On 24 Oct 2003 19:02:27 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:

<snip>
Now, don't jump the gun and take this wrong. I agree...bparents have crap too,but they had *some* say in the matter.

Not always. Sometimes they had no say at all, and certainly didn't
control the social, cultural and religious impositions of silence on
themselves.
The adoptee has always been controlled.

Yep.
Yet when the adoptee finally stands up and tries to get some control, you seemto want to slam them back into being controlled.

Nope, it's just that if other people are going to be any part of you
trying to get some control, then you're going to have to deal with
them as fully human, not an abstract information-providing atm for
you.

Give 'em six months to tell their kids, tell their husbands, take a
breather and stop shaking, whatever it is they need to do. Six
months, imo, is a reasonable time-period. If they give you the same
old no-info bull**** after that - then you've behaved decently, they
haven't, and you can go on about whatever it is you need to do to get
your needs met.

My $.02.

GR

In article <ofcjpvkielt2atgugotkvgeo44nnvr1kb5@4ax.com>, GR
<gragain@earthlink.net> writes:
On 24 Oct 2003 19:02:27 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:<snip>Now, don't jump the gun and take this wrong. I agree...bparents have craptoo,but they had *some* say in the matter.Not always. Sometimes they had no say at all, and certainly didn'tcontrol the social, cultural and religious impositions of silence onthemselves.

Yet mostly (albeit there are some exceptions) didn't they have a say in the
actions that got them pregnant?
The adoptee has always been controlled.Yep. Yet when the adoptee finally stands up and tries to get some control, youseemto want to slam them back into being controlled.Nope, it's just that if other people are going to be any part of youtrying to get some control, then you're going to have to deal withthem as fully human, not an abstract information-providing atm foryou.Give 'em six months to tell their kids, tell their husbands, take abreather and stop shaking, whatever it is they need to do. Sixmonths, imo, is a reasonable time-period. If they give you the sameold no-info bull**** after that - then you've behaved decently, theyhaven't, and you can go on about whatever it is you need to do to getyour needs met.My $.02.GR

Well I have given my bfather over 4 years, and I am still waiting patiently. I
AM respecting his wishes at the current time, although I do admit to thinking
about having a friend call up my brother and fill him in. Just too scared to
do it myself, so I will probably have to wait until I can find that courage.

KL

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ofcjpvkielt2atgugotkvgeo44nnvr1kb5@4ax.com... On 24 Oct 2003 19:02:27 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: <snip>Now, don't jump the gun and take this wrong. I agree...bparents have
crap too,but they had *some* say in the matter. Not always. Sometimes they had no say at all, and certainly didn't control the social, cultural and religious impositions of silence on themselves.

I was going to respond to this point in another of your posts but I'll do it
here to save time. Not to minimize the pressure *some* girls felt,
apparently society wasn't quite as dire as you painted in another post as
even during the height of the "bad old days" the majority of unwed pregnant
women kept their children. Still others had no problem telling their
husbands and susequent children of the relinquishment.
The adoptee has always been controlled. Yep. Yet when the adoptee finally stands up and tries to get some control,
you seemto want to slam them back into being controlled. Nope, it's just that if other people are going to be any part of you trying to get some control, then you're going to have to deal with them as fully human, not an abstract information-providing atm for you. Give 'em six months to tell their kids, tell their husbands, take a breather and stop shaking, whatever it is they need to do. Six months, imo, is a reasonable time-period. If they give you the same old no-info bull**** after that - then you've behaved decently, they haven't, and you can go on about whatever it is you need to do to get your needs met. My $.02. GR

Seems reasonable to me -but that isn't what Jackie has advocated in the
past- which is why she is getting so much **** on this subject. She has (in
the past) said that an adoptee should wait as long as it takes -even if that
is indefinitely.

Kathy 1

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:23 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Seems reasonable to me -but that isn't what Jackie has advocated in thepast- which is why she is getting so much **** on this subject. She has (inthe past) said that an adoptee should wait as long as it takes -even if thatis indefinitely.


That is your interpretation of what I said.


Jackie

In article <5ijnpv05dbia230h43ne15gi8uraohipt4@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:23 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:Seems reasonable to me -but that isn't what Jackie has advocated in thepast- which is why she is getting so much **** on this subject. She has (inthe past) said that an adoptee should wait as long as it takes -even if thatis indefinitely.That is your interpretation of what I said.Jackie

That's funny.....I also interpreted what you said this way.

