh. Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ib7apv40evb2kr1s71bvauvm9nr8hu9r13@4ax.com... On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:51:40 +0100, Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:in article c403a139.0310200933.3bb32520@posting.google.com, soulwhisper
atsoulwhisper7@aol.com wrote on 20/10/03 6:33 pm: Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>...> Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper..> I hope you stick around.>> I enjoyed reading your post..>> Jackie Thanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength here on the board, it's quite admirable. SoulwhisperWhereas those of us who've been here for at least four years are just in
aweof her un-stick-to-it-iveness. The sort of admiration you have for theskipper of an oil tanker when he gradually turns it inch by inch rightaround on its self through a 180 degrees to face the other way in narrowriver estuary. Amazing to watch. The only difference is at the end of theexercise the skipper actually knows which way he's facing and moreimportantly, how to move on. When I met my son everything changed..

Not much has changed as far as you blaming others -just the targets have
changed. IIRC you felt it was his"destiny" to be adopted and minimized your
role in the process. Now you say it was those with "agendas" who were the
major players in his adoption thereby minimizing your role in his adoption
yet again.
I saw what I had missed and I entered the anger stage of my grief..

It seems to me you were quite angry that the adoption agency did not keep up
to date records on where your son was on this time and let you know where he
was *prior* to finding your son. Again just the target has changed.

Kathy 1

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:oj7apvkvhmvm4l9794ps21ostlaqvegru1@4ax.com... On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:44:09 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:You have to ditch the idea of the adoption triad or triangle. It might
haveheld a useful purpose at some time, but it stands in the way of progressnow. In truth, adoption is a tangled web of fluid hierarchies andrelationships organized around secrets and shame and multiple social andpolitical issues that don't even have to be related, to adoption aprivatized cash cow and to keep those most effected by it--adoptees, n-
anda-parents at each other's throats. What I look for is human respect.. Your mother asked that she be kept in her delusion.. You walked away from her and gave her some space..


But she contacted her siblings which is something you are adamantly against
and which you insist causes the bmother to*have* to have a relationship so
howin the world did Marley accomplish both things simultaneously?

You have said that your reunion with her was not that important in the scheme of things..(my interpretation of your words) You just got on with your life.. Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.

Bull****. Some are perfectly content to contact the siblings and give the
bmother all the space they need- something *you* say is mutually exculsive.
It's hard to tell who's on first: thestate or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of thesocial engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests in
keepingthe status quo in place. And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about respecting the feelings of others.. ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its okay to bypass this other family..As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they are
pawnsin a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,nothing is going to change. I am not thinking about personal 'angst'. I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights.. The right to control ones environment

There is your control issue raising it's ugly head again.

without state interference in the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..

What law would that be? Are you referring to open records which many claim
allows just that? (More bull**** of course). I'll say it again Jackie,
although you give lip service to open records I think you would be more than
happy to see a law that prevents adoptees from contacting any family members
other than the bmother thereby giving her the "control" that you are so
fixated on.




That somebody "might" have a bad relationshipwith somebody else is totally irrelevant. Personal relationships are justthat-- personal-- and should not be under state purview. I agree with that. What is relevantis that a corrupt system of state-facilitated identity manipulation
(whichnow goes way beyond adoption) has been in place for 60+ years. What isrelevant is that the state controls your personal
information--informationwhich you aren't allowed to access but that it (and its commercial andpolitical minions) can.Relationships and whether or not people get along is secondary. I have always been in favor of open records..

With a companion law that allows bmothers to control the adoptee's access to
other family members would be the ideal eh?

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/21/03 7:52 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <ib7apv40evb2kr1s71bvauvm9nr8hu9r13@4ax.com>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:51:40 +0100, Robin<alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:in article c403a139.0310200933.3bb32520@posting.google.com, soulwhisper atsoulwhisper7@aol.com wrote on 20/10/03 6:33 pm: Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>...> Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper..> I hope you stick around.>> I enjoyed reading your post..>> Jackie Thanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength here on the board, it's quite admirable. SoulwhisperWhereas those of us who've been here for at least four yearsare just in awe of her un-stick-to-it-iveness. The sort of admirationyou have for the skipper of an oil tanker when he gradually turnsit inch by inch right around on its self through a 180 degrees toface the other way in narrow river estuary. Amazing to watch. Theonly difference is at the end of the exercise the skipper actuallyknows which way he's facing and more importantly, how to moveon.When I met my son everything changed..

Including your history.
I saw what I had missed and I entered the anger stage of my grief..

Hmm, let's see. Denial. Anger. Bargaining. Depression. Acceptance.
You're working backwards, my dear.
I became aware of the manipulation in force back then.. and I ambecoming aware of the manipulation that is in force today..

Oh... enough about Di already.

Dad

in article S02lb.8806$Ec1.809909@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley
Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 21/10/03 4:49 am:
"Robin Harritt" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBB9C8EF.25193%nospam@harritt.net...
You have to ditch the idea of the adoption triad or triangle. I'm really fed-up with the triad thing. I'm sat here trying to work out how to get across that there is no point in the government trying to have an arbitrary definition of family when it comes to accessing vital records of ones family. Particularly in adoption situations, the triad concept really gets in the way of that when brothers and sisters have been adopted or kept by nine different "families" with other adoptees from different "natural families" and there eight different fathers involved whose "families" they also belong to.
You're right. Is the definition of "the family" as controversial in the UK as it is here?

The religiose really have their cassocks in a twist about it with the
declining popularity of marriages (50pc of children born outside of
marriage) high divorce rates, proposals for a gay marriage law, gay adoption
etc.

But at the moment it's about access to birth marriage and death records
because those are used to set up a false identity.

The government say, 'one option would be to define family in its widest
sense to include any person related by blood or marriage or who is/was a
life partner to the person named in the record'. Another would be 'to
include only the spouse or life partner of the individual, their
parents/step parents, children/step children and siblings/half siblings'.
They appears to favour a definition halfway between the above two, i.e. 'the
spouse/life partner of the individual, their children/step children,
parents/step parents (including guardians), brother and sisters (including
step and half siblings), grandparents/step grandparents, grandchildren/step
grandchildren, uncles or aunts (or if any have died their children)'. No
mention of a child given up for adoption still being a member of its genetic
family for the purpose access to records.

It is in any case ridiculous that certificates are used as identifiers when
applying for passports and driving licences.


Taking the "cash" out of it doesn't necessarily seem to improve things all that much. Things ain't all that brilliant in our cash free adoption economy.

I stand corrected You're absolutely right While money changes everything, the bottom line is the power to shuffle people around and control their records and identity just for the fun of it. These people would be equally at home in Stalinist Russia or the Vatican. It gives makes them feeel important.

It's hard to tell who's on first: the state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of the social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests in keeping the status quo in place.

I think our problem must be too many SWs and legislators on study tours of the US.

N doubt.

As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they are pawns in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas, nothing is going to change. That somebody "might" have a bad relationship with somebody else is totally irrelevant. Personal relationships are just that-- personal-- and should not be under state purview. What is relevant is that a corrupt system of state-facilitated identity manipulation (which now goes way beyond adoption) has been in place for 60+ years. What is relevant is that the state controls your personal information--information which you aren't allowed to access but that it (and its commercial and political minions) can.

That's the way it's going here too, TB's had his head up GWB's backside so long that that lack of oxygen has affected his heart rhythm and he's had to take a holiday. They're still trying to swing a law that'll let any little jobsworth down at the Town Hall intercept our e-mail, but we're not allowed to know if we're related to each other.

I collect stuff like that. There's going to be a big backlash when (or should I say if) people wake up to the Bush-Blair Futurama show. I don't know about over there, but here the Right is more het-up about it than the so-called "progressives" who so far haven't progressed beyond Woodrow Wilson.


Umm...very big IF. We don't really have a Left Right dichotomy any more in
serious politics. Tory and Labour have become almost indistinguishable,
unless some third political entity comes to the fore and stirs it all up
we'll just sit here and let all wash over us.


Robin

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message I am not addressing the issue of veto rights.. I am saying nothing what so ever about veto rights.. This is not a black or white issue..

Jackie, I'd like to get at what you are saying.

What I'm hearing you say is this:

A birthmother should not get a legal veto right to prevent an adoptee
from contacting her or her children. However, out of respect for her
and her possible situation, adoptees should make the first contact
discreetly. After that, they should, again out of respect and
consideration, abide by her preferences in terms of going public with
the relationship.

The birthmother, out of consideration for her b-kid, should be willing
to share information. This would include medical histories, as well as
the identity of the father and any half-sibs.

If she prefers not to go public with the relationship, they should be
willing to go along with that, and not insist on meeting half-sibs or
other b-relatives.


Is that accurate?

Rupa

in article c599139c.0310191849.4cb27fca@posting.google.com, Dian at
patrice68@bigpond.com.au wrote on 20/10/03 3:49 am:
Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:<BBB86809.250AE% <snip> Yes I couldn't agree more, one of the worst things I see in this work is horrifically overbearing birth mothers trying to bypass the wishes of their separated children trying to get to know each other. Robin You obviously didn't read the front page of the London Times in '97 where an adoptee publicly accused her mother of stalking her and listing 34 other accusations about her, all of which were untrue. All done out of spite because her mother told her to cease further contact as she had had enough of her daughters incessant abuse which had brought on a heart attack. The mother sued. And won big time. Di

Yea.. I seem to remember that being among the old press cutting the closed
adoption set dragged out during the Adoption and Children Bill Committee
stages, to prove how all adoption records should be closed and shut away for
ever.

Robin

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote. Invasion of privacy, maybe. Abrogation of rights? Not really. Any stranger on the street can talk to you. Why should folks seperated by the simple legality of adoption be treated differently?
I don't have strong views on this myself, but it seems that it's not a
case of "just a stranger."

A "stranger" is just that, a stranger. If you want to talk, you do; if
not you move on. Presumably, unless the Stranger is stalking you, that
person also just moves on. There's no emotional investment in the
transaction.

With a b-mom and adoptee, there's a difference. If neither side has
much emotional involvement in the issue, then it's parallel to the
stranger situation, and barring coincidence, a reunion is unlikely
(just because it's too much trouble for something neither cares
about).

However, if there is a reunion, then either or both sides will have an
emotional stake in the other person -- not the actual person, but
their construct of that person. I'd say in most, but not all, cases,
the person who Finds has more emotional investment than the Found --
and is also more prepared for the event. (Hence the OP's use of the
term "ambush.")

Whether the level of emotion is as high as with, say, ex-husbands and
ex-wives, I don't know.

I think a lot of the legislation that surrounds divorce, blended
families and visitation could be extended to adoption.
The laws already exist. See your friend's TRO against his b/mom for an example. Or, are you suggesting that an automatic restraining order be placed upon all adoptees and birthparents upon relinquishment? There must be a way to organize these search situations so that the results are different.

I think I agree here. Presumably, both sides have the same basic goal:
A positive relationship. However, the nature and intensity of the
relationship desired may be different.

I wonder if, rather than relying on TROs and such, there shouldn't be
counselling available to deal with the immediate emotions and with
mismatched expectations.

Rupa

In article <e5619372.0310210951.28d5cab5@posting.google.com>, Rupa Bose says...Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message I am not addressing the issue of veto rights.. I am saying nothing what so ever about veto rights.. This is not a black or white issue..Jackie, I'd like to get at what you are saying.What I'm hearing you say is this:A birthmother should not get a legal veto right to prevent an adopteefrom contacting her or her children. However, out of respect for herand her possible situation, adoptees should make the first contactdiscreetly. After that, they should, again out of respect andconsideration, abide by her preferences in terms of going public withthe relationship.The birthmother, out of consideration for her b-kid, should be willingto share information. This would include medical histories, as well asthe identity of the father and any half-sibs.If she prefers not to go public with the relationship, they should bewilling to go along with that, and not insist on meeting half-sibs orother b-relatives.Is that accurate?

See, I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. It's not my life's goal to
meet my half-sibs or to be welcomed with open arms into the bosom of my bio
family. However, while I do get medical info upon request, I cannot get info
from my bmom on either my bdad, half-bro or half-sis - Not the end of the world,
but it does suck at times.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <l35bpv8gm2odnbbrnr7jpclv4c1ejhqps6@4ax.com>, GR says...

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were just your basic, run-of-the-mill
jackass who thinks acting like an asshole qualifies for intelligence. Never
mind.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <ib7apv40evb2kr1s71bvauvm9nr8hu9r13@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:51:40 +0100, Robin<alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:in article c403a139.0310200933.3bb32520@posting.google.com, soulwhisper atsoulwhisper7@aol.com wrote on 20/10/03 6:33 pm: Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e7i7pv0d4ajvh2vks3n91sl62p4rclresq@4ax.com>...> Just want to say welcome to alt.adoption soulwhisper..> I hope you stick around.>> I enjoyed reading your post..>> Jackie Thanks Jackie, I enjoy your stick-to-it-iveness :-) and strength here on the board, it's quite admirable. SoulwhisperWhereas those of us who've been here for at least four years are just in aweof her un-stick-to-it-iveness. The sort of admiration you have for theskipper of an oil tanker when he gradually turns it inch by inch rightaround on its self through a 180 degrees to face the other way in narrowriver estuary. Amazing to watch. The only difference is at the end of theexercise the skipper actually knows which way he's facing and moreimportantly, how to move on.When I met my son everything changed..I saw what I had missed and I entered the anger stage of my grief..I became aware of the manipulation in force back then.. and I ambecoming aware of the manipulation that is in force today..Jackie

How about the manipulation of the birthparent to keep siblings from each other?
Perpetuating the lies?

KL

In article <r46apvk2tjgcqocrqhouf4kml9sibeab5b@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On 20 Oct 2003 11:41:00 -0700, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax.com>... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote: >There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That'swhat >you don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. Ifit >goes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on. I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack.. > >Jackie, we all know it ain't easy.But it could be a whole lot easier if people were willing to make itsimpler by facing up to the fact that adults have the right to dealwith each other as adults, face on face, and to take it from there.Straight dealing, in other words.If both parties decide to 'straight deal' I am all for it..I read a letter last nite written by a woman who's husband has justfound out about a daughter he knew nothing about..The daughter wants to meet the family.. Wants to meet her pre teenbrothers and sisters.. The family is in shock.. The woman wants tohave some time to decide what to do.. And to digest what ishappening..She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet..What if this not known about girl or teen or woman decides to justinvade that family.. Does no one care about their feelings?

Sounds to me like you want to keep the lies flowing. The lies have to stop.

KL

On 21 Oct 2003 22:49:14 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:

<snip>

Jackie wrote:She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet..What if this not known about girl or teen or woman decides to justinvade that family.. Does no one care about their feelings?

KL wrote:Sounds to me like you want to keep the lies flowing.

Bull****. That's not Jackie's thing and you've been around here long
enough to know it.
The lies have to stop.

No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss the
following on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contact
can do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members of
their original families), because all that matters is what matters to
adoptees." I'm sick to death of that particularly childish brand of
self-absorbed, irrational bull****.

Everyone in the triad gets to be human. Who knew?

GR

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/21/2003
I read a letter last nite written by a woman who's husband has justfound out about a daughter he knew nothing about..The daughter wants to meet the family.. Wants to meet her pre teenbrothers and sisters.. The family is in shock.. The woman wants tohave some time to decide what to do.. And to digest what ishappening..She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet..

I think there is a huge difference in this situation in that the children are
pre teen and not adults thus the parent(s) has the final say.
And now society is deciding that its okay for her life to be totallychanged when a relinquished son or daughter comes calling..

Thats society, always changing.
What... like wanting to be able to control their own lives?

Well, adoptees would like the opportunity.
They are powerless if the adoptee decides to come/go and meet thesiblings.. They are bypassed if they say no..

People are bypassed all the time because of their reactions or choices.
They give the baby up because they must and they allow therelinquished son or daughter to walk all over their lives in reunionbecause they must....
And they are doing the manipulation?

Heck the adoptee was walked over their whole life in a sense.
I say information should be exchanged.. That is incredibly important..

Sure can't make em but the opportunity would be nice.
I do not think the law should be involved in any of this..

I agree
That is the problem IMO.. Someone makes a rule and someone elsedecides that they can do whatever they choose because there is afriken rule..

I Don't get the rule statement.
Two people working out a life trauma.. IMO that is what it gets downto.Jackie

If one does not want to work out the trauma, one has that choice.

Kathy

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 10/21/2003
"Adoptees seeking info/contactcan do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members oftheir original families), because all that matters is what matters toadoptees." I'm sick to death of that particularly childish brand ofself-absorbed, irrational bull****.Everyone in the triad gets to be human. Who knew?GR

Thats a bunch of bull. Labeling adoptees seeking contact as thinking they can
do

Whoops meant to quote, not to send:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 10/21/2003
No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss thefollowing on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contactcan do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members oftheir original families), because all that matters is what matters toadoptees." I'm sick to death of that particularly childish brand ofself-absorbed, irrational bull****.Everyone in the triad gets to be human. Who knew?GR

My point is, you are condeming adoptees, and only adoptees, for adult to adult
for seeking/info contact and comparing it to them thinking they have the right
to do anything to anyone and that is irrational bull****. Kathy J

Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 10/21/2003

That send button is getting me.
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 10/21/2003If she prefers not to go public with the relationship, they should bewilling to go along with that, and not insist on meeting half-sibs orother b-relatives.
Rupa

Just wondering, why the distinction of half sibs and no mention of full? Kathy
J

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031021203038.28772.00000395@mb-m25.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/21/2003I read a letter last nite written by a woman who's husband has justfound out about a daughter he knew nothing about..The daughter wants to meet the family.. Wants to meet her pre teenbrothers and sisters.. The family is in shock.. The woman wants tohave some time to decide what to do.. And to digest what ishappening..She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet.. I think there is a huge difference in this situation in that the children
are pre teen and not adults thus the parent(s) has the final say.And now society is deciding that its okay for her life to be totallychanged when a relinquished son or daughter comes calling.. Thats society, always changing.

What's a society? We live in a multiplicity of societies that constant
reconfigures.

Marley

I have been sitting here reading your posts and thinking in my mind,
What in the world is searching and reunion doing now.

First of all it was not the birthmother who wanted to give up her child
at all. She was forced to by parents or the DSS or whom ever. Maybe it
was because she wanted her child to have more than she could give to it.
Now to the child and this is really the part you all need to understand.


If you are an adoptee you have every right to search and find and make
contact with your birthparent. Why? When you were born you rights were
taken away from you. You had no right to say who you wanted to live
with, no right to your original birth certificate, no right to know
medical history, no right to be raised with your birth parents,just no
rights at all did you have. I am 49 years old and am abirth aunt and a
birth cousin. I am telling all adoptees you have rights just as much so
as I or any birth family or adoptive family. You have a right to your
original birth certificate, to know if you have other siblings, or
grandparents living, or medical histoy, You have rights that were
stripped from you as a tiny baby..We still are fighting for open records
in all states, There are a few states that are already open and It is
the most wonderful thing. I cannot begin to tell you just how many
families have bee reunited and are having wonderful reunions. Don't ever
stop searching for your roots. You will never regret it even if it is
not a good reunion. You may at least get medical or see who you look
like for some kind of closure.
Terry

On 22 Oct 2003 00:38:23 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Whoops meant to quote, not to send:

Umm... it's okay - I have no idea what you're talking about so it must
have worked out.
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 10/21/2003No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss thefollowing on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contactcan do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members oftheir original families), because all that matters is what matters toadoptees." I'm sick to death of that particularly childish brand ofself-absorbed, irrational bull****.Everyone in the triad gets to be human. Who knew?GRMy point is, you are condeming adoptees, and only adoptees,

I refer you to "we have lots of lies in adoption" and "everyone in the
triad gets to be human" - neither refers solely to adoptees, but
rather to the triad itself.
for adult to adultfor seeking/info contact and comparing it to them thinking they have the rightto do anything to anyone and that is irrational bull****. Kathy J

I'm not sure I parsed out the above correctly, but I'm fairly certain
that you missed my point completely. Better luck next time!

GR

Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com
What I look for is human respect..

snip
And because of this I fear that some people will not learn aboutrespecting the feelings of others..
ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says itsokay to bypass this other family..

You are expecting adoptees to abide by more "rules" than the general public.
Do you feel this way about genealogists too?

Womans rights..The right to control ones environment without state interference inthe form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..

Hell, as an adoptee, my life, my environment, was controled, interfered with,
invaded, you name it.

Kathy J

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote > See, I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. It's not my life's goal to meet my half-sibs or to be welcomed with open arms into the bosom of my bio family. However, while I do get medical info upon request, I cannot get info from my bmom on either my bdad, half-bro or half-sis - Not the end of the world, but it does suck at times.

I can imagine. I wonder why she's so cagey about all that. Especially
when you are so respectful of her space. Perhaps she got it all
stuffed into the "Deal with this some day" drawer in her mind.

Rupa

tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote in message news:<20031021204343.28772.00000399@mb-m25.aol.com>... That send button is getting me.Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 10/21/2003If she prefers not to go public with the relationship, they should bewilling to go along with that, and not insist on meeting half-sibs orother b-relatives.Rupa Just wondering, why the distinction of half sibs and no mention of full? Kathy

Sorry, jumping to conclusions. (Mental image of b-mom married to
someone other than the b-dad.) Of course there could be full sibs --
relinquished or kept.

Rupa

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:34:18 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On 21 Oct 2003 22:49:14 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:<snip>Jackie wrote:She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet..What if this not known about girl or teen or woman decides to justinvade that family.. Does no one care about their feelings?KL wrote:Sounds to me like you want to keep the lies flowing.Bull****. That's not Jackie's thing and you've been around here longenough to know it.The lies have to stop.No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss thefollowing on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contactcan do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members oftheir original families), because all that matters is what matters toadoptees." I'm sick to death of that particularly childish brand ofself-absorbed, irrational bull****.Everyone in the triad gets to be human. Who knew?GR

Equal.. If I have learned anything in this life a good relationship is
based on equality..
Its about the looking at the other person and seeing that person for
who they are and acting accordingly..

Legislation is crap.. Legislation is bankruptcy..



Jackie

On 22 Oct 2003 00:30:38 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/21/2003I read a letter last nite written by a woman who's husband has justfound out about a daughter he knew nothing about..The daughter wants to meet the family.. Wants to meet her pre teenbrothers and sisters.. The family is in shock.. The woman wants tohave some time to decide what to do.. And to digest what ishappening..She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet..I think there is a huge difference in this situation in that the children arepre teen and not adults thus the parent(s) has the final say.

Its still about a person actually trying to understand the issues of
the person (s) being contacted.. Looking at their world and acting
accordingly..
And now society is deciding that its okay for her life to be totallychanged when a relinquished son or daughter comes calling..Thats society, always changing.