KL

"KL" <klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell> wrote in message
news:20031026121156.25815.00003993@mb-m07.aol.com... In article <5ijnpv05dbia230h43ne15gi8uraohipt4@4ax.com>, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:23 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:Seems reasonable to me -but that isn't what Jackie has advocated in thepast- which is why she is getting so much **** on this subject. She has
(inthe past) said that an adoptee should wait as long as it takes -even if
thatis indefinitely.That is your interpretation of what I said.Jackie That's funny.....I also interpreted what you said this way. KL

So did a whole lot of other people but Jackie has a habit of forgetting
what it is she has said.

Kathy 1

In article <5ijnpv05dbia230h43ne15gi8uraohipt4@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:23 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:Seems reasonable to me -but that isn't what Jackie has advocated in thepast- which is why she is getting so much **** on this subject. She has (inthe past) said that an adoptee should wait as long as it takes -even if thatis indefinitely.That is your interpretation of what I said.

Please pardon my "dogging", but that's also my interpretation.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news: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..

Ahhhh Jackie, you *did*. I'm not blaming you, because up until
then you had been able to rely on GR to rush to the rescue any time anyone
'looked crooked' at you. You were a bit 'spoilt' I have to say, like a child
who can do no wrong in the eyes of a besotted parent. <s>

When GR vanished so suddenly I felt some sympathy for you in spite of the
fact that you had savaged and belittled so many in their attempts to offer
kind words. Kim and Patty are two that come to mind. (How I wish I had kept
*that* compassionate, very moving and revealing post of Kim's - Patty's
too.) You rejected them both so contemptuously - others, too - choosing to
misread their good intentions, taking insults where none were intended.

If you seemed to have become totally unnerved that was understandable.
Your erstwhile stalwart defender was no longer around, and there you were,
on your own, frantically looking for the help you had come to expect and it
wasn't there.

No wonder you panicked a bit.

Helen

Jackie

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<pjanb.25515$cJ5.4170@www.newsranger.com>... In article <5ijnpv05dbia230h43ne15gi8uraohipt4@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:40:23 -0700, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:Seems reasonable to me -but that isn't what Jackie has advocated in thepast- which is why she is getting so much **** on this subject. She has (inthe past) said that an adoptee should wait as long as it takes -even if thatis indefinitely.That is your interpretation of what I said. Please pardon my "dogging", but that's also my interpretation. Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

Mine too. It used to not be my opinion, but it sure is lately.

Helen I used to think you had a clue.. Now I know you do not..

Jackie... who enjoyed the discourse between GR and kat.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:22 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews: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..Ahhhh Jackie, you *did*. I'm not blaming you, because up untilthen you had been able to rely on GR to rush to the rescue any time anyone'looked crooked' at you. You were a bit 'spoilt' I have to say, like a childwho can do no wrong in the eyes of a besotted parent. <s>When GR vanished so suddenly I felt some sympathy for you in spite of thefact that you had savaged and belittled so many in their attempts to offerkind words. Kim and Patty are two that come to mind. (How I wish I had kept*that* compassionate, very moving and revealing post of Kim's - Patty'stoo.) You rejected them both so contemptuously - others, too - choosing tomisread their good intentions, taking insults where none were intended.If you seemed to have become totally unnerved that was understandable.Your erstwhile stalwart defender was no longer around, and there you were,on your own, frantically looking for the help you had come to expect and itwasn't there.No wonder you panicked a bit.Helen Jackie

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/28/03 9:27 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <vf9tpv0st3gpbvbjj7rmd8ekeo1upb00oo@4ax.com>

TOP Posting:

It's all there in google, Jackie.

Helen is telling the truth. You might try it sometime........

Helen I used to think you had a clue.. Now I know you do not..
(snip)
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:22 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews: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..Ahhhh Jackie, you *did*. I'm not blaming you, because up untilthen you had been able to rely on GR to rush to the rescue any time anyone'looked crooked' at you. You were a bit 'spoilt' I have to say, like a childwho can do no wrong in the eyes of a besotted parent.When GR vanished so suddenly I felt some sympathy for you in spite of thefact that you had savaged and belittled so many in their attempts to offerkind words. Kim and Patty are two that come to mind. (How I wish I had kept*that* compassionate, very moving and revealing post of Kim's - Patty'stoo.) You rejected them both so contemptuously - others, too - choosing tomisread their good intentions, taking insults where none were intended.If you seemed to have become totally unnerved that was understandable.Your erstwhile stalwart defender was no longer around, and there you were,on your own, frantically looking for the help you had come to expect and itwasn't there.No wonder you panicked a bit.Helen Jackie



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

On 28 Oct 2003 20:52:20 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/28/03 9:27 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <vf9tpv0st3gpbvbjj7rmd8ekeo1upb00oo@4ax.com>TOP Posting:It's all there in google, Jackie.Helen is telling the truth. You might try it sometime........

I have posted the letter where I believe this started..

No one has posted any other letters about the source of this.

Kathy why don't you prove what you are saying. Go and find the truth
and show it to me.

JackieHelen I used to think you had a clue.. Now I know you do not..(snip)On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:22 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews: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..Ahhhh Jackie, you *did*. I'm not blaming you, because up untilthen you had been able to rely on GR to rush to the rescue any time anyone'looked crooked' at you. You were a bit 'spoilt' I have to say, like a childwho can do no wrong in the eyes of a besotted parent.When GR vanished so suddenly I felt some sympathy for you in spite of thefact that you had savaged and belittled so many in their attempts to offerkind words. Kim and Patty are two that come to mind. (How I wish I had kept*that* compassionate, very moving and revealing post of Kim's - Patty'stoo.) You rejected them both so contemptuously - others, too - choosing tomisread their good intentions, taking insults where none were intended.If you seemed to have become totally unnerved that was understandable.Your erstwhile stalwart defender was no longer around, and there you were,on your own, frantically looking for the help you had come to expect and itwasn't there.No wonder you panicked a bit.Helen>> JackieKathy"To err is human; to forgive, divine."

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/29/03 4:54 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <44dvpvcqiv5c28mu0ruoscjj6n3shme0g2@4ax.com>On 28 Oct 2003 20:52:20 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/28/03 9:27 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <vf9tpv0st3gpbvbjj7rmd8ekeo1upb00oo@4ax.com>TOP Posting:It's all there in google, Jackie.Helen is telling the truth. You might try it sometime........I have posted the letter where I believe this started..No one has posted any other letters about the source of this.Kathy why don't you prove what you are saying. Go and find the truthand show it to me.Jackie

I don't need to do that, Jackie.
You're the google queen....Enough credible people can recall what you wrote....

Why not just shut up with the lies, and own it?


Helen I used to think you had a clue.. Now I know you do not..(snip)On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:32:22 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:
>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news: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..>>Ahhhh Jackie, you *did*. I'm
not blaming you, because up until>then you had been able to rely on GR to rush to the rescue any time anyone>'looked crooked' at you. You were a bit 'spoilt' I have to say, like achild>who can do no wrong in the eyes of a besotted parent.
>When GR vanished so suddenly I felt some sympathy for you in spite of the>fact that you had savaged and belittled so many in their attempts to offer>kind words. Kim and Patty are two that come to mind. (How I wish I hadkept
>*that* compassionate, very moving and revealing post of Kim's - Patty's>too.) You rejected them both so contemptuously - others, too - choosing to>misread their good intentions, taking insults where none were intended.
>If you seemed to have become totally unnerved that was understandable.>Your erstwhile stalwart defender was no longer around, and there you were,>on your own, frantically looking for the help you had come to expect andit
>wasn't there.>>No wonder you panicked a bit.>>Helen>>>>>> Jackie



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

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:27:03 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:
Helen I used to think you had a clue.. Now I know you do not..Jackie... who enjoyed the discourse between GR and kat.
<snip>

Well we do know about Helen, Jackie.

GR

On 29 Oct 2003 18:55:59 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
Kathy why don't you prove what you are saying. Go and find the truthand show it to me.JackieI don't need to do that, Jackie.You're the google queen....Enough credible people can recall what you wrote....Why not just shut up with the lies, and own it?


Kathy you are not backing up what you are saying..

So much for credibility..


Jackie

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:27:18 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Well I'll refer you to your comment to Helen about Robin. You take this**** much more seriously than Jackie does. Got a white knight complex?

Damn GR she has turned on you..

This is better than a pizza and a movie..