Individuation is what I seek..
What... like wanting to be able to control their own lives?Well, adoptees would like the opportunity.

And in doing what they (adoptee) want.. they may end up destroying
anothers world..
People end up being used and abused and some people do not recover
from this.. Do we hate them? Or do we abide by their wishes even tho
we do not agree with them?
They are powerless if the adoptee decides to come/go and meet thesiblings.. They are bypassed if they say no..People are bypassed all the time because of their reactions or choices.

This is a core bypass..

This can do harm.. I guess the old twelve step saying applies
here..
"How important is it?"
They give the baby up because they must and they allow therelinquished son or daughter to walk all over their lives in reunionbecause they must....And they are doing the manipulation?Heck the adoptee was walked over their whole life in a sense.

Why?

A situation happens when that baby is born.. The babies life is
changed from that very moment..(talking about infant adoption in the
closed era) Good intentions are prime at this moment.. Or it was prime
in my thinking at the time.

Parents change diapers.. Parents hold the baby in the middle of the
nite when it is sick.. The act of parenting is not the blood..
Its the day to day love. To me that is what love is all about..
Love is not about unrequited love.. Love is not about wanting what can
not be.. We can not walk into someones life and say you must change!
You must accommodate me..

It can not work.. and all it does is make the person wanting the
change crazy and unhappy..
I say information should be exchanged.. That is incredibly important..Sure can't make em but the opportunity would be nice.

But if a person was sure that their feelings and or desires were
honored.. they might open up..
They might be confident enough to open up knowing that their life
would continue to be under their very own control..
I do not think the law should be involved in any of this..I agreeThat is the problem IMO.. Someone makes a rule and someone elsedecides that they can do whatever they choose because there is afriken rule..I Don't get the rule statement.

I was talking about the laws in adoption.. Someone makes a rule and
someone else breaks the rule.. It takes away from the human
responsibility clause..
Two people working out a life trauma.. IMO that is what it gets downto.JackieIf one does not want to work out the trauma, one has that choice.

You can drive a horse to water but you cannot make it drink..

IMO as always.


Jackie

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for thewinter.


I am going to enjoy this.


Jackie

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:37:41 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
What I look for is human respect.. Your mother asked that she be kept in her delusion.. You walked away from her and gave her some space.. You have said that your reunion with her was not that important in the scheme of things..(my interpretation of your words) You just got on with your life..I never had any direct contact with her so I didn't know what she wanted.After about 24 hours it was no big deal that she didn't want to seem to wantcontact--other than as an historian I wanted family history I was able toget some of that through reasearch.

Yes..
Obviousy respect or whatever you wantto call it, is part of that. The vast majority of adopted adults ae highlyrespectiful of their nparents wishes.

Yes..
Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.Well, in my case she had, when I found her, about 35 years or space. Heridentity was never sealed from me, and I got her address out of myngrandfather's will. She was listed in the phone book. It's hard to tell who's on first: thestate or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of thesocial engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests inkeepingthe status quo in place. And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about respecting the feelings of others..Huh? This has nothing to do with relationships.

When push comes to shove it is about relationships.
It's about state controlof identity and the play between it and social enginners. It's abouthierarachies of power.

Some fought this in the sixties.. They lost..
ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its okay to bypass this other family..The law says nothing about "invading families." You can contact anybody youwant to unless there's a court order to the opposite. If the law said youcouldn't contact anybody the No Call system wouldn't have been invented.

I was making a comment on how some people use the law for their own
agenda..
As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they arepawnsin a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,nothing is going to change. I am not thinking about personal 'angst'. I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights.. The right to control ones environment without state interference in the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..Unless you're Thomas Jeferson, rights don't exist. They are what the powerstructure lets you have.

This should not be..
The can give and take whatever they want at will.People are "given" rights as a favour in order to control them. Some peoplethink the Patriot Act is a good idea.

This should not be..

Jackie

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:30:04 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What I look for is human respect.. Your mother asked that she be kept in her delusion.. You walked away from her and gave her some space..But she contacted her siblings which is something you are adamantly againstand which you insist causes the bmother to*have* to have a relationship sohowin the world did Marley accomplish both things simultaneously?

She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact
message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)
You have said that your reunion with her was not that important in the scheme of things..(my interpretation of your words) You just got on with your life.. Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.Bull****. Some are perfectly content to contact the siblings and give thebmother all the space they need- something *you* say is mutually exculsive.

If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then
IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley
btw)

If the woman has not told the 'siblings' then she is going to have to
go into what she does not want to go into if they are contacted
without her consent.

Are you saying that the secret keeping is okay between the siblings?
It's hard to tell who's on first: thestate or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of thesocial engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests inkeepingthe status quo in place. And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about respecting the feelings of others.. ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its okay to bypass this other family..As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they arepawnsin a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,nothing is going to change. I am not thinking about personal 'angst'. I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights.. The right to control ones environmentThere is your control issue raising it's ugly head again. without state interference in the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..What law would that be?

Its the mentality of 'laws' that I object to..
ie...Open records (access to original birth certificate) means that
contact is going to happen..
That is such bull.. It is up to the individual to decide what to do
with the records.. This is what BN has been saying all along. IMO

Its not about individual stories its about this terrible law..

If people did not think like sheep.. If people actually looked at the
people around them then they could not be manipulated like they are.

Are you referring to open records which many claimallows just that? (More bull**** of course). I'll say it again Jackie,although you give lip service to open records I think you would be more thanhappy to see a law that prevents adoptees from contacting any family membersother than the bmother thereby giving her the "control" that you are sofixated on.

You are not even close..
That somebody "might" have a bad relationshipwith somebody else is totally irrelevant. Personal relationships are justthat-- personal-- and should not be under state purview. I agree with that. What is relevantis that a corrupt system of state-facilitated identity manipulation(whichnow goes way beyond adoption) has been in place for 60+ years. What isrelevant is that the state controls your personalinformation--informationwhich you aren't allowed to access but that it (and its commercial andpolitical minions) can.Relationships and whether or not people get along is secondary. I have always been in favor of open records..With a companion law that allows bmothers to control the adoptee's access toother family members would be the ideal eh?

The state should not control what goes on in a persons home or
family.. IMO

Jackie

On 22 Oct 2003 00:54:41 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comWhat I look for is human respect..snipAnd because of this I fear that some people will not learn aboutrespecting the feelings of others..ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says itsokay to bypass this other family..You are expecting adoptees to abide by more "rules" than the general public.Do you feel this way about genealogists too?

I said.. because of the rules a person may not learn about respecting
the feelings of others...
Womans rights..The right to control ones environment without state interference inthe form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..Hell, as an adoptee, my life, my environment, was controled, interfered with,invaded, you name it.


As was mine..
I could not go and find my son.. I could not walk into their house and
take him home..

Believe me I wanted to..

Jackie

On 21 Oct 2003 10:51:45 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message I am not addressing the issue of veto rights.. I am saying nothing what so ever about veto rights.. This is not a black or white issue..Jackie, I'd like to get at what you are saying.What I'm hearing you say is this:A birthmother should not get a legal veto right to prevent an adopteefrom contacting her or her children.

That would be putting the power in the wrong place..

That would be giving the power to the 'powers that be'.

Nothing can be resolved from that place.. Nothing.

However, out of respect for herand her possible situation, adoptees should make the first contactdiscreetly. After that, they should, again out of respect andconsideration, abide by her preferences in terms of going public withthe relationship.

IMO they are the ones in the prime relationship..

The siblings grew up with the mother.. She raised them.. Unless they
don't like her IMO they will abide by her wishes..

Its about give and take.. Its about negotiating a relationship..

If the woman begins to trust .. If a relationship happens then maybe
the woman will be willing to come out of the closet and/or deal with
whatever her issues are..
If she can not talk about the child that was given up.. She is... IMO
messed up by the act of giving up the child..
She needs to go through the process of learning how to deal with all
those shut down emotions..

But if she is bypassed.. If her feelings are not even looked at.. IMO
she is going to gut react in the wrong direction..

The birthmother, out of consideration for her b-kid, should be willingto share information. This would include medical histories, as well asthe identity of the father and any half-sibs.

Yes.. It is the absolute right of the person relinquished to have this
information..

But after that I believe some kind of trust should be established..
And this may take a while..

If she prefers not to go public with the relationship, they should bewilling to go along with that, and not insist on meeting half-sibs orother b-relatives.Is that accurate?

They look at the woman in her 'map of the world'.


Jackie

adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20031021133225.10790.00000603@mb-m15.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Just for the recordI saw what I had missed and I entered the anger stage of my grief.. Hmm, let's see. Denial. Anger. Bargaining. Depression. Acceptance. You're working backwards, my dear.I became aware of the manipulation in force back then.. and I ambecoming aware of the manipulation that is in force today.. Oh... enough about Di already. Dad


Dad,

The stages of grief can come in ANY order, and can be repetitive.

Soulwhisper

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:o3scpvcuifffbrqlnp3rceclp4n41fta15@4ax.com... On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:37:41 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.Well, in my case she had, when I found her, about 35 years or space. Heridentity was never sealed from me, and I got her address out of myngrandfather's will. She was listed in the phone book. > It's hard to tell who's on first: the >state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of
the >social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests inkeeping >the status quo in place. And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about respecting the feelings of others..Huh? This has nothing to do with relationships. When push comes to shove it is about relationships.

No, it's about state-sponsored identity theft. It's about state controlof identity and the play between it and social enginners. It's abouthierarachies of power. Some fought this in the sixties.. They lost..

Well, that doesn't have anything much to do with it. The root cause of much
of this mess is patriarchial systems which devalue everyone and rots away at
every institution in this country (and obviously elsewhere). ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its okay to bypass this other family..The law says nothing about "invading families." You can contact anybody
youwant to unless there's a court order to the opposite. If the law said
youcouldn't contact anybody the No Call system wouldn't have been invented. I was making a comment on how some people use the law for their own agenda..

Doesn't everybody? The law is in place to facilitate agenda-making. >As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they arepawns >in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas, >nothing is going to change. I am not thinking about personal 'angst'. I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights.. The right to control ones environment without state interference in the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..Unless you're Thomas Jeferson, rights don't exist. They are what the
powerstructure lets you have. This should not be..

There's not much you can do about it. It's the human condition. Anybody's
rights can be taken away at any time, including the rights of the rich and
powerful when their time comes. The can give and take whatever they want at will.People are "given" rights as a favour in order to control them. Some
peoplethink the Patriot Act is a good idea. This should not be..

A agree, but most people are stupid. Jackie

Marley

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:7qscpv4e5ccibu8294e5348bfja97m5nfj@4ax.com... On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:30:04 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: What I look for is human respect.. Your mother asked that she be kept in her delusion.. You walked away from her and gave her some space..But she contacted her siblings which is something you are adamantly
againstand which you insist causes the bmother to*have* to have a relationship
sohowin the world did Marley accomplish both things simultaneously? She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)

Because I didn't know they existed except as entities listed in bgrandma's
obit as "as grandhildren." One I learned their names and where they lived I
contacted them. You have said that your reunion with her was not that important in the scheme of things..(my interpretation of your words) You just got on with your life.. Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.Bull****. Some are perfectly content to contact the siblings and give
thebmother all the space they need- something *you* say is mutually
exculsive. If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley btw)

Nobody has the right to order someone not to contact another adult (unless
you live in Tennessee, that is.) One can express wishes but so what? If
wishes were dogs we'd all be in the pound. If the woman has not told the 'siblings' then she is going to have to go into what she does not want to go into if they are contacted without her consent. Are you saying that the secret keeping is okay between the siblings?

Everybody keep secrets from everybody else If nmon hasn't told her secret,
that's her problem. Christ on a crutch I have a friend who learned upon
the death of his father, that his dad had been married previously and had 2
much older kids. Did somebody think that wouldn't be spilled sooner or
later? If somebody lies either by fact or omission, they should expect to
be caught. Lying isn't nice. > It's hard to tell who's on first: the >state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of
the >social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests inkeeping >the status quo in place. And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about respecting the feelings of others.. ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its okay to bypass this other family.. >As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they arepawns >in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas, >nothing is going to change. I am not thinking about personal 'angst'. I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights.. The right to control ones environmentThere is your control issue raising it's ugly head again. without state interference in the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..What law would that be? Its the mentality of 'laws' that I object to.. ie...Open records (access to original birth certificate) means that contact is going to happen.. That is such bull.. It is up to the individual to decide what to do with the records.. This is what BN has been saying all along. IMO

Well, yeah, it's a personal thing, so I don't see where the gripe is Maybe
I'm dense. Its not about individual stories its about this terrible law.. If people did not think like sheep.. If people actually looked at the people around them then they could not be manipulated like they are.

That's true, but it's human nature to be stupid and easily led. Look at
what sits in the White House and No. 10.

Marley

In article <pmrcpv874qv1m7mdhjsa7s0634s44j7orm@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for thewinter.I am going to enjoy this.

Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Says volumes about you.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <e5619372.0310211832.110ffcb9@posting.google.com>, Rupa Bose says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote > See, I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. It's not my life's goal to meet my half-sibs or to be welcomed with open arms into the bosom of my bio family. However, while I do get medical info upon request, I cannot get info from my bmom on either my bdad, half-bro or half-sis - Not the end of the world, but it does suck at times.I can imagine. I wonder why she's so cagey about all that. Especiallywhen you are so respectful of her space. Perhaps she got it allstuffed into the "Deal with this some day" drawer in her mind.

Hmm, perhaps. In one of her earliest letters she did say that she "might be in
a position someday" to provide me with more information about my bio relatives.
Well, it's been 2 1/2 years since then and I haven't heard boo about them. Of
course, I did find out that I have a half-bro, half-sis, a niece and a nephew on
my own. It probably wouldn't be too hard for me to find out their names,
addresses, etc. if I really put some effort into it. Right now I just don't
feel the need, especially since I don't plan on contacting them behind my bmom's
back.

Maybe she'll come around some day, but I'm not counting on that.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

in article 36ucpvofl6ru2f6q7nfulbbbmil6dkjt0i@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 22/10/03 1:48 pm:
On 21 Oct 2003 10:51:45 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
I am not addressing the issue of veto rights.. I am saying nothing what so ever about veto rights..
This is not a black or white issue..

Jackie, I'd like to get at what you are saying.
What I'm hearing you say is this:
A birthmother should not get a legal veto right to prevent an adoptee from contacting her or her children.
That would be putting the power in the wrong place..

Certainly would.
That would be giving the power to the 'powers that be'.

So you believe that the birthmother is a 'power that be'? It is a
birthmother's right to veto that you asked about, not the governments right
to do so.

Nothing can be resolved from that place.. Nothing.


The birth mother having an unequal position, where she and no one else gets
to say who is allowed to have a family relationship, is certainly 'a place'
from which nothing can be resolved. If that's what you mean then, I'd have
to agree with you.

However, out of respect for her and her possible situation, adoptees should make the first contact discreetly. After that, they should, again out of respect and consideration, abide by her preferences in terms of going public with the relationship.

IMO they are the ones in the prime relationship..
The siblings grew up with the mother.. She raised them.. Unless they don't like her IMO they will abide by her wishes..


I rather think that if they have been brought to be mature self reliant
adults capable of making their own decisions, then they will make their own
decisions, regardless of whether or not they 'like her'.

Its about give and take.. Its about negotiating a relationship..


And trying to stop your long-lost-to-adoption offspring from forming a
relationship with your kept offspring, on anything other than your terms, is
'give and take' is it? That's what's called 'negotiating a relationship' is
it?

If the woman begins to trust .. If a relationship happens then maybe the woman will be willing to come out of the closet and/or deal with whatever her issues are.. If she can not talk about the child that was given up.. She is... IMO messed up by the act of giving up the child.. She needs to go through the process of learning how to deal with all those shut down emotions.. But if she is bypassed.. If her feelings are not even looked at.. IMO she is going to gut react in the wrong direction.. The birthmother, out of consideration for her b-kid, should be willing to share information. This would include medical histories, as well as the identity of the father and any half-sibs.

Yes.. It is the absolute right of the person relinquished to have this information..


Why, apart from your obvious lack of knowledge and understanding of human
genetics, do you think that the birth mother is going to be in possession of
all the information that needs to be shared between adult (half) siblings,
rather than the siblings themselves?

But after that I believe some kind of trust should be established.. And this may take a while..


And for the adoptee to have a relationship with the rest of his/her natural
family somehow mitigates against the establishment of that trust does it?

If she prefers not to go public with the relationship, they should be willing to go along with that, and not insist on meeting half-sibs or other b-relatives.
Is that accurate?
They look at the woman in her 'map of the world'.

And when will you be publishing your 'map of the world' so that all and
sundry can navigate there way around your wishes and emotions in the just
the way that suites you, regardless of anyone else's view of the 'world'


Robin

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> writes:
In article <pmrcpv874qv1m7mdhjsa7s0634s44j7orm@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for thewinter.I am going to enjoy this.Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Says volumes about you.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

I believe Jackie's enjoyment extends to the return of the ng's ever
popular, often globetrotting, GR.

pb...


http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
http://www.bordc.org/ -- http://www.publicintegrity.org/

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: pb... woodlark-99@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/03 8:17 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <ma4dpvscnpd4hnf1lhdl2gbhqvro1i2gi6@4ax.com>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> writes:In article <pmrcpv874qv1m7mdhjsa7s0634s44j7orm@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:>Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for the>winter.I am going to enjoy this.Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Says volumes about you.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557I believe Jackie's enjoyment extends to the return of the ng's everpopular, often globetrotting, GR.pb...

I believe she's hoping GR will publically *****-slap everyone who disagrees
with her.

On 22 Oct 2003 14:40:06 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) writes:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: pb... woodlark-99@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/03 8:17 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <ma4dpvscnpd4hnf1lhdl2gbhqvro1i2gi6@4ax.com>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> writes:In article <pmrcpv874qv1m7mdhjsa7s0634s44j7orm@4ax.com>, Jackie says...>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:>>>Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for the>>winter.>>>I am going to enjoy this.Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Says volumes about you.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557I believe Jackie's enjoyment extends to the return of the ng's everpopular, often globetrotting, GR.pb...I believe she's hoping GR will publically *****-slap everyone who disagreeswith her.

There you go again being the sweetest ever! If GR has returned with the
thought of occasional enjoyment, herself...she's gonna be disappointed if
that's what Jackie has in mind. Can you even begin to imagine how totally
exhausted *you* would be if you had the ***** slap ALL the folks who
qualify under your above stated qualification? ;-) Don't forget to take
your Geritol, Kiddo! ;-)

pb...

"It is one of the severest tests of friendship to tell your friend
his faults. So to love a man that you cannot bear to see a stain
upon him, and to speak painful truth through loving words, that
is friendship."
--Henry Ward Beecher

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: pb... woodlark-99@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/03 8:56 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <196dpvc4s673ld1q6bo9c6j6thnpnuqhf5@4ax.com>
There you go again being the sweetest ever! If GR has returned with thethought of occasional enjoyment, herself...she's gonna be disappointed ifthat's what Jackie has in mind. Can you even begin to imagine how totallyexhausted *you* would be if you had the ***** slap ALL the folks whoqualify under your above stated qualification? ;-) Don't forget to takeyour Geritol, Kiddo! ;-)pb...

LOL! By the truckload!!

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:7qscpv4e5ccibu8294e5348bfja97m5nfj@4ax.com... On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:30:04 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: What I look for is human respect.. Your mother asked that she be kept in her delusion.. You walked away from her and gave her some space..But she contacted her siblings which is something you are adamantly
againstand which you insist causes the bmother to*have* to have a relationship
sohowin the world did Marley accomplish both things simultaneously? She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)

And that has nothing to dowith the fact that she had a relationship with her
siblings while simultaneously *not* having a relationshipwith her bmother -
something you said was not possible.
You have said that your reunion with her was not that important in the scheme of things..(my interpretation of your words) You just got on with your life.. Some do not wish to give others the same kind of 'space'.Bull****. Some are perfectly content to contact the siblings and give
thebmother all the space they need- something *you* say is mutually
exculsive. If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley btw)

What happens when the adoptee wants to contact the siblings, why are those
wishes not respected? So your "agenda" is to make sure that the bmother's
wishes are respected first whereas my "agenda" is to make sure that the
adoptee's wishes are respected here.
If the woman has not told the 'siblings' then she is going to have to go into what she does not want to go into if they are contacted without her consent.

Yes that is part of the consequences of relinquishing a child to adoption.
Are you saying that the secret keeping is okay between the siblings?

I think that there should be no secret keeping whatsoever - you on the other
hand believe secrets have their place. Put it out on the table. If the
bmother can't handle her b & a offspring having contact then she will have
to either learn how to deal with it on her own or seek help in doing so.
> It's hard to tell who's on first: the >state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy of
the >social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests inkeeping >the status quo in place. And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about respecting the feelings of others.. ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its okay to bypass this other family.. >As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they arepawns >in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas, >nothing is going to change. I am not thinking about personal 'angst'. I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights.. The right to control ones environmentThere is your control issue raising it's ugly head again. without state interference in the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..What law would that be? Its the mentality of 'laws' that I object to.. ie...Open records (access to original birth certificate) means that contact is going to happen.. That is such bull..

I don't think that is the "mentality"of the law. Different people interepet
the law differently. That isn't how you interpet it, that isn't how I
interpet it and I dare say there are many others who don't interpet it that
way as well.

It is up to the individual to decide what to do with the records.. This is what BN has been saying all along. IMO Its not about individual stories its about this terrible law..

*What* "terrible" law?
If people did not think like sheep.. If people actually looked at the people around them then they could not be manipulated like they are. Are you referring to open records which many claimallows just that? (More bull**** of course). I'll say it again Jackie,although you give lip service to open records I think you would be more
thanhappy to see a law that prevents adoptees from contacting any family
membersother than the bmother thereby giving her the "control" that you are sofixated on. You are not even close..

So which law are you referring to? The one Robin was referring to?


Kathy 1

LilMtnCbn <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031022104006.08672.00000854@mb-m11.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: pb... woodlark-99@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/03 8:17 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <ma4dpvscnpd4hnf1lhdl2gbhqvro1i2gi6@4ax.com>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
writes:In article <pmrcpv874qv1m7mdhjsa7s0634s44j7orm@4ax.com>, Jackie says...>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:>>>Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for the>>winter.>>>I am going to enjoy this.Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Says volumes about you.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557I believe Jackie's enjoyment extends to the return of the ng's everpopular, often globetrotting, GR.pb... I believe she's hoping GR will publically *****-slap everyone who
disagrees with her.

I concur.

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:36ucpvofl6ru2f6q7nfulbbbmil6dkjt0i@4ax.com... On 21 Oct 2003 10:51:45 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message


However, out of respect for herand her possible situation, adoptees should make the first contactdiscreetly. After that, they should, again out of respect andconsideration, abide by her preferences in terms of going public withthe relationship. IMO they are the ones in the prime relationship.. The siblings grew up with the mother.. She raised them.. Unless they don't like her IMO they will abide by her wishes..

What hogwash. You can like your mother and still not abide by her wishes.
That seems awfully close to the "adoptees won't search if you have raised
them 'right' " line of thinking.

Its about give and take.. Its about negotiating a relationship.. If the woman begins to trust .. If a relationship happens then maybe the woman will be willing to come out of the closet and/or deal with whatever her issues are.. If she can not talk about the child that was given up.. She is... IMO messed up by the act of giving up the child.. She needs to go through the process of learning how to deal with all those shut down emotions.. But if she is bypassed.. If her feelings are not even looked at.. IMO


I doubt most adoptees would *immediately* disregard the bmother's feelings
and bypass her. Most adoptees I dare say are more than willingto giver her
some time before coming to the conclusion to bypass her.

Kathy 1

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003
And in doing what they (adoptee) want.. they may end up destroyinganothers world..People end up being used and abused and some people do not recoverfrom this.. Do we hate them? Or do we abide by their wishes even thowe do not agree with them?

IMO, Their destruction is from within. No, we don't hate them nor do we not
allow their fears to dictate our lives. Yes, we treat them respectfully in
that if they do not want contact, we don't, and we only quietly, secretely,
whatever contact siblings if need be. That's my personal opinion of respect.
It is not any less or any more than I would ask of others to treat me,
including my children.
Heck the adoptee was walked over their whole life in a sense.Why?

Its roots are are intentionally removed and replaces with a black hole. If you
don't understand that, you probably will never understand the depth of the need
that some adoptees have for a search.
We can not walk into someones life and say you must change!You must accommodate me..

Agree, we can't change people.
But if a person was sure that their feelings and or desires werehonored.. they might open up..They might be confident enough to open up knowing that their lifewould continue to be under their very own control..

Generally, it takes more than that, it deeper and must come from within. I
went through that for quite awhile before I came to that conclusion, thinking
if I was a better adoptee it would all work out, if I put up with more no show
visits, hang up calls, drive by's (no, not that kind)... if I could just
tolerate being treated like a bastard for a little longer, they would come
around. Let me tell you, its a good dream but it usually doesn't happen,
Jackie.
You can drive a horse to water but you cannot make it drink..

Thats for sure.
IMO as always.

Same here.

Kathy

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003
She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contactmessage.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)

So is ten years ok to wait?

Continued,
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003
If the woman has not told the 'siblings' then she is going to have togo into what she does not want to go into if they are contactedwithout her consent.

Sometimes you need that contact, medically, in my situation I knew that I was
nearing the end of what I could handle and she said things that made me very
concerned for her so I contacted my siblings.
Are you saying that the secret keeping is okay between the siblings?

If the birthmother is unstable and she could not handle the openness than yes.


Kathy J

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003
The siblings grew up with the mother.. She raised them.. Unless theydon't like her IMO they will abide by her wishes..

You think any adult who does not always follow their parents wishes do so
because they don't like them? I disagree.
If the woman begins to trust .. If a relationship happens then maybethe woman will be willing to come out of the closet and/or deal withwhatever her issues are..If she can not talk about the child that was given up.. She is... IMOmessed up by the act of giving up the child..She needs to go through the process of learning how to deal with allthose shut down emotions..

It's a nice dream. Kathy J

In article <20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com>, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n
Kat) writes:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contactmessage.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)So is ten years ok to wait?

As I understand it the answer is no. One should NEVER do what the birthmom
doesn't want done.

KL

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <pmrcpv874qv1m7mdhjsa7s0634s44j7orm@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for thewinter.I am going to enjoy this.Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Says volumes about you.

Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters on
alt.adoption already knows volumes about us.

Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind of
friend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.

GR

GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters on alt.adoption already knows volumes about us. Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind of friend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.

Robyn's no stranger to alt.a, either. She's pretty well-developed, to
the best of my knowledge. Nice sense of humor, too.

Rupa

On 22 Oct 2003 23:37:13 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003And in doing what they (adoptee) want.. they may end up destroyinganothers world..People end up being used and abused and some people do not recoverfrom this.. Do we hate them? Or do we abide by their wishes even thowe do not agree with them?

Kathy I am learning from this discussion..Yesterday Di posted an
article about the psychology of the adopted child or something like
that..

The separation on a primitive level is something that is never
resolved.. My mind has never gone in that direction..
IMO, Their destruction is from within. No, we don't hate them nor do we notallow their fears to dictate our lives. Yes, we treat them respectfully inthat if they do not want contact, we don't, and we only quietly, secretely,whatever contact siblings if need be. That's my personal opinion of respect.It is not any less or any more than I would ask of others to treat me,including my children.

And now I take it to was the mother aware that what she was doing was
not going to be solved with her just walking away..

Di is totally against adoption. I may head in that direction.

Heck the adoptee was walked over their whole life in a sense.Why?Its roots are are intentionally removed and replaces with a black hole. If youdon't understand that, you probably will never understand the depth of the needthat some adoptees have for a search.

Kathy I am beginning to understand now..

My thinking is changing..

It must have been horrible for you when what happened to you happened.
We can not walk into someones life and say you must change!You must accommodate me..Agree, we can't change people.But if a person was sure that their feelings and or desires werehonored.. they might open up..They might be confident enough to open up knowing that their lifewould continue to be under their very own control..Generally, it takes more than that, it deeper and must come from within. Iwent through that for quite awhile before I came to that conclusion, thinkingif I was a better adoptee it would all work out, if I put up with more no showvisits, hang up calls, drive by's (no, not that kind)... if I could justtolerate being treated like a bastard for a little longer, they would comearound. Let me tell you, its a good dream but it usually doesn't happen,Jackie.

My goodness Kathy.. What is wrong with that woman..
You can drive a horse to water but you cannot make it drink..Thats for sure.IMO as always.Same here.

Thank you Kathy.. I learn..


Jackie

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:26:38 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
When push comes to shove it is about relationships.No, it's about state-sponsored identity theft.

Its sick.
It's about state controlof identity and the play between it and social enginners. It's abouthierarachies of power. Some fought this in the sixties.. They lost..Well, that doesn't have anything much to do with it. The root cause of muchof this mess is patriarchial systems which devalue everyone and rots away atevery institution in this country (and obviously elsewhere).

Yes.


Jackie

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:34:48 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley btw)Nobody has the right to order someone not to contact another adult (unlessyou live in Tennessee, that is.) One can express wishes but so what? Ifwishes were dogs we'd all be in the pound.

What I am trying to get at is the questions of..

Are we re-acting to laws?

Are we re-acting to rules put down by the patriarchy.

How do we change this and think for ourselves?
If the woman has not told the 'siblings' then she is going to have to go into what she does not want to go into if they are contacted without her consent. Are you saying that the secret keeping is okay between the siblings?Everybody keep secrets from everybody else If nmon hasn't told her secret,that's her problem. Christ on a crutch I have a friend who learned uponthe death of his father, that his dad had been married previously and had 2much older kids. Did somebody think that wouldn't be spilled sooner orlater? If somebody lies either by fact or omission, they should expect tobe caught. Lying isn't nice.

I learn..

I was told to lie when I relinquished.. I was not told about the
ramifications of these lies..
Did I make a proper decision to relinquish my son?
I think not..

> > It's hard to tell who's on first: the> >state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy ofthe> >social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests inkeeping> >the status quo in place.>> And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about> respecting the feelings of others..>> ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its> okay to bypass this other family..>> >As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they arepawns> >in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,> >nothing is going to change.>> I am not thinking about personal 'angst'.>> I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights..> The right to control ones environmentThere is your control issue raising it's ugly head again. without state interference in> the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..What law would that be? Its the mentality of 'laws' that I object to.. ie...Open records (access to original birth certificate) means that contact is going to happen.. That is such bull.. It is up to the individual to decide what to do with the records.. This is what BN has been saying all along. IMOWell, yeah, it's a personal thing, so I don't see where the gripe is MaybeI'm dense.

It*is* a personal thing...

The relationship should be between the parties that are meeting up..
The state is involved in the reunion by taking the power from the
parties involved.. My question (or query) was about whether people
were re-acting to the rules.. contact veto etc..
Its not about individual stories its about this terrible law.. If people did not think like sheep.. If people actually looked at the people around them then they could not be manipulated like they are.That's true, but it's human nature to be stupid and easily led. Look atwhat sits in the White House and No. 10.

I was easily led in 1965...

Jackie

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:59:59 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley btw)What happens when the adoptee wants to contact the siblings, why are thosewishes not respected?

Because the state promised the woman privacy..
Because the state did not tell her about the studies that had already
been conducted on the need of the adoptee to find blood relatives.

Because the woman was messed with when she relinquished..
So your "agenda" is to make sure that the bmother'swishes are respected first whereas my "agenda" is to make sure that theadoptee's wishes are respected here.

My agenda is to sort this..
If the woman has not told the 'siblings' then she is going to have to go into what she does not want to go into if they are contacted without her consent.Yes that is part of the consequences of relinquishing a child to adoption.

Then do not tell me I made a decision and I should take responsibility
for my decision..
The studies were out there.. I should have been told..

I was told that secrecy was okay.. and maybe on a very deep level I
still think this..
Are you saying that the secret keeping is okay between the siblings?I think that there should be no secret keeping whatsoever - you on the otherhand believe secrets have their place.

I relinquished my son because of secret keeping..

It is part of my being.. It is who I am..

Put it out on the table. If thebmother can't handle her b & a offspring having contact then she will haveto either learn how to deal with it on her own or seek help in doing so.

Then never tell her she should take responsibility for her decision to
relinquish her child.
Information was withheld..
> > It's hard to tell who's on first: the> >state or the social controllers. The state carries out the policy ofthe> >social engineer/adoption industry, yet develops its own interests inkeeping> >the status quo in place.>> And because of this I fear that some people will not learn about> respecting the feelings of others..>> ie.. the law says its okay to invade this family.. or the law says its> okay to bypass this other family..>> >As long as people play into the "personal" and don't see that they arepawns> >in a larger game of control and greed and multiple political agendas,> >nothing is going to change.>> I am not thinking about personal 'angst'.>> I am thinking about human rights.. Womans rights..> The right to control ones environmentThere is your control issue raising it's ugly head again. without state interference in> the form of a law that says its okay to change/invade a persons life..What law would that be? Its the mentality of 'laws' that I object to.. ie...Open records (access to original birth certificate) means that contact is going to happen.. That is such bull..I don't think that is the "mentality"of the law. Different people interepetthe law differently. That isn't how you interpet it, that isn't how Iinterpet it and I dare say there are many others who don't interpet it thatway as well.

But I am the one who relinquished into secrecy..
I am the one who has to live with the understanding that basically I
can not get my son back..
It is up to the individual to decide what to do with the records.. This is what BN has been saying all along. IMO Its not about individual stories its about this terrible law..*What* "terrible" law?

The secrecy law. The law that said I must not go and find my son when
I was worried about him.. The law that said I can not know whether he
is alive or dead..
If people did not think like sheep.. If people actually looked at the people around them then they could not be manipulated like they are. Are you referring to open records which many claimallows just that? (More bull**** of course). I'll say it again Jackie,although you give lip service to open records I think you would be morethanhappy to see a law that prevents adoptees from contacting any familymembersother than the bmother thereby giving her the "control" that you are sofixated on. You are not even close..So which law are you referring to? The one Robin was referring to?

Robin is off on his own agenda.. I have not sorted his agenda..
I don't think I want to at this point.

Jackie

On 22 Oct 2003 23:52:55 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contactmessage.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)So is ten years ok to wait?

Its all wrong..

Jackie

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:12 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>
wrote:
A birthmother should not get a legal veto right to prevent an adoptee from contacting her or her children. That would be putting the power in the wrong place..Certainly would. That would be giving the power to the 'powers that be'.So you believe that the birthmother is a 'power that be'?

No.. The power is with the ones in control of the veto.. The law
maker.
It is abirthmother's right to veto that you asked about, not the governments rightto do so. Nothing can be resolved from that place.. Nothing.The birth mother having an unequal position, where she and no one else getsto say who is allowed to have a family relationship, is certainly 'a place'from which nothing can be resolved. If that's what you mean then, I'd haveto agree with you. However, out of respect for her and her possible situation, adoptees should make the first contact discreetly. After that, they should, again out of respect and consideration, abide by her preferences in terms of going public with the relationship. IMO they are the ones in the prime relationship.. The siblings grew up with the mother.. She raised them.. Unless they don't like her IMO they will abide by her wishes..I rather think that if they have been brought to be mature self reliantadults capable of making their own decisions, then they will make their owndecisions, regardless of whether or not they 'like her'.

That is the ideal.. That is not the real world.
Its about give and take.. Its about negotiating a relationship..And trying to stop your long-lost-to-adoption offspring from forming arelationship with your kept offspring, on anything other than your terms, is'give and take' is it? That's what's called 'negotiating a relationship' isit?

She is told that secret keeping is important.. She is told that she
can walk away and just forget about it..
She is not given proper information at a crucial time in her life..

She is lied to..

She can not talk about her thoughts or conclusion around this because
she is into not talking about it..

But hey.. to hell with her when the relinquished son or daughter comes
knocking and she is not prepared..

Run her over.. who cares...

If the woman begins to trust .. If a relationship happens then maybe the woman will be willing to come out of the closet and/or deal with whatever her issues are.. If she can not talk about the child that was given up.. She is... IMO messed up by the act of giving up the child.. She needs to go through the process of learning how to deal with all those shut down emotions.. But if she is bypassed.. If her feelings are not even looked at.. IMO she is going to gut react in the wrong direction.. The birthmother, out of consideration for her b-kid, should be willing to share information. This would include medical histories, as well as the identity of the father and any half-sibs. Yes.. It is the absolute right of the person relinquished to have this information..Why, apart from your obvious lack of knowledge and understanding of humangenetics, do you think that the birth mother is going to be in possession ofall the information that needs to be shared between adult (half) siblings,rather than the siblings themselves?

So the genetic health of the adoptee is far more important than the
woman sorting her life...
Sorting the lies she was told.. Sorting the information she was NOT
given..
But after that I believe some kind of trust should be established.. And this may take a while..And for the adoptee to have a relationship with the rest of his/her naturalfamily somehow mitigates against the establishment of that trust does it?

Of course.. She has kept the secret and now it is out..

She did what the experts told her to do and now the rug is pulled..
If she prefers not to go public with the relationship, they should be willing to go along with that, and not insist on meeting half-sibs or other b-relatives. Is that accurate? They look at the woman in her 'map of the world'.And when will you be publishing your 'map of the world' so that all andsundry can navigate there way around your wishes and emotions in the justthe way that suites you, regardless of anyone else's view of the 'world'

I am beginning to become anti adoption..

Jackie

In article <e5619372.0310222258.41780ab@posting.google.com>, Rupa Bose says...GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters on alt.adoption already knows volumes about us. Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind of friend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.Robyn's no stranger to alt.a, either. She's pretty well-developed,

I could make a comment about my bust line right now, but I'll refrain ;)

tothe best of my knowledge. Nice sense of humor, too.

Aw shucks, thanks :)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/23/03 6:01 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jnjfpv8421m43quk2srjpfeu3ofagt5j23@4ax.com>

(snip)
I am beginning to become anti adoption..Jackie

NO?? Say it ain't so............



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/23/03 7:01 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jnjfpv8421m43quk2srjpfeu3ofagt5j23@4ax.com>
She is told that secret keeping is important.. She is told that shecan walk away and just forget about it..She is not given proper information at a crucial time in her life..She is lied to..
She can not talk about her thoughts or conclusion around this becauseshe is into not talking about it..

None of which applies to my birthmother's experience with relinquishment (in
the 60's).

So it happened to some, and not to others. How is a searching adoptee supposed
to know and act accordingly? Big red flags in the file, tattoos on the
forehead?

In article <j0cepvol7kovevvoi2dghvmoc7qvdnsmvi@4ax.com>, GR says...On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <pmrcpv874qv1m7mdhjsa7s0634s44j7orm@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:24:00 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:>Or don't, dollface, my gutters could use a new yard***** for the>winter.I am going to enjoy this.Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. Says volumes about you.Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters onalt.adoption already knows volumes about us.

Well, I've actually been here for a little over two years. I know you haven't
been around for a while, but I do remember you ;)
Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind offriend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.

Thanks, I think ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031022193713.18903.00001517@mb-m15.aol.com>, Tm n Kat says...
snippageGenerally, it takes more than that, it deeper and must come from within. Iwent through that for quite awhile before I came to that conclusion, thinkingif I was a better adoptee it would all work out, if I put up with more no showvisits, hang up calls, drive by's (no, not that kind)... if I could justtolerate being treated like a bastard for a little longer, they would comearound.

Yikes! I can't tell you now bizarre it was reading this, because this is
EXACTLY what I've been thinking for the past two years (with the exception of
the no show visits, hang up calls, etc.). If I just show her I can keep away,
keep writing "nice-nice" letters, don't ask questions, "know my place", then
maybe she'll come around. Wow ;(

Let me tell you, its a good dream but it usually doesn't happen,Jackie.

And I'm starting to agree with you ;/

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031023100236.06102.00000009@mb-m11.aol.com>, LilMtnCbn says...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/23/03 7:01 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jnjfpv8421m43quk2srjpfeu3ofagt5j23@4ax.com>She is told that secret keeping is important.. She is told that shecan walk away and just forget about it..She is not given proper information at a crucial time in her life..She is lied to..She can not talk about her thoughts or conclusion around this becauseshe is into not talking about it..None of which applies to my birthmother's experience with relinquishment (inthe 60's).So it happened to some, and not to others. How is a searching adoptee supposedto know and act accordingly? Big red flags in the file, tattoos on theforehead?

<chuckle> Well, it certainly would help ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iagbpv8uoa729lqd455b39id209sus61ni@4ax.com... On 21 Oct 2003 22:49:14 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: <snip> Jackie wrote:She does not want to tell her children.. Not yet..What if this not known about girl or teen or woman decides to justinvade that family.. Does no one care about their feelings? KL wrote:Sounds to me like you want to keep the lies flowing. Bull****. That's not Jackie's thing and you've been around here long enough to know it.The lies have to stop. No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss the following on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contact can do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members of their original families), because all that matters is what matters to adoptees." I'm sick to death of that particularly childish brand of self-absorbed, irrational bull****. Everyone in the triad gets to be human. Who knew?

HEY GR - Glad you're back. I can hardly believe that you and Fiend have both
returned in the same week! My (coffee) cup runneth over at the prospect of
such a surfeit of erudition, excitement and danger that awaits us!

We need a bit of jizz around here. The trolls have been boring and the
strays are simply tacky, so maybe between the two of you, you can crack a
few whips and liven things up a bit. <s>

Helen
<Wincing in anticipation of the lash!>
GR

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contactmessage.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong) So is ten years ok to wait?

Actualy, it' smore like 17.

Maarley

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:29:26 +0100, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:

<snip>
No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss the following on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contact can do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members of their original families), because all that matters is what matters to adoptees." I'm sick to death of that particularly childish brand of self-absorbed, irrational bull****. Everyone in the triad gets to be human. Who knew?HEY GR - Glad you're back.

Hi Helen!
I can hardly believe that you and Fiend have bothreturned in the same week!

Fieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend! I haven't seen Fiend at all, but I think I
read from someone that Lainie *also* came back this week. Must be
planetary or something.
My (coffee) cup runneth over at the prospect ofsuch a surfeit of erudition, excitement and danger that awaits us!

As long as it's not Nescafe. Eww.
We need a bit of jizz around here. The trolls have been boring and thestrays are simply tacky, so maybe between the two of you, you can crack afew whips and liven things up a bit. <s>

We live for danger.
Helen<Wincing in anticipation of the lash!>

Masochist.

GR

In article <20031023100051.26694.00000003@mb-m17.aol.com>,I am beginning to become anti adoption..Jackie


I will alert the international media. I'm sure the world will want to
know this shocking news.


Linda

And, a P.S. Jackie, the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had no
say in his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,
in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.

On 22 Oct 2003 23:58:31 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)
wrote:
GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters on alt.adoption already knows volumes about us. Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind of friend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.Robyn's no stranger to alt.a, either.

I've never seen her nor heard of her.
She's pretty well-developed, tothe best of my knowledge.

I've never seen her nor heard of her.
Nice sense of humor, too.

I'll willing to see how/if that develops.

GR

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:05:28 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:

<snip>

I wrote:Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters onalt.adoption already knows volumes about us.Well, I've actually been here for a little over two years. I know you haven'tbeen around for a while, but I do remember you ;)

As far as I can recall, I've never seen you nor heard anything about
you. Of course, I have mind like a steel trap <eyeroll> so it's
possible I just don't remember.
Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind offriend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.Thanks, I think ;)

You are wise to match ambivalence with the same, and you correctly
surmised that it was at least a semi-compliment.

So, we'll see how it develops.

GR

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)Date: 10/23/03 10:26 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <bn930m$q2s@marlowe.umd.edu>In article <20031023100051.26694.00000003@mb-m17.aol.com>,I am beginning to become anti adoption..JackieI will alert the international media. I'm sure the world will want toknow this shocking news.

Be sure and inform the 'recepshunust' and The UN too.
LindaAnd, a P.S. Jackie, the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had nosay in his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.

She ain't ever gonna' get that one until she drops her ' it was *all done to
the relinquishing mother* mantra.'



Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/23/03 5:49 AM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <p0jfpv80v629c2u9bl61fpip8il6hmdnhl@4ax.com>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:59:59 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote: If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley btw)What happens when the adoptee wants to contact the siblings, why are thosewishes not respected?Because the state promised the woman privacy..

Liar.

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <bn930m$q2s@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney)
wrote:
the adoptee is the only person in the triad who had no sayin his or her adoption (with a few, limited exceptions.) Therefore,in reunion, the adoptee's desires trump the birthmother's.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with an idea that would give us adoptees such a
huge advantage, but I have to object to the notion that some of us have more
rights than others. To me, this is a matter of equitable treatment. In no other
relationship, not even in marriage, does one adult have the right to forbid
contact between two other adults in order to continue a deception of long
standing. I see no moral basis for a birthmother's assuming that privilege to
the adoptee's detriment.

Because I've lost all the posts I intended answering, this seems the best place
to add that no one has suggested ignoring the birthmother's desires or
dismissing her concerns altogether. On the contrary, I think we all agree that
the adoptee should accommodate the birthmother as far as possible short of
abandoning his own desires and his rights as an adult human being. I say this
just in case someone may have been misrepresenting this position, possibly in
private correspondence, so as to imply that we don't feel the birthmother has
the right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and no
more than the adoptee.

whoever
-----------------------------
and the right to drink coffee

Still piggybacking, god damn it.