Jackie

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/30/03 7:19 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <fta2qvs0pc7oieeifis4np2lgqiq9jeqn5@4ax.com>On 29 Oct 2003 18:55:59 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:Kathy why don't you prove what you are saying. Go and find the truthand show it to me.JackieI don't need to do that, Jackie.You're the google queen....Enough credible people can recall what youwrote....Why not just shut up with the lies, and own it?Kathy you are not backing up what you are saying..So much for credibility..Jackie

Jackie, the majority of posters remember it differently than you apparantly
want to. It's not a conspiracy. It's just that I was here, and so were they,
and we do remember correctly what went down. Nobody is lying....and there is no
reason to rehash this all again. K?

Marla has asked that we drop this now...I plan on doing that.




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

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/30/2003 11:43 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <1sf2qv48ddpc3u0qoeuocg6bouj9f6ucnu@4ax.com>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:27:18 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:Well I'll refer you to your comment to Helen about Robin. You take this**** much more seriously than Jackie does. Got a white knight complex?Damn GR she has turned on you..This is better than a pizza and a movie..Jackie

Five minutes before this post you wrote the following:

<begin> "Its all about gangs with you isn't it Kathy..

One gang against the other gang..

One gang bullies up against the other gang.. And a good way to defeat
the other 'gang' is to separate them.." <end>

So which are you now, Jackie... the ganger or the gangee. Evidently, it
seems you use the same tactics you so depise in others.

Not to worry, most of us here (with a few exceptions) are not above
considering the source before we add our own commentary. I'm not part of the
exceptional few, and neither are you.

Dad

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:07:43 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:27:03 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:Helen I used to think you had a clue.. Now I know you do not..Jackie... who enjoyed the discourse between GR and kat.<snip>Well we do know about Helen, Jackie.


Yes.. And now I know more..


Jackie.. who will gossip about anyone she pleases to gossip about..
Right out in the open..

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1sf2qv48ddpc3u0qoeuocg6bouj9f6ucnu@4ax.com... On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:27:18 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote:Well I'll refer you to your comment to Helen about Robin. You take this**** much more seriously than Jackie does. Got a white knight complex? Damn GR she has turned on you.. This is better than a pizza and a movie.. Jackie

Flanning the flames I see. Some "innocent" lol

Kathy 1

adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad) wrote in message news:<20031030145925.16556.00000024@mb-m27.aol.com>...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/30/2003 11:43 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <1sf2qv48ddpc3u0qoeuocg6bouj9f6ucnu@4ax.com>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 03:27:18 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>wrote:Well I'll refer you to your comment to Helen about Robin. You take this**** much more seriously than Jackie does. Got a white knight complex?Damn GR she has turned on you..This is better than a pizza and a movie..Jackie Five minutes before this post you wrote the following: <begin> "Its all about gangs with you isn't it Kathy.. One gang against the other gang.. One gang bullies up against the other gang.. And a good way to defeat the other 'gang' is to separate them.." <end>


And a few hours before that, 'Yah, but an adult can't pick fights with
the schoolyard bullies'.
It's virtual assertion therapy. Maybe it is for a lot of us.
No risk, no harm.


Rh.
So which are you now, Jackie... the ganger or the gangee. Evidently, it seems you use the same tactics you so depise in others. Not to worry, most of us here (with a few exceptions) are not above considering the source before we add our own commentary. I'm not part of the exceptional few, and neither are you. Dad

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:19:29 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:

<snip>

Kathy you are not backing up what you are saying..So much for credibility..

Is this a conversation you're having with the ol' stupid lapdog Kathy
I used to know?

Just curious.

GR

On 30 Oct 2003 17:01:35 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 10/30/03 7:19 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <fta2qvs0pc7oieeifis4np2lgqiq9jeqn5@4ax.com>On 29 Oct 2003 18:55:59 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun (Kathy) wrote:>Kathy why don't you prove what you are saying. Go and find the truth>and show it to me.>>JackieI don't need to do that, Jackie.You're the google queen....Enough credible people can recall what youwrote....Why not just shut up with the lies, and own it?Kathy you are not backing up what you are saying..So much for credibility..JackieJackie, the majority of posters remember it differently than you apparantlywant to. It's not a conspiracy. It's just that I was here, and so were they,and we do remember correctly what went down. Nobody is lying....and there is noreason to rehash this all again. K?Marla has asked that we drop this now...I plan on doing that.


Ahhhh... no more rehash.. Drop the bundle and walk away (cause
everyone knows what the real truth is) and never ever speak of it
again..