In article <8q3gpvcldif09am5l5qk926v11jvb7ddvn@4ax.com>, GR
<gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:

<< >> No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss the following on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contact can do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members of their original families), because all that matters is what matters to adoptees."

I'd like to know who says that, or who says someone says it. I've never heard
it said or seen it demonstrated. I've often seen the opposite, and heard it
said, too, that "adoptees seeking info/contact must comply, eternally, with
anyone in their original or adoptive family who demands that they give up their
search in order to protect that person's lies and deception, because all that
matters is the feelings of those too weak to admit the truth."
Fieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend!

Yeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss? Are you going to be happy to see me if we have a
knock-down drag-out fight about an adoptee's right to search vs. an
adoptive/birth mother/father/grandparent's preference that we pretend never to
have existed, eh?

(Helen:)We need a bit of jizz around here. The trolls have been boring and thestrays are simply tacky, so maybe between the two of you, you can crack afew whips and liven things up a bit.Helen<Wincing in anticipation of the lash!>

Gosh, Helen, I never knew. The things one finds out about one's fellow posters,
even after all these years!

whoever
--------------------------------
coffee striper

>: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 10/23/2003 1:33 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <th4gpvg0oq774ehlpvo2lh8fjq217cvhem@4ax.com>On 22 Oct 2003 23:58:31 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters on alt.adoption already knows volumes about us. Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind of friend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.Robyn's no stranger to alt.a, either.I've never seen her nor heard of her.

You haven't been here for a LONG time. Robyn is smart and funny. You'll
prolly end up liking her.

She's pretty well-developed, tothe best of my knowledge.I've never seen her nor heard of her.Nice sense of humor, too.I'll willing to see how/if that develops.GR


kj

"fiend" <reveohw@aol.compromise> wrote in message
news:20031023193424.15462.00003784@mb-m06.aol.com... Still piggybacking, god damn it. In article <8q3gpvcldif09am5l5qk926v11jvb7ddvn@4ax.com>, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote: << >> No doubt, but we have lots of lies in adoption. Let's toss the following on the lie pile for stoppage: "Adoptees seeking info/contact can do anything, to anyone, at any time (especially to members of their original families), because all that matters is what matters to adoptees." I'd like to know who says that, or who says someone says it. I've never
heard it said or seen it demonstrated. I've often seen the opposite, and heard
it said, too, that "adoptees seeking info/contact must comply, eternally,
with anyone in their original or adoptive family who demands that they give up
their search in order to protect that person's lies and deception, because all
that matters is the feelings of those too weak to admit the truth."Fieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend! Yeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss? Are you going to be happy to see me if we have a knock-down drag-out fight about an adoptee's right to search vs. an adoptive/birth mother/father/grandparent's preference that we pretend
never to have existed, eh? (Helen:)We need a bit of jizz around here. The trolls have been boring and thestrays are simply tacky, so maybe between the two of you, you can crack afew whips and liven things up a bit.Helen<Wincing in anticipation of the lash!> Gosh, Helen, I never knew. The things one finds out about one's fellow
posters, even after all these years!

LOL! It wasn't *my* back I winced for, but others' - those of a gentler
nature, who are finer skinned and softer of neck than I, for whom one must
feel a touch of compassion as they are flailed within an inch of their
lives...

I exaggerate, of course. <g>

Helen
whoever -------------------------------- coffee striper

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend)Date: 10/23/03 5:34 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031023193424.15462.00003784@mb-m06.aol.com>
(Helen:)We need a bit of jizz around here. The trolls have been boring and thestrays are simply tacky, so maybe between the two of you, you can crack afew whips and liven things up a bit.Helen<Wincing in anticipation of the lash!>Gosh, Helen, I never knew. The things one finds out about one's fellowposters,even after all these years!whoever

Well yeah....I'm not sure that Helen is aware of the slang interpretation of
jizz....and couple that with the lash...LOL

I'm picturing the lovely Helen in leather..

In article <p0jfpv80v629c2u9bl61fpip8il6hmdnhl@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:59:59 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote: If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley btw)What happens when the adoptee wants to contact the siblings, why are thosewishes not respected?Because the state promised the woman privacy..

I was told that there was never any such promises made. Am I misinformed?

KL

in article 20031024051715.21457.00001616@mb-m10.aol.com, KL at
klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell wrote on 24/10/03 10:17 am:
In article <p0jfpv80v629c2u9bl61fpip8il6hmdnhl@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes: On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:59:59 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:> If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then> IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley> btw) What happens when the adoptee wants to contact the siblings, why are those wishes not respected? Because the state promised the woman privacy.. I was told that there was never any such promises made. Am I misinformed? KL


That promise was ubiquitous. Or do I mean ubiquitously mythical.

Every government when asked to consider opening records for adoptees always
trots that one out. Ask them to produce a copy of a written promise or
policy that made that promise possible and they never can. Our government in
England even tried to introduce a retrospective right for birthmothers to
veto previously open records on the basis that some mythical promise had
been made.

Difficult to make such a promise when all of the paperwork with the child's
original and often the birthmother's name on it follows the child around
throughout the adoption procedure. Certainly in England before 1975
legislation gave all adopted people a right to their OBC, it was entirely up
to the adoptive parents whether or not to tell their adoptee his or her
original name.

See http://www.robin.robin.org/ao

But the "promise" seems to have the hard of thinking everywhere convinced,
be they an ex president of the NCFA with a PhD in social administration or a
lowly Canadian housewife and birthmother.


Robin

On 24 Oct 2003 09:17:15 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
In article <p0jfpv80v629c2u9bl61fpip8il6hmdnhl@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:59:59 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:> If a woman states that she does not want the siblings contacted then> IMO those wishes should be respected.. (No one said this to Marley> btw)What happens when the adoptee wants to contact the siblings, why are thosewishes not respected?Because the state promised the woman privacy..I was told that there was never any such promises made. Am I misinformed?

I guess.


Jackie

On 23 Oct 2003 23:34:15 GMT, reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend) wrote:
the birthmother hasthe right to be "human" in such a situation. Of course she has, no less and nomore than the adoptee.


Yes..

And IMO they should be left to work it out.. No contact veto's.. No
interference from the collective.


Jackie

On 23 Oct 2003 14:02:36 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)
wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/23/03 7:01 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jnjfpv8421m43quk2srjpfeu3ofagt5j23@4ax.com>She is told that secret keeping is important.. She is told that shecan walk away and just forget about it..She is not given proper information at a crucial time in her life..She is lied to..She can not talk about her thoughts or conclusion around this becauseshe is into not talking about it..None of which applies to my birthmother's experience with relinquishment (inthe 60's).So it happened to some, and not to others. How is a searching adoptee supposedto know and act accordingly? Big red flags in the file, tattoos on theforehead?

If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flag
flying.

Jackie

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:36:32 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/22/2003She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contactmessage.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong) So is ten years ok to wait?Actualy, it' smore like 17.Maarley


I think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together..


Jackie

in article ck2ipvk8viivhsvc6436q7r0ime6qe9av5@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 24/10/03 12:54 pm:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:50:16 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:
My agenda is to sort this..
I disagree. There is no "sorting" going on. This has been your position from Day 1 on this issue - tht the bmother's wishes are to be repected over the adoptees when it comes to contacting siblings.
I say no one should have all the power.. Yes the pain is awful for the adoptee..

The pain is awful for which adoptee? Is this some "Universal Adoptee" bit
like the "Universal Soldier" in the Donavan song of that title.
But it is bad for the birth mom as well.. I cringe when I think of a woman being outed in the circumstances that are being discussed here.

You mean the woman being outed in the circumstances that *were* being
discussed here. I think a lot of were ignoring this thread as a part of the
great Search Wars and may have missed the detail. We tend therefore to
assume you are referring to the great "Universal Birthmother" yourself.


What does dealing with the consequences of relinquishing a child to adoption have to do with telling you you made a decision and should take
How can anyone make a decision in a place of such overwhelming secrecy?

What 'overwhelming secrecy'? There was no legal imposition upon you or any
other birthmother to keep any secret whatever. It was your choice to keep it
a secret. There was nothing to stop you or any birthmother from announcing
to the world that you are a birthmother.
If someone makes a decision they have weighed all the pro's and con's and have decided what is best.. soooooo to quote from above. snip I said. If the woman has not told the 'siblings' then she is going to have to go into what she does not want to go into if they are contacted without her consent.
> Yes that is part of the consequences of relinquishing a child to adoption.
snip So basically you are saying she should just take the consequences of all this.. She should bite the bullet and out herself because she did it.. She did the crime so now she needs to do the time..

'Out herself'? I don't know how it works where you come from, but I can walk
into the FRC in London ( or use http://www.1837online.com ) and look up any
birth to any woman in England and Wales, I can use the online facility there
to do the same for Scotland. I can buy a certificate for that birth and see
if that child was relinquished to adoption. The fact that I and everyone
else can do that, does not seem to have lead to the downfall of society or
to the mass shaming of birthmothers. It did enable me to discover that my
birth mother had had six kids before me five of whom were adopted out. There
was never any question that it would require her to "out herself" in order
for anyone to know that she was a birthmother. Maybe things are different
there.
I say she did not do the crime.. It was done to her.

Who was saying that she did 'the crime', is that how you see it these days,
relinquishment is a "crime", your relinquishment was a "crime"
She was not informed of the consequence of her actions.. The action being *accepting that the secrecy is okay.* No one informed her of the long reaching effects of this secrecy keeping. For her as well as for the relinquished son or daughter.

There was never any *obligation* for a birthmother to keep her status a
secret from anyone especially not from her kept-kids

The studies were out there.. I should have been told..
I was told that secrecy was okay.. and maybe on a very deep level I still think this..

Who told you all this?
I think you do.
If this is so then I am trying to sort it. IMO that's all I can do.

We are back to talking about you now then, not someone in some other post,
not the great Universal Birthmother?

Then never tell her she should take responsibility for her decision to relinquish her child.
Again I don't seek the connection. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
She was told that she could go back into the secrecy..

She? Are we talking about you now Jackie or the great universal birthmother
or someone ALIA?
There were studies out there that said that the relinquished son or daughter was going to want to connect on a blood level.. Some of them.. as always.

Were there? I hope they were bit more convincing than the one you quoted in
another thread or its no wonder they were ignored.
So because she was not informed that this was so.. She did not make a proper decision.. or her parents did not make a proper decision.

And you really think it would have made one iota of difference if they had
been, considering that usual ultimate reason for relinquishment was that the
birthmother was not financially able to support the child and her extended
family were unwilling to?
But I am the one who relinquished into secrecy.. I am the one who has to live with the understanding that basically I can not get my son back..

Your own chosen secrecy, not official secrecy?
I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. I thought you were discussing the "mentality"of open records law.
I was. I am.

And I thought she was discussing herself again.
I said that I didn't think there was a "mentality" attached to it per se and you respond that you were the one who relinquished into secrecy. Hos does this correlate to the "mentality" you have attached to the law i.e. that contact will occur.
I was not informed of the study that said that the relinquished son or daughter is probably going to want to know his or her siblings when grown.. I was told I could just walk away and all would be well..

Neither did I, as far as I know it was only carried out over the last couple
of years by Mullender and Pavlovic and hasn¹t yet been published. But
perhaps Jackie's talking about a different study, that's the kind of
confusion that can happen when you don't cite.
That study and probably others were out there.. Why was I not informed?

Citations?
What is the connection? Are you saying that because you relinquished into secrecy that that is the mentality *you* (or a woman like you) will attach to the law?
We were not informed of the studies that said that the adoptee would have a need on a very deep level to contact his or her siblings.

Studies? Very deep level?
But you previously said that that is *not* the mentality you attach to the law.
I learn..

Bit of a "slow learner" are you?

Robin

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/24/2003 8:22 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <4a6ipvcde3g2pfsn9ff9kcdk73v2g1is2a@4ax.com>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:36:32 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Just for the record >From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com >Date: 10/22/2003 >She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact >message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong) So is ten years ok to wait?Actualy, it' smore like 17.MaarleyI think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together..


If you don't happen to croak in the interim.

Dad

In article <20031023201754.11333.00000042@mb-m15.aol.com>, kj says...: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 10/23/2003 1:33 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <th4gpvg0oq774ehlpvo2lh8fjq217cvhem@4ax.com>On 22 Oct 2003 23:58:31 -0700, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)wrote:GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:42 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>> Actually, it says volumes about *you* pookie. Everyone who matters on> alt.adoption already knows volumes about us.>> Still, Marla is a reliable source and she says you're some kind of> friend of hers. We'll see how you develop and best of luck, dear.>Robyn's no stranger to alt.a, either.I've never seen her nor heard of her.You haven't been here for a LONG time. Robyn is smart and funny. You'llprolly end up liking her.

Aw shucks, I'm just tickled all to pieces ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:22:04 -0400, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:36:32 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Just for the record >From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com >Date: 10/22/2003 >She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact >message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong) So is ten years ok to wait?Actualy, it' smore like 17.MaarleyI think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together..

Exactly who is supposed to be getting their **** together in
that time? The adoptee who wants contact or the birthmother
who is refusing it? I've seen no evidence that Marley had
**** strewn about that needed gathering in that 17 years,
nor, apparently, did her bmom reconsider her initial refusal
prior to Marley contacting her siblings. Nothing changed in
that time, so why does a 17 year wait make everything all
right?

Nancy

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:45:22 +0100, Robin
<alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:

<snip all that nasty crap to Jackie>

Robin, you're quite the tantrum tossing little dweeb, aren't you
snookums?

Drop the rattle and get a grip, dear.

GR

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:05:51 -0400, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:

<snip>
That is what I love about you..hehehe, me too! Actually, I probably have no choice in the matter,it's pretty hardwired.I woke up this morning and made my coffee (Italian Roast) andthought.. Oh joy GR is back for a while..

Hmmmmm. It was probably the wonderful coffee aroma that brought such
joy.
I learned from what you wrote yesterday.. The train is a greatanalogy..

Eh. It's hopeless, really. People will see what they want to see,
regardless of reality. My compulsion to explain it *again* borders on
demented.
Its all about ME!No ME!Yes.. Yes and Yes.

hehehehe

GR

On 24 Oct 2003 00:17:54 GMT, kjs668@aol.comeek (kj) wrote:

<snip>
You haven't been here for a LONG time. Robyn is smart and funny. You'llprolly end up liking her.

Stranger things have happened around here.


GR

On 24 Oct 2003 09:17:15 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:

<snip>

Jackie wrote:Because the state promised the woman privacy..
I was told that there was never any such promises made. Am I misinformed?

Yep.

GR

In article <lb5ipv8thh9md96oknh8dfbo5pstdq3r7c@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On 23 Oct 2003 14:02:36 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)wrote:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/23/03 7:01 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jnjfpv8421m43quk2srjpfeu3ofagt5j23@4ax.com>She is told that secret keeping is important.. She is told that shecan walk away and just forget about it..She is not given proper information at a crucial time in her life..She is lied to..She can not talk about her thoughts or conclusion around this becauseshe is into not talking about it..None of which applies to my birthmother's experience with relinquishment (inthe 60's).So it happened to some, and not to others. How is a searching adopteesupposedto know and act accordingly? Big red flags in the file, tattoos on theforehead?If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flagflying.Jackie

Or not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but more because of just when
IS a good time to bring it up? My finding her was a chance for her to bring it
up. And she did. She then proceeded to tell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me.

KL

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:34:23 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>
wrote:
On 24 Oct 2003 09:17:15 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:<snip>Jackie wrote:Because the state promised the woman privacy..I was told that there was never any such promises made. Am I misinformed?Yep.GR


Are you sure it was "the state" that was doing this
promising? I mean legally sanctioned privacy, as opposed to
the empty promises of agencies and social workers with no
authority to guarantee it.

Nancy

>GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 10/24/2003 12:43 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <f2mipv87glvo3jcng7plg9svsl0dt9a7aj@4ax.com>On 24 Oct 2003 00:17:54 GMT, kjs668@aol.comeek (kj) wrote:<snip>You haven't been here for a LONG time. Robyn is smart and funny. You'llprolly end up liking her.Stranger things have happened around here.

Absolutely. I like people here that I NEVER thought I would like.
GR


kj

So what is a respectful time frame? I waited a year but then still probably
would have given it more time had things not have been so unstable. Kathy J
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/24/2003
I think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together..Jackie

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 10/24/2003
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 10/24/2003 If you don't happen to croak in the interim.Dad

It's happened in two instances that I know of, one my half sibling, and in a
third situation, the agency finally allowed a reunion when one party was
diagnoised with terminal lung cancer. Kathy J

Yeah, but often they get the idea the birthmom will come around which causes a
whole nother set of problems. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com
If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flagflying.Jackie

Thats awsome, you just never know, thanks for sharing the other side. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/24/2003
Or not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but more because of justwhenIS a good time to bring it up? My finding her was a chance for her to bringitup. And she did. She then proceeded to tell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me.KL

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/24/03 3:02 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031024150225.08626.00001387@mb-m27.aol.com>

< snip >
If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flagflying.JackieOr not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but morebecause of just when IS a good time to bring it up? My findingher was a chance for her to bring it up. And she did. She then >proceeded to
tell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me.


Again, how cool is that!

Dad

In article <20031024215038.14050.00000073@mb-m29.aol.com>, adoptadad@aol.com
(AdoptaDad) writes:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/24/03 3:02 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031024150225.08626.00001387@mb-m27.aol.com> < snip >If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flagflying.JackieOr not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but morebecause of just when IS a good time to bring it up? My findingher was a chance for her to bring it up. And she did. She then >proceededtotell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me. Again, how cool is that!Dad

Are things different for the different generations?

A woman we know only casually recently reunited with the daughter she had
relinquished a little more than 20 years ago. She's been very open about the
fact of her relinquishment and reunion with people whom she knows. She's
already introduced her daughter to her current family, which includes two young
boys.

In one of those strange twists of fate, she'd already met he daughter's
adoptive aunt, when the aunt came to ask the members of a church to pray for
her dying sister. Yeah, it was the daughter's adoptive mother that the birth
mother found herself praying for, albeit unwittingly. It was not until after
the reunion that she made the connection. As I understand it, that brief
meeting with the aunt and her obvious compassion for the dying woman has helped
the adoptive family come to terms with the reunion and with their new
relatives, if you will.

J.

On 25 Oct 2003 03:44:32 GMT, jmdjmh@aol.com (J.) wrote:

<snip>

Top posting.

This is an amazing story. Very cool.

GR
Are things different for the different generations?A woman we know only casually recently reunited with the daughter she hadrelinquished a little more than 20 years ago. She's been very open about thefact of her relinquishment and reunion with people whom she knows. She'salready introduced her daughter to her current family, which includes two youngboys.In one of those strange twists of fate, she'd already met he daughter'sadoptive aunt, when the aunt came to ask the members of a church to pray forher dying sister. Yeah, it was the daughter's adoptive mother that the birthmother found herself praying for, albeit unwittingly. It was not until afterthe reunion that she made the connection. As I understand it, that briefmeeting with the aunt and her obvious compassion for the dying woman has helpedthe adoptive family come to terms with the reunion and with their newrelatives, if you will.J.

On 24 Oct 2003 19:02:25 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
In article <lb5ipv8thh9md96oknh8dfbo5pstdq3r7c@4ax.com>, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:On 23 Oct 2003 14:02:36 GMT, lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn)wrote:>Subject: Re: Just for the record>From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com>Date: 10/23/03 7:01 AM Mountain Daylight Time>Message-id: <jnjfpv8421m43quk2srjpfeu3ofagt5j23@4ax.com>>She is told that secret keeping is important.. She is told that she>can walk away and just forget about it..>She is not given proper information at a crucial time in her life..>>She is lied to..>She can not talk about her thoughts or conclusion around this because>she is into not talking about it..None of which applies to my birthmother's experience with relinquishment (inthe 60's).So it happened to some, and not to others. How is a searching adopteesupposedto know and act accordingly? Big red flags in the file, tattoos on theforehead?If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flagflying.JackieOr not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but more because of just whenIS a good time to bring it up? My finding her was a chance for her to bring itup. And she did. She then proceeded to tell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me.KL

Yes!

My bson met my dad... We sat in the old folks home and when the lady
brought coffee my dad said.. "This is my family".

I will never forget.


Jackie

On 25 Oct 2003 01:02:27 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Yeah, but often they get the idea the birthmom will come around which causes awhole nother set of problems. Kathy J

Yes.. And this is reunion.. The good the bad and the ugly.

We can not change what we can not change.. I keep talking about
sending a gift to the grandbabies from Amazon.
I have sent the gifts and there are no acknowledgments.
I have sent an urgent letter asking about a book I ordered sent there
because I never changed the mailing address..

Nothing.. I keep thinking well he is sending emails to the wrong
address..

I honestly believe you ended up with one of the worst case scenarios
Kathy.

Jackie~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comIf the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flagflying.Jackie

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:14:49 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:22:04 -0400, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:36:32 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com...> >Subject: Re: Just for the record> >From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com> >Date: 10/22/2003>> >She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact> >message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)>> So is ten years ok to wait?Actualy, it' smore like 17.MaarleyI think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together..Exactly who is supposed to be getting their **** together inthat time?

I was thinking of Marley's birth mom.
The adoptee who wants contact or the birthmotherwho is refusing it?

I guess we deal with what we have to deal with.
I've seen no evidence that Marley had**** strewn about that needed gathering in that 17 years,nor, apparently, did her bmom reconsider her initial refusalprior to Marley contacting her siblings.

What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by any
of this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasy
world.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her private
detective and got all the info she wanted about the history of her
family. .
Nothing changed inthat time, so why does a 17 year wait make everything allright?

I don't know about time limits..

I do not think there should be universal thinking on this because
again.. the power goes to the collective thinking and is not between
the parties directly involved in the reunion...

Jackie who hopes you had a nice trip Nancy..

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:27:16 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Oh, I'm not denying that there are assholes here. I've beenhere since 1993 and I pretty much have them pegged. I'd goa step farther and say almost everyone here has been anasshole at some time or another--except possibly Rupa. :-)But this is irrelevant to my point: Many people have beengoing around and around and around on this subject withJackie for many many months, and *no one* has advocated thata reasonable amount of time not be given to the birthmotherto get her **** together before contacting siblings.


But what I have been trying to deal with and or get across is that
some here say that the adoptee has the ultimate right here..
It gets my back up every darn time it is posted..

Jackie

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/03 7:05 AM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <94tkpvg7l1qfg0eb9p49nck4odo8v50733@4ax.com>
Or not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but more because of justwhenIS a good time to bring it up? My finding her was a chance for her to bringitup. And she did. She then proceeded to tell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me.KLYes!My bson met my dad... We sat in the old folks home and when the ladybrought coffee my dad said.. "This is my family".I will never forget.Jackie
That is so cool. When I found, my bmom called up everyone who knew about me,
and told everyone who didn't. She said she wanted to hand out cigars. LOL

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: jmdjmh@aol.com (J.)Date: 10/24/03 9:44 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031024234432.12631.00002368@mb-m28.aol.com>In article <20031024215038.14050.00000073@mb-m29.aol.com>, adoptadad@aol.com(AdoptaDad) writes:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/24/03 3:02 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031024150225.08626.00001387@mb-m27.aol.com> < snip >>If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flag>flying.>>JackieOr not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but morebecause of just when IS a good time to bring it up? My findingher was a chance for her to bring it up. And she did. She then >proceededtotell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me. Again, how cool is that!DadAre things different for the different generations?A woman we know only casually recently reunited with the daughter she hadrelinquished a little more than 20 years ago. She's been very open about thefact of her relinquishment and reunion with people whom she knows. She'salready introduced her daughter to her current family, which includes twoyoungboys.In one of those strange twists of fate, she'd already met he daughter'sadoptive aunt, when the aunt came to ask the members of a church to pray forher dying sister. Yeah, it was the daughter's adoptive mother that the birthmother found herself praying for, albeit unwittingly. It was not untilafterthe reunion that she made the connection. As I understand it, that briefmeeting with the aunt and her obvious compassion for the dying woman hashelpedthe adoptive family come to terms with the reunion and with their newrelatives, if you will.J.

Whenever you hear stories like that it really does make you wonder if there are
real coincidences in life, or a master plan. :-)

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031024012526.03876.00000024@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend)Date: 10/23/03 5:34 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031023193424.15462.00003784@mb-m06.aol.com>(Helen:)We need a bit of jizz around here. The trolls have been boring and thestrays are simply tacky, so maybe between the two of you, you can crack
afew whips and liven things up a bit.Helen<Wincing in anticipation of the lash!>Gosh, Helen, I never knew. The things one finds out about one's fellowposters,even after all these years!whoever Well yeah....I'm not sure that Helen is aware of the slang interpretation
of jizz....and couple that with the lash...LOL

LOL - 'jizz' = liven up!
I'm picturing the lovely Helen in leather..

Please don't - it'd be the stuff of nightmares!

Helen

I think that the birthmom should be treated compassionately and gently, yet the
adoptee should not be expected to jump in the hole with them. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~But what I have been trying to deal with and or get across is thatsome here say that the adoptee has the ultimate right here..It gets my back up every darn time it is posted..Jackie

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031024234432.12631.00002368@mb-m28.aol.com... In article <20031024215038.14050.00000073@mb-m29.aol.com>,
adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) writes:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/24/03 3:02 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031024150225.08626.00001387@mb-m27.aol.com> < snip >>If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flag>flying.>>JackieOr not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but morebecause of just when IS a good time to bring it up? My findingher was a chance for her to bring it up. And she did. She thenproceededtotell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me. Again, how cool is that!Dad Are things different for the different generations? A woman we know only casually recently reunited with the daughter she had relinquished a little more than 20 years ago. She's been very open about
the fact of her relinquishment and reunion with people whom she knows. She's already introduced her daughter to her current family, which includes two
young boys. In one of those strange twists of fate, she'd already met he daughter's adoptive aunt, when the aunt came to ask the members of a church to pray
for her dying sister. Yeah, it was the daughter's adoptive mother that the
birth mother found herself praying for, albeit unwittingly. It was not until
after the reunion that she made the connection. As I understand it, that brief meeting with the aunt and her obvious compassion for the dying woman has
helped the adoptive family come to terms with the reunion and with their new relatives, if you will.

How small the world is, and how decent the people are - mostly. <s> Lovely
story.

Helen
J.

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003 8:21 AM
What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily.

Really? I hated having to play the private detective part just to get info
about my history, made me feel kind of creepy. Kathy J

Just a part of it, Jackie. I had a pretty good relationship with my birth dad
and his wife and after many years, his death and her remarriage, we are still
close. My birthdads aunt was nice as well but I backed away when my birthmom
freaked that I had contact with her and sent that message that was her
territory. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003
I honestly believe you ended up with one of the worst case scenariosKathy.Jackie

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ppcjpvo0qv1dv8mcp3pon61glgm4cfoikn@4ax.com... On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:52:19 +0100, Robin <alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:in article gboipvkncia3qhc2gnfaavctljk7rpnb98@4ax.com, GR atgragain@earthlink.net wrote on 24/10/03 6:33 pm:
<snip>
They didn't call them Magdalens here, they were, literally, called homes for unwed mothers, sometimes with some do-gooders name attached. So and so's Home For Unwed Girls.

Magdalens were places of punishment and detention. *Families* could (and
many did) put their daughter in there. She might have been surplus to
requirements, a threat to an inheritance by a male relative perhaps, or
simply because the mother had died and it was deemed inappropriate that a
young girl should remain in an all-male household. Parish priests, or other
sanctimonious feckers who thought the girl might be an occasion of sin for
their husbands and sons could 'arrange' for her to be sent to the Magdalen
Laundry. They were not M&B Homes. As far as I know the majority of women who
ended up in Magdalens - in Ireland, anyway - were not pregnant, and many
were in fact, virgins.

Helen

<snip>
GR

The best would be to ask him but I know how painfully uncomfortable this is.
It's something I constantly struggle with myself. You just don't know each
other well enough yet and it is very difficult when you are dealing with
someone who is not the responsive type. Kathy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003
We can not change what we can not change.. I keep talking aboutsending a gift to the grandbabies from Amazon.I have sent the gifts and there are no acknowledgments.I have sent an urgent letter asking about a book I ordered sent therebecause I never changed the mailing address..Nothing.. I keep thinking well he is sending emails to the wrongaddress..

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/03 9:25 AM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <jbukpvs3coa85e2am2tt3pballr5e0krj9@4ax.com>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:27:16 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Oh, I'm not denying that there are assholes here. I've beenhere since 1993 and I pretty much have them pegged. I'd goa step farther and say almost everyone here has been anasshole at some time or another--except possibly Rupa. :-)But this is irrelevant to my point: Many people have beengoing around and around and around on this subject withJackie for many many months, and *no one* has advocated thata reasonable amount of time not be given to the birthmotherto get her **** together before contacting siblings.But what I have been trying to deal with and or get across is thatsome here say that the adoptee has the ultimate right here..It gets my back up every darn time it is posted..

Well, brace yourself, because I don't want you to throw your back out.

I believe the adult adoptees right to reconnect with his extended bio family
cannot be vetoed by his birthmother. That doesn't give him license to act like
an asshole during the process, but that decision rests with him and him alone.

Besides, what about the birthfather?

Dad

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:25:26 -0400, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:27:16 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Oh, I'm not denying that there are assholes here. I've beenhere since 1993 and I pretty much have them pegged. I'd goa step farther and say almost everyone here has been anasshole at some time or another--except possibly Rupa. :-)But this is irrelevant to my point: Many people have beengoing around and around and around on this subject withJackie for many many months, and *no one* has advocated thata reasonable amount of time not be given to the birthmotherto get her **** together before contacting siblings.But what I have been trying to deal with and or get across is thatsome here say that the adoptee has the ultimate right here..It gets my back up every darn time it is posted..Jackie

I know. But the problem really isn't limited to the roles
of birthmother/adoptee, it's a matter of 2 people having
conflicting needs and conflicting rights. One person must
voluntarily cede their rights to the other person. It's not
a matter of who is more important, whose needs are more
important, or whose rights are more important--it's more of
a philosophical question that doesn't necessarily have a
right or wrong answer. It all boils down to "depends...".

I think most people here agree that, under ordinary
circumstances, the adoptee does have the right to contact
siblings after giving the bmom a reasonable amount of time
to take care of business herself. However, if the
revelation would unquestionably put the bmom in physical
danger or leave her friendless and destitute (examples that
have been over the lifetime of this discussion), that is a
different matter that the adoptee has an obligation to
consider.

Does that sound fair to you?

Nancy

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:42:45 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
I learned from what you wrote yesterday.. The train is a greatanalogy..Eh. It's hopeless, really. People will see what they want to see,regardless of reality. My compulsion to explain it *again* borders ondemented.


But it helped me.. And I will pass it on when I can.

I sit on adpotion.com and read the letters posted from new-beees..I do
my best to share what I know. http://forums.adoption.com/
Also I use one of my paintings as an avatar.. Crow painting..

Its interesting posting in a very open place where the ones who run
the place can delete a post at any time or can ban a person at any
time..
You have to stay very neutral to be able to stay in the game..

I am enjoying that.. When hubby is into the darn hockey I can sit and
read at my leisure..


Jackie

"Lipstik43" <lipstik43@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031019193847.22348.00000940@mb-m29.aol.com...Invasion of privacy, maybe. Abrogation of rights? Not really. Anystranger on the street can talk to you. Why should folks seperated by
thesimple legality of adoption be treated differently? Although I can see your point I must ask what the liklihood of any
stranger on the street knowing so much about you and your past that it could possibly destroy your family or marriage?

Well, when I ambushed my birthmother, I knew very little. Basically, all I
was really aware of is that she was my biological relative. If she had told
me to get lost, I would have respected her wishes.


Suppose it were an adoptee finding a birthmother and her husband and current family know nothing of this baby
she once had? What then?


She tells him to go away if she wants. Of course, there is the distinct
possibility that the adoptee may be a totally self centered asshole who is
unwilling to respect her wishes. In that case, the dirty little secret will
be out in the open and she will have to deal with it. I'm sure it would
suck to be put in that position, but it's hardly uncommon for somebody's
past to show up again.

What I'm getting at is that biological relatives separated by a simple legal
document don't need this bizarre, nosy parkeresque intrusion regarding their
contact and/or subsequent relationship. I've always felt that common
courtesy should be exercised during the search and reunion process, but
that's something that can never be imposed.

Jack

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0310211005.5c38a3ae@posting.google.c om... "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote. Invasion of privacy, maybe. Abrogation of rights? Not really. Any stranger on the street can talk to you. Why should folks seperated by
the simple legality of adoption be treated differently? I don't have strong views on this myself, but it seems that it's not a case of "just a stranger."

Obviously, there's and underlying dynamic. However, since adoption is a
legal tool the participants are legally strangers.

A "stranger" is just that, a stranger. If you want to talk, you do; if not you move on.


Ditto for adoptees/b-pars.


Presumably, unless the Stranger is stalking you, that person also just moves on. There's no emotional investment in the transaction. With a b-mom and adoptee, there's a difference. If neither side has much emotional involvement in the issue, then it's parallel to the stranger situation, and barring coincidence, a reunion is unlikely (just because it's too much trouble for something neither cares about). However, if there is a reunion, then either or both sides will have an emotional stake in the other person -- not the actual person, but their construct of that person. I'd say in most, but not all, cases, the person who Finds has more emotional investment than the Found -- and is also more prepared for the event. (Hence the OP's use of the term "ambush.")


I can't disagree with that. However, unless the finder is completely
wrapped up in fantasy or his own expectations then he also understands the
possibility that his presence might not be well received.

Whether the level of emotion is as high as with, say, ex-husbands and ex-wives, I don't know. I think a lot of the legislation that surrounds divorce, blended families and visitation could be extended to adoption.


Such as?

The laws already exist. See your friend's TRO against his b/mom for an example. Or, are you suggesting that an automatic restraining order be placed upon all adoptees and birthparents upon relinquishment? There must be a way to organize these search situations so that the results are different. I think I agree here. Presumably, both sides have the same basic goal: A positive relationship.

Not necessarily. I believe that many searchers do so just to answer a few
personal questions. I also feel strongly that if nothing else, the found
has a moral responsibility to answer those questions as best he can.

However, the nature and intensity of the relationship desired may be different.

True enough.
I wonder if, rather than relying on TROs and such, there shouldn't be counselling available to deal with the immediate emotions and with mismatched expectations.

Blech. I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that idea.


Jack

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 10/25/2003
She tells him to go away if she wants. Of course, there is the distinctpossibility that the adoptee may be a totally self centered asshole who isunwilling to respect her wishes.In that case, the dirty little secret willbe out in the open and she will have to deal with it. I'm sure it wouldsuck to be put in that position, but it's hardly uncommon for somebody'spast to show up again.

Just wondering what your thought/example is of the totally self centered
asshole adoptee who is unwilling to respect her wishes because I don't think I
have run across one. Are they like the bill collector from hell and call
repeatedly at all hours? Do they place a full page ad in the local newspaper
or hold a protest sit-in on her porch. Maybe they send the dreaded family
Christmas letter to everyone in her family. Help me out here. Kathy J

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:21:12 -0400, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:14:49 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:22:04 -0400, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:36:32 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>>"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message>news:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com...>> >Subject: Re: Just for the record>> >From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com>> >Date: 10/22/2003>>>> >She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact>> >message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)>>>> So is ten years ok to wait?>>Actualy, it' smore like 17.>>MaarleyI think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together..Exactly who is supposed to be getting their **** together inthat time?I was thinking of Marley's birth mom.

Oh, ok. I wasn't sure.
The adoptee who wants contact or the birthmotherwho is refusing it?I guess we deal with what we have to deal with.

Absolutely.
I've seen no evidence that Marley had**** strewn about that needed gathering in that 17 years,nor, apparently, did her bmom reconsider her initial refusalprior to Marley contacting her siblings.What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily. .

Right. And I probably would have done the same. In my
case, though, the problem was handled by my bmom neglecting
to tell me that I actually had any siblings until 2 years
after I found her. (They, too, had been adopted and had
reunited before I did, so there was no official record of
them).
Nothing changed inthat time, so why does a 17 year wait make everything allright?I don't know about time limits..

I addressed some thoughts on this in another post this
morning.
I do not think there should be universal thinking on this becauseagain.. the power goes to the collective thinking and is not betweenthe parties directly involved in the reunion...

Exactly. We on alt.a aren't going to write the book of
rules for human interaction.
Jackie who hopes you had a nice trip Nancy..

Thank you, I did. I spent 2 lovely weeks eating haggis,
neeps, and tatties in Scotland. :-)

Nancy

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax.com... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That's
whatyou don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. If
itgoes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on. I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..
Actually, it is. The problem is that nobody recognizes this.

Jack

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:50:18 -0400, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
A breath of fresh air..JackieOn Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:11:15 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:52:19 +0100, Robin<alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:in article gboipvkncia3qhc2gnfaavctljk7rpnb98@4ax.com, GR atgragain@earthlink.net wrote on 24/10/03 6:33 pm:> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:21:55 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>> wrote:>> <snip>

Funny thing how refreshing the air can be when someone agrees
with you...still doesn't make one or the other right in the context
of the question.

pb...


http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
http://www.bordc.org/ -- http://www.publicintegrity.org/

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/310iraqoil/iraqoil.pdf

"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031025121821.03841.00000066@mb-m23.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 10/25/2003She tells him to go away if she wants. Of course, there is the distinctpossibility that the adoptee may be a totally self centered asshole who
isunwilling to respect her wishes.In that case, the dirty little secret willbe out in the open and she will have to deal with it. I'm sure it wouldsuck to be put in that position, but it's hardly uncommon for somebody'spast to show up again. Just wondering what your thought/example is of the totally self centered asshole adoptee who is unwilling to respect her wishes because I don't
think I have run across one.


Heheh. I haven't either. I've heard stories, though. I suppose they could
be an urban legend, though.

The OP shared a story about the guy with the overbearing b/mother. It could
happen both ways, I'm sure.

Are they like the bill collector from hell and call repeatedly at all hours? Do they place a full page ad in the local
newspaper or hold a protest sit-in on her porch. Maybe they send the dreaded family Christmas letter to everyone in her family. Help me out here. Kathy J
Nah, it's woundies and womb crawlers. I have a general TRO issued against
the lot of 'em.

Jack

In article <20031024234432.12631.00002368@mb-m28.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.com (J.)
writes:
In article <20031024215038.14050.00000073@mb-m29.aol.com>, adoptadad@aol.com(AdoptaDad) writes:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)Date: 10/24/03 3:02 PM Eastern Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031024150225.08626.00001387@mb-m27.aol.com> < snip >>If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flag>flying.>>JackieOr not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but morebecause of just when IS a good time to bring it up? My findingher was a chance for her to bring it up. And she did. She then >proceededtotell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me. Again, how cool is that!DadAre things different for the different generations?A woman we know only casually recently reunited with the daughter she hadrelinquished a little more than 20 years ago. She's been very open about thefact of her relinquishment and reunion with people whom she knows. She'salready introduced her daughter to her current family, which includes twoyoungboys.In one of those strange twists of fate, she'd already met he daughter'sadoptive aunt, when the aunt came to ask the members of a church to pray forher dying sister. Yeah, it was the daughter's adoptive mother that the birthmother found herself praying for, albeit unwittingly. It was not untilafterthe reunion that she made the connection. As I understand it, that briefmeeting with the aunt and her obvious compassion for the dying woman hashelpedthe adoptive family come to terms with the reunion and with their newrelatives, if you will.J.

It is weird how connections are made. I know when I went to my bmom's funeral,
I saw a couple there that just looked SOOOOOo familiar to me, but I couldn't
place why. Until they came over to say goodbye and then I realized they were
the parents of my best friend in junior high. Turns out they knew my bmom well
and only fate kept us from having run into each other at these people's home.
Proving once again what a small world it is.

KL

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

Personally, I think anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the past 30 years has to know by now that those promises of privacy/secrecy (or whatever you want to call it) were essentially worthless. I don't think a week goes by without somebody discussing reunions on tv. What kind of denial does a birthmother (or bfather or adoptee or adoptive parent) have to be in, in 2003, to think cling to those promises and believe it couldn't happen to her? Do we need to put up billboards and public service announcements warning closet birthmothers that the end is nigh?


ITA - Excellent Nancy

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:4a6ipvcde3g2pfsn9ff9kcdk73v2g1is2a@4ax.com... On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:36:32 GMT, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com... >Subject: Re: Just for the record >From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com >Date: 10/22/2003 >She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first contact >message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong) So is ten years ok to wait?Actualy, it' smore like 17.Maarley I think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together.. Jackie

That's a new verse in the song.

Kathy 1

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:33:39 -0700, pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:50:18 -0400, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:A breath of fresh air..JackieOn Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:11:15 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:52:19 +0100, Robin<alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:>in article gboipvkncia3qhc2gnfaavctljk7rpnb98@4ax.com, GR at>gragain@earthlink.net wrote on 24/10/03 6:33 pm:>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:21:55 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>>> wrote:>>>> <snip>Funny thing how refreshing the air can be when someone agreeswith you...still doesn't make one or the other right in the contextof the question.pb...


According to you Patty..


Jackie

On 25 Oct 2003 14:29:15 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Just a part of it, Jackie. I had a pretty good relationship with my birth dadand his wife and after many years, his death and her remarriage, we are stillclose. My birthdads aunt was nice as well but I backed away when my birthmomfreaked that I had contact with her and sent that message that was herterritory. Kathy J

No tears to cry.. No feelings left.



Jackie


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003I honestly believe you ended up with one of the worst case scenariosKathy.Jackie

On 25 Oct 2003 15:03:57 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
The best would be to ask him but I know how painfully uncomfortable this is.It's something I constantly struggle with myself. You just don't know eachother well enough yet and it is very difficult when you are dealing withsomeone who is not the responsive type. Kathy

I just keep letting it go.. Obviously he wants contact so what I do is
wait for him to say stop it.. Or please stop it.

I no longer feel vulnerable with him..
Maybe that's it.

Jackie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003We can not change what we can not change.. I keep talking aboutsending a gift to the grandbabies from Amazon.I have sent the gifts and there are no acknowledgments.I have sent an urgent letter asking about a book I ordered sent therebecause I never changed the mailing address..Nothing.. I keep thinking well he is sending emails to the wrongaddress..

On 25 Oct 2003 14:14:30 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003 8:21 AMWhat I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily.Really? I hated having to play the private detective part just to get infoabout my history, made me feel kind of creepy. Kathy J

Interesting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI in
order to check out my family.
It does not bother me.

Jackie

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:24:11 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily. .Right. And I probably would have done the same. In mycase, though, the problem was handled by my bmom neglectingto tell me that I actually had any siblings until 2 yearsafter I found her. (They, too, had been adopted and hadreunited before I did, so there was no official record ofthem).

She was living in a pretend world..
Nothing changed inthat time, so why does a 17 year wait make everything allright?I don't know about time limits..I addressed some thoughts on this in another post thismorning.

And I say I don't know..
I do not think there should be universal thinking on this becauseagain.. the power goes to the collective thinking and is not betweenthe parties directly involved in the reunion...Exactly. We on alt.a aren't going to write the book ofrules for human interaction.

LOL yes..
Jackie who hopes you had a nice trip Nancy..Thank you, I did. I spent 2 lovely weeks eating haggis,neeps, and tatties in Scotland. :-)

You ate haggis?????

My hubby is from Glasgow.. For a while there I could not understand
his relatives when they came over for a visit..


Jackie

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 05:39:59 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by any of this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasy world.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her private detective and got all the info she wanted about the history of her family. .And contacted her siblings behind her bmother's back -something you oppose.Or is it okay if Marley does it but not other adoptees?

Who am I to oppose anything?

What I am trying to say is that if a person does 'out' the nmom she is
going to have to go through the emotions in a very difficult way.
She is going to have to explain herself while trying to deal with
having opened the door to the grief she pushed aside years before.

IMO some women may just get angry and never deal with what needs to be
dealt with..



Jackie

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:25:59 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:25:26 -0400, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:27:16 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Oh, I'm not denying that there are assholes here. I've beenhere since 1993 and I pretty much have them pegged. I'd goa step farther and say almost everyone here has been anasshole at some time or another--except possibly Rupa. :-)But this is irrelevant to my point: Many people have beengoing around and around and around on this subject withJackie for many many months, and *no one* has advocated thata reasonable amount of time not be given to the birthmotherto get her **** together before contacting siblings.But what I have been trying to deal with and or get across is thatsome here say that the adoptee has the ultimate right here..It gets my back up every darn time it is posted..JackieI know. But the problem really isn't limited to the rolesof birthmother/adoptee, it's a matter of 2 people havingconflicting needs and conflicting rights.

They were set apart in a very controlled situation.
One person mustvoluntarily cede their rights to the other person.

If a woman is in hiding IMO she is not going to cede her rights.
She is going to have to gather herself for what is going to happen..

Again she is going to be forced into a situation that is beyond her
control and yes I know that is life..