Perfect..

Jackie

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:23:26 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:

<snip>

I wrote:
Well we do know about Helen, Jackie.Yes.. And now I know more..

LOL, well do tell! Unless it's mostly the same old ****.
Jackie.. who will gossip about anyone she pleases to gossip about..Right out in the open..

Yep. That's the spirit!

GR

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:47:59 -0800, "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>
So when are you going to start doing that? Just wondering. Haven't seenany evidence of it so far.

You know, dear, you can actually be funny as hell. Keep typing!

GR

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:r9u4qvs2mbv018i1g055g979fn9euh6h5u@4ax.com... On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:51:51 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:19:29 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:<snip>
Helen said in this thread..>>> 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..>>>>Ahhhh Jackie, you *did*. Helen.. you are full of ****.. Did you know this?

Your pal has informed me of this. That makes two. Perhaps others will come
on stream. Who knows? Am I to lose any sleep waiting to see?
>> I'm not blaming you, because up until>>then you had been able to rely on GR to rush to the rescue any time
anyone>>'looked crooked' at you. You were a bit 'spoilt' I have to say, like a
child>>who can do no wrong in the eyes of a besotted parent. Damn that's insulting..

GR did it. She never corrected you when you were obviously in the wrong, and
lavished praise and encouragement to be as baaaaaad as she was.

Do you think that you are the only one here with feelings? That only Jackie
can be wounded by ill-considered remarks?
>>When GR vanished so suddenly I felt some sympathy for you in spite of
the>>fact that you had savaged and belittled so many in their attempts to
offer>>kind words. Kim and Patty are two that come to mind. Big mommma knows best..

Yeah? I wouldn't know about that. GR hasn't been on the ball all the time.
>>(How I wish I hadkept>>*that* compassionate, very moving and revealing post of Kim's This makes me want to puke..

What does? The memory of Kim's post? How could kind words make you want to
puke? What does that say about you?
Maybe I should go and find this compassionate post.. LOL

Please do. You didn't LOL at the time, though. You were eye-poppingly rude.
I have alluded to it a couple of times - just now, and a couple of years'
ago. Although you were the Google expert of all time, you have never chosen
to produce it yourself. I wonder why? Did you *know* that you would be
'found out', that it would prove your unwarranted contempt towards anyone
who offered a kind word? If you think otherwise, then why not get it and
prove otherwise?
>> - Patty's>>too.) Patty was doing an "I know what's best Jackie.. I have been here longer".

That's the way you read it. Strange that no one else did. Patty was
empathising with you - and as she had been there and worn the tee-shirt and
suffered the pain, I think she was entitled to offer suggestions. After all,
your putting yourself out here *invited* responses. When they were sent with
love and compassion for you, you spat them back.
>>You rejected them both so contemptuously - others, too - choosing to>>misread their good intentions, taking insults where none were
intended. IMO they were intended to make me think like them..

No they were not. You seemed to be in agony and they (we all) were only
trying to help. If our help was less than perfect in your eyes, then that
was hardly our fault. We are not experts, we thought we were all just
friends.
>>If you seemed to have become totally unnerved that was understandable.>>Your erstwhile stalwart defender was no longer around, and there you
were,>>on your own, frantically looking for the help I love that line.. "frantically looking for help".. How insulting..

Why is that? When we feel under pressure don't we all look to our friends?
How disappointing it is when they are unavailable just when we need them
most.
>you had come to expect andit>>wasn't there.>>>>No wonder you panicked a bit. I did not panic.

I said "a bit".
>>>>Helen I asked Kathy (and Helen probably) to prove that I was crying out for you.. She did not..

Didn't someone (Jeannette?) recently Google one of your "where's GR" posts?
How is it that you deny what many have remembered? What difference does it
make? Others have called on GR too - to settle gossip about movie stars'
lives, or whatever. Get over yourself.

Helen
Jackie

On 31 Oct 2003 19:01:27 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
I've tried, but frankly, I've given up.

You... at times.. tend to pull crap out of your bag when engaged in a
heavy conversation..

I called you on it the last time..




Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:o8f7qvg5s2lsftv7ral1rds50ovhe8crd3@4ax.com... On 31 Oct 2003 19:01:27 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:I've tried, but frankly, I've given up. You... at times.. tend to pull crap out of your bag when engaged in a heavy conversation.. I called you on it the last time..