But IMO folks should be prepared for anger..
It's nota matter of who is more important, whose needs are moreimportant, or whose rights are more important--it's more ofa philosophical question that doesn't necessarily have aright or wrong answer. It all boils down to "depends...".

Seeing the other person in their 'map of the world.'
I think most people here agree that, under ordinarycircumstances, the adoptee does have the right to contactsiblings after giving the bmom a reasonable amount of timeto take care of business herself. However, if therevelation would unquestionably put the bmom in physicaldanger or leave her friendless and destitute (examples thathave been over the lifetime of this discussion), that is adifferent matter that the adoptee has an obligation toconsider.Does that sound fair to you?

Yes.

Jackie

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:51:59 +0100, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
(And Jackie DID cry out for you,looking for assistance and backup, for quite a long time.)


I did not..

Jackie

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:31:34 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax .com... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That'swhatyou don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****. Ifitgoes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on. I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..Actually, it is. The problem is that nobody recognizes this.


IMO the emotions involved in reunion are incredibly difficult.. for
some.


Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pptkpv4eui73sghnpndh9vsk2ampocqv14@4ax.com... On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:14:49 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:22:04 -0400, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:36:32 GMT, "Marley Greiner"<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>>"Tm n Kat" <tmnkat@aol.com> wrote in message>news:20031022195255.18903.00001518@mb-m15.aol.com...>> >Subject: Re: Just for the record>> >From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com>> >Date: 10/22/2003>>>> >She contacted the siblings ten years after sending that first
contact>> >message.. (Marley please correct me if I am wrong)>>>> So is ten years ok to wait?>>Actualy, it' smore like 17.>>MaarleyI think that is definitely enough time to get ones **** together..Exactly who is supposed to be getting their **** together inthat time? I was thinking of Marley's birth mom. The adoptee who wants contact or the birthmotherwho is refusing it? I guess we deal with what we have to deal with. I've seen no evidence that Marley had**** strewn about that needed gathering in that 17 years,nor, apparently, did her bmom reconsider her initial refusalprior to Marley contacting her siblings. What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by any of this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasy world.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her private detective and got all the info she wanted about the history of her family. .

And contacted her siblings behind her bmother's back -something you oppose.
Or is it okay if Marley does it but not other adoptees?


Kathy 1

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:56:52 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:24:11 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily. .Right. And I probably would have done the same. In mycase, though, the problem was handled by my bmom neglectingto tell me that I actually had any siblings until 2 yearsafter I found her. (They, too, had been adopted and hadreunited before I did, so there was no official record ofthem).She was living in a pretend world..

Maybe, but I think it was much more complicated than that.
First and foremost, she was embarrassed for us to learn that
she'd been that promiscuous and careless, but there were
some other factors working as well.

> Nothing changed in>that time, so why does a 17 year wait make everything all>right?I don't know about time limits..I addressed some thoughts on this in another post thismorning.And I say I don't know..

No, no one does and I wasn't asking you to define it. I
think a "reasonable" amount of time falls somewhere between
what one party feels they need and what the other is willing
to give.
I do not think there should be universal thinking on this becauseagain.. the power goes to the collective thinking and is not betweenthe parties directly involved in the reunion...Exactly. We on alt.a aren't going to write the book ofrules for human interaction.LOL yes..Jackie who hopes you had a nice trip Nancy..Thank you, I did. I spent 2 lovely weeks eating haggis,neeps, and tatties in Scotland. :-)You ate haggis?????

I did--*a lot* of haggis. I loved it. I ordered it on a
whim for a starter the first night I was there, expecting it
to be strong and gross like liver, but it wasn't anything
like that. I started ordering it everywhere I went--I
consider this trip a "Hagg-a-thon". I'm in withdrawal at
the moment.
My hubby is from Glasgow.. For a while there I could not understandhis relatives when they came over for a visit..

LOL. In the little town my relatives come from the same
thing happened to me. They have a peculiar dialect there
and they may as well have been speaking Bulgarian or Swahili
as far as I was concerned.

NancyJackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:okdnpv839eo23mt2h8ht5p7urhrgsa2hr7@4ax.com... On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 05:39:59 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by any of this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasy world.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her private detective and got all the info she wanted about the history of her family. .And contacted her siblings behind her bmother's back -something you
oppose.Or is it okay if Marley does it but not other adoptees? Who am I to oppose anything?

Well you certainly have in the past - you now seem to be singing a different
tune. Which is fine but when someone makes such an abrupt change it takes a
moment to adjust.

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9senpv0sgsj87j9akgbfq6olnfpn9qdg41@4ax.com... On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 05:43:26 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:sgukpv8e023loh99n8vrfqvha6pga804fi@4ax .com... On 25 Oct 2003 00:15:47 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:Kathy ask the question: >So what is a respectful time frame?And Jackie avoids the question : Because what is right for me may not be right for anyone else.

True but when has that stopped you (or anybody for that matter) from giving
an opinion? There is no answer as far as I am concerned.. Jackie

Nobody was asking you for an "answer". They were asking you for *your
personal opinion on the matter*. Something you were more than willing to
give in the past but now seem reticient about.

Kathy 1

In article <i8fnpv4aen3t719m0r9nc98q7lb5mj9383@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:51:59 +0100, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote: (And Jackie DID cry out for you,looking for assistance and backup, for quite a long time.)I did not..Jackie

Jackie....please....even *I* remember that.....

KL

In article <fadnpvksson8t6ve5v9ouqho21gs1n45gp@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On 25 Oct 2003 14:14:30 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003 8:21 AMWhat I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily.Really? I hated having to play the private detective part just to get infoabout my history, made me feel kind of creepy. Kathy JInteresting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI inorder to check out my family.It does not bother me.Jackie

But it bothers you if he were to decide to contact some of that family without
your consent?

KL

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:05:27 -0400, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:

<snip>

My bson met my dad... We sat in the old folks home and when the ladybrought coffee my dad said.. "This is my family".I will never forget.

Very cool for all of you.

GR

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:35:33 +0100, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:

<snip>

I wrote: They didn't call them Magdalens here, they were, literally, called homes for unwed mothers, sometimes with some do-gooders name attached. So and so's Home For Unwed Girls.Magdalens were places of punishment and detention. *Families* could (andmany did) put their daughter in there. She might have been surplus torequirements, a threat to an inheritance by a male relative perhaps, orsimply because the mother had died and it was deemed inappropriate that ayoung girl should remain in an all-male household. Parish priests, or othersanctimonious feckers who thought the girl might be an occasion of sin fortheir husbands and sons could 'arrange' for her to be sent to the MagdalenLaundry. They were not M&B Homes. As far as I know the majority of women whoended up in Magdalens - in Ireland, anyway - were not pregnant, and manywere in fact, virgins.

Yep. There's a recent documentary now making the rounds in the
States, it's all about the Magdalens. I wonder if they use that old
Joni Mitchell song about them? Amazing song. Anyway - I think that
the Magdalens there were a lot worse than "Fanny Farkle's Home For
Unwed Girls" here in the States. You never got a life sentence in
them, as I understand many girls got at the Magdalens.

GR

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:02:10 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:

<snip>

I wrote:>Oh sure. You just don't know them. Assholery now, assholery forever!Oh, I'm not denying that there are assholes here. I've beenhere since 1993 and I pretty much have them pegged.It was a *joke* Nancy.Yeah, I know, but the matter of assholes on a.a is never farfrom the surface and I thought I might as well address it.

Yeah, on accounta it's not going to come up naturally. Ahem.

<snip>
But this is irrelevant to my point: Many people have beengoing around and around and around on this subject withJackie for many many months, and *no one* has advocated thata reasonable amount of time not be given to the birthmotherto get her **** together before contacting siblings.That's good. So what's the problem?Well, *my* problem is that Jackie seems to disregard thatlittle detail.

Maybe that's not her issue with it.
She can still worry about thenmoms, think about how it might be for them, feel for them. She'sgoing to put herself into the nmom's head, she's going to have totalempathy with her. That's just Jackie being Jackie.True--but I live in hope that some day she will actuallyacknowledge what others have to say.

She does, imo, but it doesn't change who she is and how she thinks in
the way that some people want it to.
How do you feel aboutadoptees as slave?

How do I feel about it? Umm... I'm foursquare against slavery, other
than yard***** slavery.

If you meant that question seriously, then I think that there are some
evident parallels between slavery and adoption. After noting them,
one moves on to the more important ways in which adoption differs from
slavery.

Why do you ask?

<snip>
Freedom fighting in Tibet for the Dalai Lama! Living in one of thosebio-dome experiments! They're a contestant on Survivor!Oh man--I wouldn't pressure any bmom who was a contestant onSurvivor.

Me neither - who would do that show anyway? Nevermind, I probably
don't want to know.
In the Witness Protection Program. Undercover with the CIA.Martha Stewart's cellmate. Martha Stewart.

Eeeeek! It's Maaaaaaaaaaaaartha!

<snip>
It's a name worth remembering. Game show hostesses simplydon't get enough credit for their contribution tocivilization, ya know.

Agreed. Free Vanna!!

GR

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dkfnpvoo68rr12c01r7bj3ve98cdf3jajh@4ax.com... On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:31:34 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax .com... On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote: >There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That'swhat >you don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****.
Ifit >goes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on. I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..Actually, it is. The problem is that nobody recognizes this. IMO the emotions involved in reunion are incredibly difficult.. for some.
Sure. I'm not discounting that. I still believe the truth in my original
statement, though. Processing difficult emotions don't require the services
of go-between amateurs or mandatory councilors. We ~can~ handle our own
****. If in handling that **** one decides that he needs some counseling or
therapy, fine. Either way, life moves on; with or without a successful
reunion.

The whole premise that people who are separated by adoption require the
intrusion of wannabe do-gooders renders us all children. Are you of the
notion that we're unable to make decisions in a reunion situation?

And again, if, for whatever reason, a reunion doesn't work out, there's
worse things in life. In the greater scale of things, it's not a big deal.

Jack

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:03:42 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:02:10 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip>I wrote:>>Oh sure. You just don't know them. Assholery now, assholery forever!>>Oh, I'm not denying that there are assholes here. I've been>here since 1993 and I pretty much have them pegged.It was a *joke* Nancy.Yeah, I know, but the matter of assholes on a.a is never farfrom the surface and I thought I might as well address it.Yeah, on accounta it's not going to come up naturally. Ahem.

LOL. Good point.
<snip>>But this is irrelevant to my point: Many people have been>going around and around and around on this subject with>Jackie for many many months, and *no one* has advocated that>a reasonable amount of time not be given to the birthmother>to get her **** together before contacting siblings.That's good. So what's the problem?Well, *my* problem is that Jackie seems to disregard thatlittle detail.Maybe that's not her issue with it.

Perhaps not, but it sure makes for a counterproductive
dialog when the one party consistently ignores your position
and responds as if you hold the opposite position.

That being said, at the present I am having a civil and
productive conversation with Jackie--probably the first one
we've had in years--and I'm enjoying it very much. I like
Jackie--when she's not making me nuts.
She can still worry about thenmoms, think about how it might be for them, feel for them. She'sgoing to put herself into the nmom's head, she's going to have totalempathy with her. That's just Jackie being Jackie.True--but I live in hope that some day she will actuallyacknowledge what others have to say.She does, imo, but it doesn't change who she is and how she thinks inthe way that some people want it to.

[I'm going to have to work on this one for a while.]
How do you feel aboutadoptees as slave?How do I feel about it? Umm... I'm foursquare against slavery, otherthan yard***** slavery.If you meant that question seriously, then I think that there are someevident parallels between slavery and adoption. After noting them,one moves on to the more important ways in which adoption differs fromslavery.

I completely agree.Why do you ask?

Well, this is another issue that has been rearing it's ugly
head here for a while. As I understand it, Jackie and Di
are not just *likening* (US) adoption to slavery or finding
parallels between them, they are equating the two
absolutely. [If I've misinterpreted this, I'm sure someone
will set the record straight.] It's another discussion in
which Jackie takes (and gives) a great deal of flack. I
wondered if you were aware of the debate, and whether you
see this as another example of Jackie just being
misunderstood and under appreciated.

Nancy<snip>Freedom fighting in Tibet for the Dalai Lama! Living in one of thosebio-dome experiments! They're a contestant on Survivor!Oh man--I wouldn't pressure any bmom who was a contestant onSurvivor.Me neither - who would do that show anyway? Nevermind, I probablydon't want to know.In the Witness Protection Program. Undercover with the CIA.Martha Stewart's cellmate. Martha Stewart.Eeeeek! It's Maaaaaaaaaaaaartha!<snip>It's a name worth remembering. Game show hostesses simplydon't get enough credit for their contribution tocivilization, ya know.Agreed. Free Vanna!!GR

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:52:08 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

I wrote: Oh sure. You just don't know them. Assholery now, assholery forever!On alt. a? Regarding this issue? Names please? :)

I can't actually tell if you got the joke. Have you met Jean, by any
chance?

GR

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:19:00 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:

Kathy: >So what is a respectful time frame?

Someone (maybe Kathy again):And Jackie avoids the question :

Because what is right for me may not be right for anyone else.There is no answer as far as I am concerned..Jackie


Exactly. It is unanswerable. I actually leave the question of what
is "right" for each person out of it and just make something up. It's
arbitrary, it's not geared to the individual and their experience.
It's just what I consider to be a reasonable six months notice to
either get up the nerve to come out of the closet or the other person
is going to do what they need to do.

It's not an answer, it's not "the" answer, it's just a compromise
solution with the nmoms doing the compromising. I think that's what
you object to most strongly. The 'lay the hard **** on the nmoms
again' solution. I hear ya and I loathe that aspect of it as well. I
just don't have a good alternative. I don't think that there is one.

GR

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:24:02 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:

<snip>

I wrote:Maybe that's not her issue with it.Perhaps not, but it sure makes for a counterproductivedialog when the one party consistently ignores your positionand responds as if you hold the opposite position.That being said, at the present I am having a civil andproductive conversation with Jackie--probably the first onewe've had in years--and I'm enjoying it very much. I likeJackie--when she's not making me nuts.

Cool.
She can still worry about the>nmoms, think about how it might be for them, feel for them. She's>going to put herself into the nmom's head, she's going to have total>empathy with her. That's just Jackie being Jackie.True--but I live in hope that some day she will actuallyacknowledge what others have to say.She does, imo, but it doesn't change who she is and how she thinks inthe way that some people want it to.[I'm going to have to work on this one for a while.]

Okay.
How do you feel aboutadoptees as slave?How do I feel about it? Umm... I'm foursquare against slavery, otherthan yard***** slavery.If you meant that question seriously, then I think that there are someevident parallels between slavery and adoption. After noting them,one moves on to the more important ways in which adoption differs fromslavery.I completely agree.Why do you ask?Well, this is another issue that has been rearing it's uglyhead here for a while.

Oh, how..... nice.
As I understand it, Jackie and Diare not just *likening* (US) adoption to slavery or findingparallels between them, they are equating the twoabsolutely. [If I've misinterpreted this, I'm sure someonewill set the record straight.]

I have no idea about Di, but Jackie isn't really about absolutes.
Even if she makes an absolute statement about something, she could see
it another way on another day and her opinions evolve over time. Her
thinking is more fluid than some people here are comfortable dealing
with, it upsets them. I seriously doubt that will change.
It's another discussion inwhich Jackie takes (and gives) a great deal of flack. Iwondered if you were aware of the debate, and whether yousee this as another example of Jackie just beingmisunderstood and under appreciated.

I am not aware of the debate so I don't know if it's another example
of Jackie being misunderstood and under-appreciated. What do you
think it is?

GR

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 10/26/03 8:30 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <qjsopvkvn7h2u3r05m8cj45smm7lgnc5bp@4ax.com>

< snip >
It's another discussion in which Jackie takes (and gives) agreat deal of flack. I wondered if you were aware of the debate,and whether you see this as another example of Jackie just beingmisunderstood and under appreciated.I am not aware of the debate so I don't know if it's another exampleof Jackie being misunderstood and under-appreciated. What do youthink it is?

Well, she finally lost me when she argued for weeks that adoption was a form
of slavery. Perhaps it was I who misunderstood.

Massa Dad

TOP POST : How do you feel about Jackie taking what was shared here by a
long time poster to the poster's birthmom? Unbeknownst to the poster
until it was already done? How do you feel about Jackie meddling in a
poster's reunion? Again, with out the posters knowledge or input? The
birthmom doesn't post here and never has Jackies defense of this was the
poster brought the birthmom here so the birthmom had a right to know she
was being talked about. Even though she NEVER came here or posted here.
Am I missing the fluidity ?
You have been gone a longtime GR and the Jackie that is posting right
now today is on her best behavior for you. Please stop disrespecting us
and making our opinions invalid. We are not that petty. Maybe YOU should
buy a clue.
Windforest
-----------------------------------------------------------

Re: Just for the record

Group: alt.adoption Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2003, 1:30am (MST+7) From:
gragain@earthlink.net (GR)
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:24:02 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
<snip>
I wrote:
Maybe that's not her issue with it.


Perhaps not, but it sure makes for a counterproductive dialog when the
one party consistently ignores your position and responds as if you hold
the opposite position.
That being said, at the present I am having a civil and productive
conversation with Jackie--probably the first one we've had in years--and
I'm enjoying it very much. I like Jackie--when she's not making me nuts.

Cool.
She can still worry about the
nmoms, think about how it might be for them, feel for them. She's going
to put herself into the nmom's head, she's going to have total empathy
with her. That's just Jackie being Jackie.

True--but I live in hope that some day she will actually acknowledge
what others have to say.

She does, imo, but it doesn't change who she is and how she thinks in
the way that some people want it to.
[I'm going to have to work on this one for a while.]

Okay.
How do you feel about
adoptees as slave?


How do I feel about it? Umm... I'm foursquare against slavery, other
than yard***** slavery.
If you meant that question seriously, then I think that there are some
evident parallels between slavery and adoption. After noting them, one
moves on to the more important ways in which adoption differs from
slavery.

I completely agree.

Why do you ask?


Well, this is another issue that has been rearing it's ugly head here
for a while.
Oh, how..... nice.
As I understand it, Jackie and Di
are not just *likening* (US) adoption to slavery or finding parallels
between them, they are equating the two absolutely. [If I've
misinterpreted this, I'm sure someone will set the record straight.]

I have no idea about Di, but Jackie isn't really about absolutes. Even
if she makes an absolute statement about something, she could see it
another way on another day and her opinions evolve over time. Her
thinking is more fluid than some people here are comfortable dealing
with, it upsets them. I seriously doubt that will change.


It's another discussion in
which Jackie takes (and gives) a great deal of flack. I wondered if you
were aware of the debate, and whether you see this as another example of
Jackie just being misunderstood and under appreciated.

I am not aware of the debate so I don't know if it's another example of
Jackie being misunderstood and under-appreciated. What do you think it
is?
GR

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 01:30:32 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:24:02 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip>I wrote:Maybe that's not her issue with it.Perhaps not, but it sure makes for a counterproductivedialog when the one party consistently ignores your positionand responds as if you hold the opposite position.That being said, at the present I am having a civil andproductive conversation with Jackie--probably the first onewe've had in years--and I'm enjoying it very much. I likeJackie--when she's not making me nuts.Cool.>She can still worry about the>>nmoms, think about how it might be for them, feel for them. She's>>going to put herself into the nmom's head, she's going to have total>>empathy with her. That's just Jackie being Jackie.>>True--but I live in hope that some day she will actually>acknowledge what others have to say.She does, imo, but it doesn't change who she is and how she thinks inthe way that some people want it to.[I'm going to have to work on this one for a while.]Okay.>How do you feel about>adoptees as slave?How do I feel about it? Umm... I'm foursquare against slavery, otherthan yard***** slavery.If you meant that question seriously, then I think that there are someevident parallels between slavery and adoption. After noting them,one moves on to the more important ways in which adoption differs fromslavery.I completely agree.Why do you ask?Well, this is another issue that has been rearing it's uglyhead here for a while.Oh, how..... nice.

Right.As I understand it, Jackie and Diare not just *likening* (US) adoption to slavery or findingparallels between them, they are equating the twoabsolutely. [If I've misinterpreted this, I'm sure someonewill set the record straight.]I have no idea about Di, but Jackie isn't really about absolutes.Even if she makes an absolute statement about something, she could seeit another way on another day and her opinions evolve over time. Herthinking is more fluid than some people here are comfortable dealingwith, it upsets them. I seriously doubt that will change.

I don't really have a problem with that, actually. I change
my mind too. Sometimes I even hold 2 opposing opinions
simultaneously, depending on my mood. In those instances, I
usually try to keep my mouth shut because I'm accountable
for my words and no one is going to make excuses for me.
It's another discussion inwhich Jackie takes (and gives) a great deal of flack. Iwondered if you were aware of the debate, and whether yousee this as another example of Jackie just beingmisunderstood and under appreciated.I am not aware of the debate so I don't know if it's another exampleof Jackie being misunderstood and under-appreciated. What do youthink it is?

Good one! :-) I'll bite.

In this case, I don't think Jackie is either misunderstood
or under-appreciated. I think she and Di are wrong.

Nancy
GR

On 26 Oct 2003 17:12:06 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
Interesting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI inorder to check out my family.It does not bother me.JackieBut it bothers you if he were to decide to contact some of that family withoutyour consent?


What I don't know does not hurt me..

Jackie

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:18:48 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:56:52 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:24:11 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by any>of this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasy>world.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her private>detective and got all the info she wanted about the history of her>family. .Right. And I probably would have done the same. In mycase, though, the problem was handled by my bmom neglectingto tell me that I actually had any siblings until 2 yearsafter I found her. (They, too, had been adopted and hadreunited before I did, so there was no official record ofthem).She was living in a pretend world..Maybe, but I think it was much more complicated than that.First and foremost, she was embarrassed for us to learn thatshe'd been that promiscuous and careless, but there weresome other factors working as well.

Guilt and shame.. Hard to face..

Especially in the sixties.. No one wanted to be a tramp..
>> Nothing changed in>>that time, so why does a 17 year wait make everything all>>right?>>I don't know about time limits..I addressed some thoughts on this in another post thismorning.And I say I don't know..No, no one does and I wasn't asking you to define it. Ithink a "reasonable" amount of time falls somewhere betweenwhat one party feels they need and what the other is willingto give.

Yes.. One of life's lessons.
>I do not think there should be universal thinking on this because>again.. the power goes to the collective thinking and is not between>the parties directly involved in the reunion...Exactly. We on alt.a aren't going to write the book ofrules for human interaction.LOL yes..>Jackie who hopes you had a nice trip Nancy..Thank you, I did. I spent 2 lovely weeks eating haggis,neeps, and tatties in Scotland. :-)You ate haggis?????I did--*a lot* of haggis. I loved it. I ordered it on awhim for a starter the first night I was there, expecting itto be strong and gross like liver, but it wasn't anythinglike that. I started ordering it everywhere I went--Iconsider this trip a "Hagg-a-thon". I'm in withdrawal atthe moment.