That's YOUR wrist slapped, Rh.

Helen
Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<o8f7qvg5s2lsftv7ral1rds50ovhe8crd3@4ax.com>... On 31 Oct 2003 19:01:27 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:I've tried, but frankly, I've given up. You... at times.. tend to pull crap out of your bag when engaged in a heavy conversation.. I called you on it the last time..


You did?
What was it that you said?


Rh.
Jackie

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 13:03:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
This makes me want to puke..What does? The memory of Kim's post? How could kind words make you want topuke? What does that say about you?

Kim manipulates people..
Maybe I should go and find this compassionate post.. LOLPlease do. You didn't LOL at the time, though. You were eye-poppingly rude.I have alluded to it a couple of times - just now, and a couple of years'ago. Although you were the Google expert of all time, you have never chosento produce it yourself. I wonder why? Did you *know* that you would be'found out', that it would prove your unwarranted contempt towards anyonewho offered a kind word? If you think otherwise, then why not get it andprove otherwise?

Kim has always been very clear on what she thinks of birth moms who do
not fall in line with her thinking..

I do not believe her when she tells me she feels for me..
Not for one second..

Never have and never will.

Can you remember the key words in that letter Helen? I can't find it.

Or maybe our lurking Jeannette can find it..

>>> - Patty's>>>too.) Patty was doing an "I know what's best Jackie.. I have been here longer".That's the way you read it. Strange that no one else did. Patty wasempathising with you - and as she had been there and worn the tee-shirt andsuffered the pain, I think she was entitled to offer suggestions. After all,your putting yourself out here *invited* responses. When they were sent withlove and compassion for you, you spat them back.

I felt like I was being smothered by her words..
>>>You rejected them both so contemptuously - others, too - choosing to>>>misread their good intentions, taking insults where none wereintended. IMO they were intended to make me think like them..No they were not.

According to you.. Your interpretation.
You seemed to be in agony and they (we all) were onlytrying to help. If our help was less than perfect in your eyes, then thatwas hardly our fault. We are not experts, we thought we were all justfriends.

The remarks were cloying.. And they did have an agenda..

Check out the latest with Robyn.. Someone has decided that because her
birth mom refused to marry the birth father (second hand info).. The
birth mom is being mean spirited and small minded..

Now that is something that Robyn can get her teeth into .. Right?
>>>If you seemed to have become totally unnerved that was understandable.>>>Your erstwhile stalwart defender was no longer around, and there youwere,>>>on your own, frantically looking for the help I love that line.. "frantically looking for help".. How insulting..Why is that? When we feel under pressure don't we all look to our friends?

Not me.. I sort it myself. I do not need someone backing me up.

Never have and never will.

If I needed someone to back me up..
*I would not be thinking for myself.*
How disappointing it is when they are unavailable just when we need themmost.

That's funny.
>>you had come to expect andit>>>wasn't there.>>>>>>No wonder you panicked a bit. I did not panic.I said "a bit".

Awe..
>>>>>>Helen I asked Kathy (and Helen probably) to prove that I was crying out for you.. She did not..Didn't someone (Jeannette?) recently Google one of your "where's GR" posts?

NO!!!
How is it that you deny what many have remembered? What difference does itmake?

She did not google one of those posts Helen..

You are rambling on in a false premise..
Others have called on GR too - to settle gossip about movie stars'lives, or whatever. Get over yourself.

Helen you are something else.

Jackie

In article <gn3aqvooo5f6fauh07llirfl6qn5db2dfe@4ax.com>, Jackie says...
snipThe remarks were cloying.. And they did have an agenda..Check out the latest with Robyn.. Someone has decided that because herbirth mom refused to marry the birth father (second hand info).. Thebirth mom is being mean spirited and small minded..

lyjustified in turning down his proposal if she didn't think the marriage would
work. Shoot, I respect her for that. Oh wait, according to you do I don't
respect my bmom. My bad ;p
Now that is something that Robyn can get her teeth into .. Right?

Always have to think the worst of people, don't you Jackie.



Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sq19qvc2e2skq5in9kkukf6ehg7bf79ok5@4ax.com... On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:01:40 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:21:44 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:<snip>

I tend to think that the ***** she is on alt.adoption isn't the ***** she shows to the rest of the world.

I hope to God that that equally applies to you!
Hell, she tries to hide it even around here.

While you most certainly *do not*!