Its like a bread/meat pudding isn't it.. Lots of spices..

I think I have tasted it..
My hubby is from Glasgow.. For a while there I could not understandhis relatives when they came over for a visit..LOL. In the little town my relatives come from the samething happened to me. They have a peculiar dialect thereand they may as well have been speaking Bulgarian or Swahilias far as I was concerned.

Yes..

Hubby and family have these big reunions.. The relatives travel to
Canada every year.
One relative brought a drinking cup (quaich?) to pass around in a
toast or something like that..
Everyone caught a bad cold that year.

Jackie

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:57:32 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Who am I to oppose anything?Well you certainly have in the past - you now seem to be singing a differenttune. Which is fine but when someone makes such an abrupt change it takes amoment to adjust.

I read that study that Di posted..


Jackie

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 08:12:57 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
There is no answer as far as I am concerned.. JackieNobody was asking you for an "answer". They were asking you for *yourpersonal opinion on the matter*. Something you were more than willing togive in the past but now seem reticient about.


What are you inferring?

Ya wanna have a fight?


Jackie

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:23:33 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:19:00 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:Kathy:> >So what is a respectful time frame?Someone (maybe Kathy again):And Jackie avoids the question :Because what is right for me may not be right for anyone else.There is no answer as far as I am concerned..JackieExactly. It is unanswerable. I actually leave the question of whatis "right" for each person out of it and just make something up. It'sarbitrary, it's not geared to the individual and their experience.It's just what I consider to be a reasonable six months notice toeither get up the nerve to come out of the closet or the other personis going to do what they need to do.It's not an answer, it's not "the" answer, it's just a compromisesolution with the nmoms doing the compromising. I think that's whatyou object to most strongly.

It is.. Someone messed with them in the past and they sorted how to
cope..

Now we have young women coming on line who have given up the new
modern way.. They get the pictures promised and they become
emotionally obsessed with the baby.. (some do)

Usuary.. again...

It pisses me off GR..
The 'lay the hard **** on the nmomsagain' solution. I hear ya and I loathe that aspect of it as well. Ijust don't have a good alternative. I don't think that there is one.

You are one very smart lady..

Jackie

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:32:19 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"
<jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:dkfnpvoo68rr12c01r7bj3ve98cdf3jajh@4ax .com... On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:31:34 GMT, "Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:puh7pvgb3la6gstunr6tsaea7tcqheo9ka@4ax .com...> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:52:04 GMT, "Jack Bernhard"> <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote:>> >There is no need for anyone to organize anyone else's reunion. That'swhat> >you don't seem to get. We are adults. We can handle our own ****.Ifit> >goes well, great. If it doesn't, no big deal. Life moves on.>>> I do not believe it's as easy as that Jack..>>Actually, it is. The problem is that nobody recognizes this. IMO the emotions involved in reunion are incredibly difficult.. for some.Sure. I'm not discounting that. I still believe the truth in my originalstatement, though. Processing difficult emotions don't require the servicesof go-between amateurs or mandatory councilors. We ~can~ handle our own****. If in handling that **** one decides that he needs some counseling ortherapy, fine. Either way, life moves on; with or without a successfulreunion.

I was looking at the issue of a forced outing.

JackieThe whole premise that people who are separated by adoption require theintrusion of wannabe do-gooders renders us all children. Are you of thenotion that we're unable to make decisions in a reunion situation?And again, if, for whatever reason, a reunion doesn't work out, there'sworse things in life. In the greater scale of things, it's not a big deal.Jack

Responding to my own post, a superb example of what happens
to me after 3 glasses of wine. (That seems to be going
around). This post is basically gibberish--the only *real*
insight is my sig. Perhaps I'll try to translate it later.
Sorry.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:25:51 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:11:37 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>wrote:On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:47:50 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip>Nancy wrote:<snip>A promise is a guarantee. I guess what I want is somethingin writing that backs up that this was promised.You may never find exactly what you want. It doesn't change reality.It was promised.Otherwiseit's no better than a seller on eBay guaranteeing that hisproduct is authentic--that and $6.50 will get you a cup ofcappucino.Hmm... I can't really equate the situations.The state makes efforts but it doesn't make promises.Sure it does. Sometimes the state makes promises it has no businessmaking. Sometimes it makes promises it cannot fulfill and/or may notwish to fulfill as attitudes within its population change.I think our disagreement (?) is a matter of semanticsbecause we basically seem to be on the same page.

<snip rambling>



Nancy--not responsible for anything in this post thatdoesn't make sense.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:24:02 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Well, this is another issue that has been rearing it's uglyhead here for a while. As I understand it, Jackie and Diare not just *likening* (US) adoption to slavery or findingparallels between them, they are equating the twoabsolutely. [If I've misinterpreted this, I'm sure someonewill set the record straight.] It's another discussion inwhich Jackie takes (and gives) a great deal of flack. Iwondered if you were aware of the debate, and whether yousee this as another example of Jackie just beingmisunderstood and under appreciated.


Nutshell discussion is..

Babies are being purchased in the US.. The selling of babies is a
form of slavery IMO.

Last nite on adopton.com a woman posted that she wanted to sell her
baby.. She wanted to cut out the middle man..

It was erased immediatly..

Before it was erased I asked the poster if she thought that selling a
baby was form of slavery.. I would have loved to have known her
answer..

Jackie

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:42:15 -0700 (MST), badaii@webtv.net
(Windforest) wrote:
TOP POST : How do you feel about Jackie taking what was shared here by along time poster to the poster's birthmom?

I am trying to ignore you because you are having troubles at home..

For the record that long time poster introduced me to her birth mom..
That long time poster and I are great friends and we learn from each
other.. That long time poster knew that alt.adoption is open for
anyone to read..
That long time posters birth mom asked me how I knew my friend and I
told her the friken truth..
I helped the birth mom find my friends posts.. I guess that is the
crime..
Unbeknownst to the posteruntil it was already done?

Anyone that posts messages here knows that these messages are open
forever..
How do you feel about Jackie meddling in aposter's reunion?

OOhhhs very nasty...
Again, with out the posters knowledge or input? Thebirthmom doesn't post here and never has Jackies defense of this was theposter brought the birthmom here so the birthmom had a right to know shewas being talked about. Even though she NEVER came here or posted here.Am I missing the fluidity ?

No.. you are changing the course of the river..
You have been gone a longtime GR and the Jackie that is posting rightnow today is on her best behavior for you. Please stop disrespecting usand making our opinions invalid. We are not that petty. Maybe YOU shouldbuy a clue.Windforest

Now I know why I ignore you.

Jackie-----------------------------------------------------------Re: Just for the recordGroup: alt.adoption Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2003, 1:30am (MST+7) From:gragain@earthlink.net (GR)On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:24:02 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip>I wrote:Maybe that's not her issue with it.Perhaps not, but it sure makes for a counterproductive dialog when theone party consistently ignores your position and responds as if you holdthe opposite position.That being said, at the present I am having a civil and productiveconversation with Jackie--probably the first one we've had in years--andI'm enjoying it very much. I like Jackie--when she's not making me nuts.Cool.She can still worry about thenmoms, think about how it might be for them, feel for them. She's goingto put herself into the nmom's head, she's going to have total empathywith her. That's just Jackie being Jackie.True--but I live in hope that some day she will actually acknowledgewhat others have to say.She does, imo, but it doesn't change who she is and how she thinks inthe way that some people want it to.[I'm going to have to work on this one for a while.]Okay.How do you feel aboutadoptees as slave?How do I feel about it? Umm... I'm foursquare against slavery, otherthan yard***** slavery.If you meant that question seriously, then I think that there are someevident parallels between slavery and adoption. After noting them, onemoves on to the more important ways in which adoption differs fromslavery.I completely agree.Why do you ask?Well, this is another issue that has been rearing it's ugly head herefor a while.Oh, how..... nice.As I understand it, Jackie and Diare not just *likening* (US) adoption to slavery or finding parallelsbetween them, they are equating the two absolutely. [If I'vemisinterpreted this, I'm sure someone will set the record straight.]I have no idea about Di, but Jackie isn't really about absolutes. Evenif she makes an absolute statement about something, she could see itanother way on another day and her opinions evolve over time. Herthinking is more fluid than some people here are comfortable dealingwith, it upsets them. I seriously doubt that will change.It's another discussion inwhich Jackie takes (and gives) a great deal of flack. I wondered if youwere aware of the debate, and whether you see this as another example ofJackie just being misunderstood and under appreciated.I am not aware of the debate so I don't know if it's another example ofJackie being misunderstood and under-appreciated. What do you think itis?GR

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:31:31 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
Even though hubby's not watching the "right" sport, fans will be fans.It's nice that you have some peace and quiet to do your own thing.


I love my laptop..

I hope you don't get fed up with all of this arguing..


Jackie

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:15:53 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:18:48 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:56:52 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:24:11 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>>What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by any>>of this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasy>>world.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her private>>detective and got all the info she wanted about the history of her>>family. .>>Right. And I probably would have done the same. In my>case, though, the problem was handled by my bmom neglecting>to tell me that I actually had any siblings until 2 years>after I found her. (They, too, had been adopted and had>reunited before I did, so there was no official record of>them).She was living in a pretend world..Maybe, but I think it was much more complicated than that.First and foremost, she was embarrassed for us to learn thatshe'd been that promiscuous and careless, but there weresome other factors working as well.Guilt and shame.. Hard to face..Especially in the sixties.. No one wanted to be a tramp..

This was even before the sixties. The funny thing was that
absolutely everyone in her life had always known she'd had
me and the older of my 2 brothers--I mean *everyone*, right
from the get-go. It was only the youngest, R., that no one
(except her husband) knew about, and it was only him she
wanted to protect from the knowledge of her, um, sordid past
because she'd decided he was too emotionally delicate to
handle it. [LOL--this is the one who's a roadie, hardly Mr.
Sensitive]. As my other brother and I returned to her life,
she withheld the knowledge of our existences from R. and
from each other because she was afraid we'd collude to find
R. and burst his bubble.

>>> Nothing changed in>>>that time, so why does a 17 year wait make everything all>>>right?>>>>I don't know about time limits..>>I addressed some thoughts on this in another post this>morning.And I say I don't know..No, no one does and I wasn't asking you to define it. Ithink a "reasonable" amount of time falls somewhere betweenwhat one party feels they need and what the other is willingto give.Yes.. One of life's lessons.

I guess.>>I do not think there should be universal thinking on this because>>again.. the power goes to the collective thinking and is not between>>the parties directly involved in the reunion...>>Exactly. We on alt.a aren't going to write the book of>rules for human interaction.LOL yes..>>Jackie who hopes you had a nice trip Nancy..>>Thank you, I did. I spent 2 lovely weeks eating haggis,>neeps, and tatties in Scotland. :-)You ate haggis?????I did--*a lot* of haggis. I loved it. I ordered it on awhim for a starter the first night I was there, expecting itto be strong and gross like liver, but it wasn't anythinglike that. I started ordering it everywhere I went--Iconsider this trip a "Hagg-a-thon". I'm in withdrawal atthe moment.Its like a bread/meat pudding isn't it.. Lots of spices..I think I have tasted it..

It seems to come in different forms, though I don't think it
ever has bread in it. When served for breakfast it often
resembles a fried sausage patty, which I actually never
tasted because it looked a bit too much like "black
pudding". Otherwise it resembles cooked (loose) ground beef
with barley and oats. The latter gives it a sort of creamy
consistency which is very nice. I never figured out what
the spices were--sometimes it was heavily spiced, sometimes
barely at all--but it gives it a little kick like cayenne
pepper. It's usually served with mashed potatoes and
turnips on the side, sometimes with a gravy, though I also
had it wrapped in spring rolls and in a "stack". [sigh...]
My hubby is from Glasgow.. For a while there I could not understandhis relatives when they came over for a visit..LOL. In the little town my relatives come from the samething happened to me. They have a peculiar dialect thereand they may as well have been speaking Bulgarian or Swahilias far as I was concerned.Yes..Hubby and family have these big reunions.. The relatives travel toCanada every year.One relative brought a drinking cup (quaich?) to pass around in atoast or something like that..Everyone caught a bad cold that year.

Someone gave us one of those, but we haven't used it. I
think if you put a dram of whisky in it, it takes care of
all those nasty germs. :-)

Nancy
Jackie

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:j15opv0nk188s18vtne7jc0msl8iq8ci5p@4ax.com... On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:03:42 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:02:10 -0600, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip>I wrote:>>>Oh sure. You just don't know them. Assholery now, assholery
forever!>>>>Oh, I'm not denying that there are assholes here. I've been>>here since 1993 and I pretty much have them pegged.>>It was a *joke* Nancy.Yeah, I know, but the matter of assholes on a.a is never farfrom the surface and I thought I might as well address it.Yeah, on accounta it's not going to come up naturally. Ahem. LOL. Good point.<snip>>>But this is irrelevant to my point: Many people have been>>going around and around and around on this subject with>>Jackie for many many months, and *no one* has advocated that>>a reasonable amount of time not be given to the birthmother>>to get her **** together before contacting siblings.>>That's good. So what's the problem?Well, *my* problem is that Jackie seems to disregard thatlittle detail.Maybe that's not her issue with it. Perhaps not, but it sure makes for a counterproductive dialog when the one party consistently ignores your position and responds as if you hold the opposite position.

There you have it *one* of the major reasons a lot of people respond to
Jackie the way they do - I know it is one that annoys me. She doesn't
bother to actually make note of a poster's position on a particularly
subject, instead she always goes into the "poor birthmother riff". I guess
that is easier that actually responding to the discussion at hand.

Kathy 1

Kathy 1

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m1jopvgn92tfmkha5o4ff76thd4o7n9s5u@4ax.com... On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:52:08 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> I wrote: Oh sure. You just don't know them. Assholery now, assholery forever!On alt. a? Regarding this issue? Names please? :) I can't actually tell if you got the joke. Have you met Jean, by any chance? GR

Yes, I've had the pleasure (?) Since she has a thing for Marley (oh and
Jack after his ahem spoof) and Bastard Nation she rarely responds to others.
I'm glad you could fill the void while Marley is temporarily absent ;)

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:568qpvs3j5k8fobbhjdcg9khhi9odkkset@4ax.com...

I was looking at the issue of a forced outing.

I wasn't. Thanks for the non-conversation.


Jack

In article <20031025101430.03841.00000060@mb-m23.aol.com>, Tm n Kat says...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003 8:21 AMWhat I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily.Really? I hated having to play the private detective part just to get infoabout my history, made me feel kind of creepy. Kathy J

That's pretty much what I did on my own with I got the old heave ho. Part of me
found it absolutely fascinating (searching websites for mentions of her name,
her parents, sister, ex-husband, etc.), but at the same time I felt a bit
"dirty" having to do this to find out my family history, something other people
just take for granted ;/

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:36:08 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:31:31 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:Even though hubby's not watching the "right" sport, fans will be fans.It's nice that you have some peace and quiet to do your own thing.I love my laptop..

Technogeek!!
I hope you don't get fed up with all of this arguing..

Well, it's boring as **** - that's for sure. However, since I'm on
the injured list at the moment, I'll probably be around for a while.

GR

In article <20031024202957.27005.00000078@mb-m24.aol.com>, Tm n Kat says...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 10/24/2003Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)Date: 10/24/2003 If you don't happen to croak in the interim.DadIt's happened in two instances that I know of, one my half sibling, and in athird situation, the agency finally allowed a reunion when one party wasdiagnoised with terminal lung cancer. Kathy J

See, stuff like this scares me. Bad enough I already feel like an f'ing ghoul
looking for a bio-grandparents' obituary when I get my bmom's local paper every
Thursday. How would I feel if I came across my bmom's obituary? Or one of my
half-siblings? Would I regret that I never tried to contact them? Yikes ;P

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031024150225.08626.00001387@mb-m27.aol.com>, KL says...
snipOr not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but more because of just whenIS a good time to bring it up? My finding her was a chance for her to bring itup. And she did. She then proceeded to tell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me.

Wow, that is absolutely fantastic :)

Now, excuse me while I indulge in a jealous grumble <grumble, grumble> :D

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8n6qpvcdiehm4a23rbo6bf5e372ta3a5jg@4ax.com... On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 08:12:57 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote: There is no answer as far as I am concerned.. JackieNobody was asking you for an "answer". They were asking you for *yourpersonal opinion on the matter*. Something you were more than willing togive in the past but now seem reticient about. What are you inferring? Ya wanna have a fight? Jackie

Says Jackie, avoiding the question again.

Kathy 1

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:46:16 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Responding to my own post, a superb example of what happensto me after 3 glasses of wine. (That seems to be goingaround). This post is basically gibberish--the only *real*insight is my sig. Perhaps I'll try to translate it later.Sorry.

No worries. I took a look at it yesterday, decided it was too much
for me to deal with at the mo' and marked it unread. I'll look at it
again later.

GR

<snip>

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p63opv07sh8nggoat1v60fenclvqkem322@4ax.com... On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:35:33 +0100, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: <snip> I wrote: They didn't call them Magdalens here, they were, literally, called homes for unwed mothers, sometimes with some do-gooders name attached. So and so's Home For Unwed Girls.Magdalens were places of punishment and detention. *Families* could (andmany did) put their daughter in there. She might have been surplus torequirements, a threat to an inheritance by a male relative perhaps, orsimply because the mother had died and it was deemed inappropriate that ayoung girl should remain in an all-male household. Parish priests, or
othersanctimonious feckers who thought the girl might be an occasion of sin
fortheir husbands and sons could 'arrange' for her to be sent to the
MagdalenLaundry. They were not M&B Homes. As far as I know the majority of women
whoended up in Magdalens - in Ireland, anyway - were not pregnant, and manywere in fact, virgins. Yep. There's a recent documentary now making the rounds in the States, it's all about the Magdalens.

Amazing. Awarding-winning, deservedly.

I wonder if they use that old Joni Mitchell song about them? Amazing song. Anyway - I think that the Magdalens there were a lot worse than "Fanny Farkle's Home For Unwed Girls" here in the States. You never got a life sentence in them, as I understand many girls got at the Magdalens.

They were hell-holes. Abandon Hope All Ye...

Helen

GR

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:18:39 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:46:16 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Responding to my own post, a superb example of what happensto me after 3 glasses of wine. (That seems to be goingaround). This post is basically gibberish--the only *real*insight is my sig. Perhaps I'll try to translate it later.Sorry.No worries. I took a look at it yesterday, decided it was too muchfor me to deal with at the mo' and marked it unread. I'll look at itagain later.

Don't bother, it's mostly senseless drivel born out of just
the wrong amount of wine. It's not the worst thing I've
ever done under those circumstances--I once spent the better
part of an evening explaining my opinion of the Windfall
Profit Tax to the president of Amoco. :-(

Nancy
GR<snip>

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:25:51 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
But the fact remains, there isn't a way to demonstrate this.The state just sealed the records and changed the birthcertificates in deference to those who wanted it thus, butthey really didn't have much to say about it officially anddidn't make any guarantees.

The very fact that they sealed the records is the telling IMO.

She could not check up on her kid at any time.. Even when grown.

Jackie

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<3hbnb.25527$cJ5.4101@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031025101430.03841.00000060@mb-m23.aol.com>, Tm n Kat says...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/25/2003 8:21 AMWhat I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by anyof this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasyworld.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her privatedetective and got all the info she wanted about the history of herfamily.Really? I hated having to play the private detective part just to get infoabout my history, made me feel kind of creepy. Kathy J That's pretty much what I did on my own with I got the old heave ho. Part of me found it absolutely fascinating (searching websites for mentions of her name, her parents, sister, ex-husband, etc.), but at the same time I felt a bit "dirty" having to do this to find out my family history, something other people just take for granted ;/ Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

I know how you feel. I asked a lot of questions when I was newly
reunited. I was just so curious and fascinated. Not necessarily
questions about "me" but rather anything about my birthmother's life,
family, etc. "Some" people took it wrong like I was trying to double
check information, blah blah blah but I just wanted to know what it
was like in their world. Now that I would love to know who my
birthfather is, it would make me feel pretty dirty and creepy to poke
around. I don't know why that is because I certainly did nothing wrong
and I just would want to know about my history. However, I value my
privacy so it is a very fine line. I, personally always feel more
comfortable with things out in the open.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:07:39 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:

<snip>

Jackie wrote:I am sorry this happened to you Robyn.. I have said this before..And I thank you, I appreciate that - However, that doesn't negate your originalcomment. You negated my feelings in favor of my bmom's.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner, kids! At last - someone
fighting about what they are actually fighting about. Kudos Robyn!

Jackie identified with your nmom, with *her* issues, not with yours.
That hits you where you live and you react. Perfect.
It's great for my bmomto go happily back to her secret world,

Umm... it's not probably not all that happy or great to go back to.
but what about the adoptee (who took 40years to get up the nerve to contact her bmom, mind you) who, at the timeanyway, felt like she just got her heart ripped out?

Right. That's your perspective, that's where you are coming from,
this is what's going on with you. It is totally understandable, it's
not unreasonable, not surprising and not intended to hurt someone
else's feelings. It's YOU.

Jackie, while sympathetic, does *not* come from that perspective. Her
perspective is with nmoms, and that's likely to be where it stays. I
don't find that to be unreasonable or surprising, or wrong, or
designed to hurt someone else's feelings. It's HER.

<snip>

GR

lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam (LilMtnCbn) wrote in message news:<20031025100244.04627.00000046@mb-m26.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: jmdjmh@aol.com (J.)Date: 10/24/03 9:44 PM Mountain Daylight TimeMessage-id: <20031024234432.12631.00002368@mb-m28.aol.com>In article <20031024215038.14050.00000073@mb-m29.aol.com>, adoptadad@aol.com(AdoptaDad) writes:>Subject: Re: Just for the record>From: klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)>Date: 10/24/03 3:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time>Message-id: <20031024150225.08626.00001387@mb-m27.aol.com> < snip >>>If the woman has not told anyone IMO there is a very big red flag>>flying.>>>>Jackie>>Or not. In my case, my bmother had told no one, but more>because of just when IS a good time to bring it up? My finding>her was a chance for her to bring it up. And she did. She then >proceededtotell EVERYONE with PRIDE about me. Again, how cool is that!DadAre things different for the different generations?A woman we know only casually recently reunited with the daughter she hadrelinquished a little more than 20 years ago. She's been very open about thefact of her relinquishment and reunion with people whom she knows. She'salready introduced her daughter to her current family, which includes twoyoungboys.In one of those strange twists of fate, she'd already met he daughter'sadoptive aunt, when the aunt came to ask the members of a church to pray forher dying sister. Yeah, it was the daughter's adoptive mother that the birthmother found herself praying for, albeit unwittingly. It was not untilafterthe reunion that she made the connection. As I understand it, that briefmeeting with the aunt and her obvious compassion for the dying woman hashelpedthe adoptive family come to terms with the reunion and with their newrelatives, if you will.J. Whenever you hear stories like that it really does make you wonder if there are real coincidences in life, or a master plan. :-)


My amom and I are taking my daughter to Chicago tomorrow to meet her
Great Grandma, aunts, uncles, and cousins. The cousin I am staying
with lives in a suburb of Chicago. Almost all of my bfamily (extended
and otherwise) live in small, close towns. My bcousin and her husband
left this area and first moved to the same city in Florida where my
sister in law lives. They just moved again and moved to the same
suburb of Chicago where my acousin lives and where we will be staying.
My buncle (this cousins Father) was in the military for a short time
and the only time they were out of their small town in Nebraska was
for about three years when he was stationed at a base in California.
Coincidentally we lived there the same time and not only that lived on
the exact same street.

FWIW I think that coincidences in reunions are fascinating. I think
the above church story is really sort of inspiring.

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<e46qpv0gh2ocjaknqdscbg97jkmmasnofd@4ax.com>... On 26 Oct 2003 17:12:06 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:Interesting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI inorder to check out my family.It does not bother me.JackieBut it bothers you if he were to decide to contact some of that family withoutyour consent? What I don't know does not hurt me.. Jackie

I haven't been reading like I used to so I don't mean to sound
redundant, but it would bother you if your son wanted to get to know
your other children (you have two right?). If you have already
adressed this I appologize. Do your kids know about your birthson?
(Seriously not trying to flame you, just wondering). Also, how do
your kids feel about their brother (if they do know about him)? For
anyone else out there with any insight into this, why do kkids
sometimes have such a tough time with the thought of a new sibling?
Two of my siblings were extremely jealous and I thought that was such
an odd reaction. I still don't understand this reaction.

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote That's pretty much what I did on my own with I got the old heave ho. Part of me found it absolutely fascinating (searching websites for mentions of her name, her parents, sister, ex-husband, etc.), but at the same time I felt a bit "dirty" having to do this to find out my family history, something other people just take for granted ;/

I can see what you mean.

I wonder if it's any consolation that people do sometimes have to do
this if they want any info outside the immediate family. I recall
trying to construct a family tree, and found my folks were shockingly
vague on stuff I'd have thought they would just *know* -- even such
things as the married name of their own aunts. ("Oh, I don't remember
-- we just called her 'Eldest Aunt.' Why don't you ask Aunt Rita when
you see her next, maybe she'll know.")

The whole thing was complicated by the Bengali custom of using
nicknames. I know my mother had an Aunt Baby, who died in her mid-90s
or something; but I have no clue as to whether she was my mother's
Aunt on her father's or mother's side, and if by marriage or blood; or
even if she was actually an aunt or a more distant relative who would
still get the title. Or what Baby's real name was.

To be frank, I don't even know how many aunts and uncles my parents
had. I know some of their grand-children, who I consider family -- but
I have cousins out there that I wouldn't recognize if I was introduced
to them.

Good thing my interest in genealogy is fleeting and tangential.

I'm waiting for them to be able to do DNA readouts.

Rupa

In article <jbukpvs3coa85e2am2tt3pballr5e0krj9@4ax.com>,
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:But what I have been trying to deal with and or get across is thatsome here say that the adoptee has the ultimate right here..It gets my back up every darn time it is posted..Jackie

And your way of dealing with it is to post the same arguments over and
over
again. Why? Do you think you will actually change someone's mind? You
haven't yet and never will.

This whole adoptee/birthmother thing is a case of conflicting rights.
The adoptee is the only one who had no say in adoption, therefore his or
her rights trump the birthmother's in most situations.

As for GR's assertion that everyone is being mean to Jackie because she's
a birthmother, boef merde. I happen to disagree with Jackie on this issue,
and with her argument about adoption being slavery. This is Usenet, a
place where people discuss subjects. If Jackie wants a place where she
can pontificate and no one will ever argue with her, she can start her own
forum. Or she can go to Origins where everyone will agree with her.

Linda

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 10/27/2003 2:38 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0310271138.60f04655@posting.google.com>Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<e46qpv0gh2ocjaknqdscbg97jkmmasnofd@4ax.com>... On 26 Oct 2003 17:12:06 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:>Interesting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI in>order to check out my family.>It does not bother me.>>JackieBut it bothers you if he were to decide to contact some of that familywithoutyour consent? What I don't know does not hurt me.. JackieI haven't been reading like I used to so I don't mean to soundredundant, but it would bother you if your son wanted to get to knowyour other children (you have two right?). If you have alreadyadressed this I appologize. Do your kids know about your birthson?(Seriously not trying to flame you, just wondering).

This question is not necessarily directed at Jackie, although she can answer
it if she wishes... what about the birthfather?

I have a son who, without his bmom's assistance, will never know his
birthfather's identity. I don't know if it will even matter to him, but I
would naturally assume that's Big Question #2 after finding one's biological
mother.

Dad

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mmlqpvslq7fpf6kptipkcvco4k1f29s44g@4ax.com... On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:32:30 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:gp5ppvo6u7tnfqai1b3iep4836oojgjj1j@4ax .com... On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:42:15 -0700 (MST), badaii@webtv.net (Windforest) wrote: >and the Jackie that is posting right now today is on her best behaviorfor you.That was my impression too. She reads a lot like the regular Jackie to me.Perhaps, butshedoesn't read like the Jackie of the recent past. That's why knowing Jackie for years, and actually SEEING her, gives a better perspective. I'm going to try this again, dear: BE ANGRY ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY ANGRY ABOUT, HAVE SOME BALLS.

Yes dear. Can I be ng monitor now? ;) One can only have the *same*
conversation so many times before giving up. I think there are alot of
issues that a lot of people have just given up on actually discussing with
Jackie.

Kathy 1

In article <20031027153149.14580.00000178@mb-m20.aol.com>, AdoptaDad says...
snip This question is not necessarily directed at Jackie, although she can answerit if she wishes... what about the birthfather? I have a son who, without his bmom's assistance, will never know hisbirthfather's identity. I don't know if it will even matter to him, but Iwould naturally assume that's Big Question #2 after finding one's biologicalmother.

Well <sigh> it is for me ;(

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <ngrqpvg7k8q6am2li549qve04dmtpd5ed4@4ax.com>, GR says...On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:07:39 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:<snip>Jackie wrote:I am sorry this happened to you Robyn.. I have said this before..And I thank you, I appreciate that - However, that doesn't negate your originalcomment. You negated my feelings in favor of my bmom's.Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner, kids! At last - someonefighting about what they are actually fighting about. Kudos Robyn!

Oooooookay ;)Jackie identified with your nmom, with *her* issues, not with yours.That hits you where you live and you react. Perfect.

Well, yes and no - I believe Jackie would have loved to have been found by her
bson. My bmom wasn't exactly thrilled.
It's great for my bmomto go happily back to her secret world,Umm... it's not probably not all that happy or great to go back to.

Perhaps, so far I have no idea.
but what about the adoptee (who took 40years to get up the nerve to contact her bmom, mind you) who, at the timeanyway, felt like she just got her heart ripped out?Right. That's your perspective, that's where you are coming from,this is what's going on with you. It is totally understandable, it'snot unreasonable, not surprising and not intended to hurt someoneelse's feelings. It's YOU.Jackie, while sympathetic, does *not* come from that perspective. Herperspective is with nmoms, and that's likely to be where it stays. Idon't find that to be unreasonable or surprising, or wrong, ordesigned to hurt someone else's feelings. It's HER.

Believe me, I completely agree. However, what was upsetting to me was that she
made that remark about how I should change my attitude if I wanted to hear from
my birthmother without knowing exactly what my situation was and why had gone
down between me and my bmom.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <e5619372.0310271219.7a6d8889@posting.google.com>, Rupa Bose says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote That's pretty much what I did on my own with I got the old heave ho. Part of me found it absolutely fascinating (searching websites for mentions of her name, her parents, sister, ex-husband, etc.), but at the same time I felt a bit "dirty" having to do this to find out my family history, something other people just take for granted ;/I can see what you mean.I wonder if it's any consolation that people do sometimes have to dothis if they want any info outside the immediate family. I recalltrying to construct a family tree, and found my folks were shockinglyvague on stuff I'd have thought they would just *know* -- even suchthings as the married name of their own aunts. ("Oh, I don't remember-- we just called her 'Eldest Aunt.' Why don't you ask Aunt Rita whenyou see her next, maybe she'll know.")

<chuckle> Well, I do have to admit that it was pretty funny knowing more about
my family history than people I know that aren't adopted ;)

True, I have HUGE chunks missing, but 200 years worth is nothing to sneeze at
either.The whole thing was complicated by the Bengali custom of usingnicknames. I know my mother had an Aunt Baby, who died in her mid-90sor something; but I have no clue as to whether she was my mother'sAunt on her father's or mother's side, and if by marriage or blood; oreven if she was actually an aunt or a more distant relative who wouldstill get the title. Or what Baby's real name was.To be frank, I don't even know how many aunts and uncles my parentshad. I know some of their grand-children, who I consider family -- butI have cousins out there that I wouldn't recognize if I was introducedto them.

Please, my aparents don't know diddily about their bio history ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <4b23522a.0310271121.17453b25@posting.google.com>, Debbie says...Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<3hbnb.25527$cJ5.4101@www.newsranger.com>... In article <20031025101430.03841.00000060@mb-m23.aol.com>, Tm n Kat says...>Subject: Re: Just for the record>From: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.com>Date: 10/25/2003 8:21 AM>What I was trying to say is that IMO Marley was not strung out by any>of this.. Her birth mom refused contact and went back to her fantasy>world.. Marley said "No big deal" and went off with her private>detective and got all the info she wanted about the history of her>family.Really? I hated having to play the private detective part just to get infoabout my history, made me feel kind of creepy. Kathy J That's pretty much what I did on my own with I got the old heave ho. Part of me found it absolutely fascinating (searching websites for mentions of her name, her parents, sister, ex-husband, etc.), but at the same time I felt a bit "dirty" having to do this to find out my family history, something other people just take for granted ;/ Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557I know how you feel. I asked a lot of questions when I was newlyreunited.

Oh dear - I did that and got told to "Put the matter to rest and don't ask me
any further questions".

I was just so curious and fascinated. Not necessarilyquestions about "me" but rather anything about my birthmother's life,family, etc. "Some" people took it wrong like I was trying to doublecheck information, blah blah blah

Really? Wow ;(

but I just wanted to know what itwas like in their world. Now that I would love to know who mybirthfather is,

Amen to that! And I would at the very least love to know about medical info
from him.

it would make me feel pretty dirty and creepy to pokearound.

Really? I've done a little poking around, but it's pretty difficult when you
only have an age, height, hair & eye color, and a first name ;/

I don't know why that is because I certainly did nothing wrongand I just would want to know about my history.

Amen again :)

However, I value myprivacy so it is a very fine line. I, personally always feel morecomfortable with things out in the open.

<sigh> I couldn't agree more.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 06:41:09 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:33:39 -0700, pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com>wrote:On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:50:18 -0400, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:A breath of fresh air..JackieOn Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:11:15 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:52:19 +0100, Robin><alt.adoption@nowhere.nowhere> wrote:>>>in article gboipvkncia3qhc2gnfaavctljk7rpnb98@4ax.com, GR at>>gragain@earthlink.net wrote on 24/10/03 6:33 pm:>>>>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:21:55 +0100, Robin Harritt <nospam@harritt.net>>>> wrote:>>>>>> <snip>Funny thing how refreshing the air can be when someone agreeswith you...still doesn't make one or the other right in the contextof the question.pb...According to you Patty..Jackie

According to *anyone*, Jackie. It's all in who is doing the breathing.

C o n t e x t.

pb...


"To regret one's own experiences is to arrest one's own development."
-- Oscar Wilde
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
http://www.bordc.org/ -- http://www.publicintegrity.org/

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/310iraqoil/iraqoil.pdf

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:17:36 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:18:39 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>wrote:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:46:16 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Responding to my own post, a superb example of what happensto me after 3 glasses of wine. (That seems to be goingaround). This post is basically gibberish--the only *real*insight is my sig. Perhaps I'll try to translate it later.Sorry.No worries. I took a look at it yesterday, decided it was too muchfor me to deal with at the mo' and marked it unread. I'll look at itagain later.Don't bother, it's mostly senseless drivel born out of justthe wrong amount of wine.

The BEST kind of post! Yay!
It's not the worst thing I'veever done under those circumstances--I once spent the betterpart of an evening explaining my opinion of the WindfallProfit Tax to the president of Amoco. :-(

Eek! Well, if you smacked him with a herring afterwards, it was all
worthwhile.

GR

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:50:22 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:17:36 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:18:39 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net>wrote:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:46:16 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>Responding to my own post, a superb example of what happens>to me after 3 glasses of wine. (That seems to be going>around). This post is basically gibberish--the only *real*>insight is my sig. Perhaps I'll try to translate it later.>Sorry.No worries. I took a look at it yesterday, decided it was too muchfor me to deal with at the mo' and marked it unread. I'll look at itagain later.Don't bother, it's mostly senseless drivel born out of justthe wrong amount of wine.The BEST kind of post! Yay!It's not the worst thing I'veever done under those circumstances--I once spent the betterpart of an evening explaining my opinion of the WindfallProfit Tax to the president of Amoco. :-(Eek! Well, if you smacked him with a herring afterwards, it was allworthwhile.

Damn! Wish I'd thought of that!

Nancy
GR

In article <nphqpvc50dhabp0m7dhv9h2qccnjn1l51t@4ax.com>, GR
<gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm on the injured list at the moment

Are you on painkillers?

whoever
---------------------------
coffee might help

In article <20031024234432.12631.00002368@mb-m28.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.com (J.)
wrote:
Are things different for the different generations?

I don't think it's that simple. My birthmother always told everyone about me,
and I was born in the mid-Fifties. I think a lot depends on individual
character.

whoever
------------------------------
coffee character
from the mid-Fifties

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:30:00 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:25:51 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:But the fact remains, there isn't a way to demonstrate this.The state just sealed the records and changed the birthcertificates in deference to those who wanted it thus, butthey really didn't have much to say about it officially anddidn't make any guarantees.The very fact that they sealed the records is the telling IMO.She could not check up on her kid at any time.. Even when grown.

True.

Nancy

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/26/03 4:25 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <i8fnpv4aen3t719m0r9nc98q7lb5mj9383@4ax.com>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:51:59 +0100, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote: (And Jackie DID cry out for you,looking for assistance and backup, for quite a long time.)I did not..Jackie

Liar.

Kathy
"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

In article <20031027194348.07578.00001369@mb-m25.aol.com>,
reveohw@aol.compromise (fiend) writes:
In article <20031024234432.12631.00002368@mb-m28.aol.com>, jmdjmh@aol.com(J.)wrote:Are things different for the different generations?I don't think it's that simple. My birthmother always told everyone about me,and I was born in the mid-Fifties. I think a lot depends on individualcharacter.

Undoubtedly. I was thinking (but not writing) more about a general tendency
over time.

whoever------------------------------coffee characterfrom the mid-Fifties

J.
From just a bit before then.

In article <e5619372.0310271219.7a6d8889@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote That's pretty much what I did on my own with I got the old heave ho. Partof me found it absolutely fascinating (searching websites for mentions of hername, her parents, sister, ex-husband, etc.), but at the same time I felt a bit "dirty" having to do this to find out my family history, something otherpeople just take for granted ;/I can see what you mean.I wonder if it's any consolation that people do sometimes have to dothis if they want any info outside the immediate family. I recalltrying to construct a family tree, and found my folks were shockinglyvague on stuff I'd have thought they would just *know* -- even suchthings as the married name of their own aunts. ("Oh, I don't remember-- we just called her 'Eldest Aunt.' Why don't you ask Aunt Rita whenyou see her next, maybe she'll know.")The whole thing was complicated by the Bengali custom of usingnicknames. I know my mother had an Aunt Baby, who died in her mid-90sor something; but I have no clue as to whether she was my mother'sAunt on her father's or mother's side, and if by marriage or blood; oreven if she was actually an aunt or a more distant relative who wouldstill get the title. Or what Baby's real name was.To be frank, I don't even know how many aunts and uncles my parentshad. I know some of their grand-children, who I consider family -- butI have cousins out there that I wouldn't recognize if I was introducedto them.Good thing my interest in genealogy is fleeting and tangential.I'm waiting for them to be able to do DNA readouts.Rupa

A friend mentioned this book

http://www.borealisbooks.org/books/0873514491.htm

to me last night over dinner, about an Irish settlement in western Minnesota in
the latter part of the 19th Century. The book apparently was triggered by a
visit from Irish relatives who came looking for their American cousins. When
they knocked on the door, the brother of the author supposedly denied any
knowledge of Ireland or any ancestor who ever came out of Ireland. He and the
author later learned, I'm told, that their great-grandparents had made a
conscious decision to sever all ties with Ireland and to close that door to
their descendants, because of some stigma associated with the area of Ireland
from which they came. It set the author on the hunt for an explanation,
resulting in the book "Forgetting Ireland."

I intend to look for it. It sounds like a book that might ring true to many
here.

J.

In article <nphqpvc50dhabp0m7dhv9h2qccnjn1l51t@4ax.com>, GR
<gragain@earthlink.net> writes:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:36:08 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:31:31 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:Even though hubby's not watching the "right" sport, fans will be fans.It's nice that you have some peace and quiet to do your own thing.I love my laptop..Technogeek!!I hope you don't get fed up with all of this arguing..Well, it's boring as **** - that's for sure. However, since I'm onthe injured list at the moment, I'll probably be around for a while.GR

Injured list?

What did I miss?

J.

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<568qpvs3j5k8fobbhjdcg9khhi9odkkset@4ax.com>... IMO the emotions involved in reunion are incredibly difficult .. for some.


Incredibly difficult .. for some.
Only for some?

I understand you are discussing this in terms of a forced 'outing',
but do you think can ever be such a thing as an easy, uncomplicated
reunion?

I understand that someone who'd successfully concealed from her family
that she'd a relinquished a child might be driven by fear at the
expense of other emotions.
But these are not the only women who have specific issues that they
have to come to terms with at reunion. A lot of us have to face up to
things, and sometimes very difficult ones
Call me cynic, but I think the issue here is primarily security, what
you've refered to as 'her comfortable life'.
Not that that's unimportant by a long chalk, and I don't disrespect
it, but it would be easy for a balked adoptee to feel cynical about
what he or she might feel is something of a house of cards.


Rh.


Sure. I'm not discounting that. I still believe the truth in my originalstatement, though. Processing difficult emotions don't require the servicesof go-between amateurs or mandatory councilors. We ~can~ handle our own****. If in handling that **** one decides that he needs some counseling ortherapy, fine. Either way, life moves on; with or without a successfulreunion. I was looking at the issue of a forced outing. JackieThe whole premise that people who are separated by adoption require theintrusion of wannabe do-gooders renders us all children. Are you of thenotion that we're unable to make decisions in a reunion situation?And again, if, for whatever reason, a reunion doesn't work out, there'sworse things in life. In the greater scale of things, it's not a big deal.Jack

In article <20031027153149.14580.00000178@mb-m20.aol.com>, adoptadad@aol.com
(AdoptaDad) writes:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 10/27/2003 2:38 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0310271138.60f04655@posting.google.com>Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<e46qpv0gh2ocjaknqdscbg97jkmmasnofd@4ax.com>... On 26 Oct 2003 17:12:06 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: >>Interesting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI in >>order to check out my family. >>It does not bother me. >> >>Jackie > >But it bothers you if he were to decide to contact some of that familywithout >your consent? What I don't know does not hurt me.. JackieI haven't been reading like I used to so I don't mean to soundredundant, but it would bother you if your son wanted to get to knowyour other children (you have two right?). If you have alreadyadressed this I appologize. Do your kids know about your birthson?(Seriously not trying to flame you, just wondering). This question is not necessarily directed at Jackie, although she cananswerit if she wishes... what about the birthfather? I have a son who, without his bmom's assistance, will never know hisbirthfather's identity. I don't know if it will even matter to him, but Iwould naturally assume that's Big Question #2 after finding one's biologicalmother.Dad

It certainly was for me. But my bmom said she needed time to reveal that to
me. I think she had some ghosts that she had to face. And I waited patiently,
a few weeks, and then she sent a picture of the two of them with his name on
the back. I think it was hard for her, and am glad and proud that she was able
to do it.

KL

In article <e46qpv0gh2ocjaknqdscbg97jkmmasnofd@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On 26 Oct 2003 17:12:06 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:Interesting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI inorder to check out my family.It does not bother me.JackieBut it bothers you if he were to decide to contact some of that familywithoutyour consent?What I don't know does not hurt me..Jackie

????? WTF? So where do you see a problem with sibs contacting without telling
the bparent? Man, are you confusing me...

KL

adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20031027153149.14580.00000178@mb-m20.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: aspensky@knology.net (Debbie)Date: 10/27/2003 2:38 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <4b23522a.0310271138.60f04655@posting.google.com>Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<e46qpv0gh2ocjaknqdscbg97jkmmasnofd@4ax.com>... On 26 Oct 2003 17:12:06 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: >>Interesting.. I am sitting here thinking of my bson contacting a PI in >>order to check out my family. >>It does not bother me. >> >>Jackie > >But it bothers you if he were to decide to contact some of that family without >your consent? What I don't know does not hurt me.. JackieI haven't been reading like I used to so I don't mean to soundredundant, but it would bother you if your son wanted to get to knowyour other children (you have two right?). If you have alreadyadressed this I appologize. Do your kids know about your birthson?(Seriously not trying to flame you, just wondering). This question is not necessarily directed at Jackie, although she can answer it if she wishes... what about the birthfather? I have a son who, without his bmom's assistance, will never know his birthfather's identity. I don't know if it will even matter to him, but I would naturally assume that's Big Question #2 after finding one's biological mother.


I think you are being disingenuous, Dad (just something about the way
you phrased it . . )
Jackie addressed that 'not necessarily directed at her' question
plenty of times. Although it's clearly difficult for her, as far as I
can ascertain she's never dissembled about it.
We might do well to remember that there but for the grace of God, etc,
a good (and mercifully for them, anonymous. Important point, that) few
have might well have gone.
I'm actually very sympathetic with Jackie and her son about the
paternity thing.

I imagine it must be a big question for many adopted adults, and tough
when no answer's forthcoming. I truly hope it never becomes a problem
for your son.


Rh.

Dad