<snip>

Helen
GR

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gn3aqvooo5f6fauh07llirfl6qn5db2dfe@4ax.com... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 13:03:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: This makes me want to puke..What does? The memory of Kim's post? How could kind words make you want
topuke? What does that say about you? Kim manipulates people.. Maybe I should go and find this compassionate post.. LOLPlease do. You didn't LOL at the time, though. You were eye-poppingly
rude.I have alluded to it a couple of times - just now, and a couple of years'ago. Although you were the Google expert of all time, you have never
chosento produce it yourself. I wonder why? Did you *know* that you would be'found out', that it would prove your unwarranted contempt towards anyonewho offered a kind word? If you think otherwise, then why not get it andprove otherwise? Kim has always been very clear on what she thinks of birth moms who do not fall in line with her thinking.. I do not believe her when she tells me she feels for me.. Not for one second.. Never have and never will.

Never have? Not true. The two of you got along quite nicely in the
beginning.

Check out the latest with Robyn.. Someone has decided


Decided? Hardly! It was only a *possible* reason. *An* idea to consider.
Not *the* reason!


that because her birth mom refused to marry the birth father (second hand info).. The birth mom is being mean spirited and small minded..

Mean spirited? Small minded? You got that all from the statement that she
*may not* want Robyn, her husband, or children to know *if* that was the
reason? My goodness - the things you read into something. You *always*,
*always*, *always* have to put a "poor bmother" spin on things whether or
not that is the case. No wonder it isso hard to have a *real* converration
with you. You don't actually hear what is being said because the "everybody
thinks the bmother is a *****" music playing in your head drowns it out.

Kathy 1

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:lAapb.26217$cJ5.4275@www.newsranger.com... In article <gn3aqvooo5f6fauh07llirfl6qn5db2dfe@4ax.com>, Jackie says... snipThe remarks were cloying.. And they did have an agenda..Check out the latest with Robyn.. Someone has decided that because herbirth mom refused to marry the birth father (second hand info).. Thebirth mom is being mean spirited and small minded.. lyjustified in turning down his proposal if she didn't think the marriage
would work. Shoot, I respect her for that. Oh wait, according to you do I
don't respect my bmom. My bad ;p

Apparently according to Jackie nobody but a few other select bmothers
respect bmothers. Everybody else thinks they are *****es ;)



Kathy 1

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:47:05 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
But she is involved in reunion over there.. That is the scary part.. She must do an "I know best" on some folks..How little you know. You haven't a *clue*.


So what happened to that woman (in her seventies?) who did not want to
meet her bson Helen?

If I remember correctly only her sister knew.

Did she bend to your will Helen?

Jackie

In article <bo3mo5$16nlg7$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, kat says...snipMean spirited? Small minded? You got that all from the statement that she*may not* want Robyn, her husband, or children to know *if* that was thereason? My goodness - the things you read into something. You *always*,*always*, *always* have to put a "poor bmother" spin on things whether ornot that is the case. No wonder it isso hard to have a *real* converrationwith you. You don't actually hear what is being said because the "everybodythinks the bmother is a *****" music playing in your head drowns it out.

See, I don't recall referring to my bmom as a *****. Was I pissed off 2+ years
ago? Sure was. But, what Jackie seems to keep missing, is that was TWO YEARS
ago. 1) I eventually got over being hurt; and 2) acquired quite a bit more
understanding of the situation.

Shoot, she acts like this just happened yesterday and totally ignores all the
effort I've put into trying to get to know my bmom for that past two years.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fj5bqvgi8ntf15tugf7c8cq2vop6fs7cu4@4ax.com... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:47:05 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: But she is involved in reunion over there.. That is the scary part.. She must do an "I know best" on some folks..How little you know. You haven't a *clue*. So what happened to that woman (in her seventies?) who did not want to meet her bson Helen?

She met him once. For an hour.
If I remember correctly only her sister knew.

Yes. Her sister accompanied her.
Did she bend to your will Helen?

What are you talking about "bend to your will"? You are a rather silly
woman, Jackie, in the way that you throw your little digs around, sekeing to
wound as always. It would take more than you, to do it to me, though.

Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was
at her funeral, incognito. Says that he was very glad he went, saw his
half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enough
not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course,
and has asked me to help.

Helen
Jackie

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 15:35:41 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
You're not half the man you think you are.<eg>Helen


A low blow..


Jackie dot dot

On 2 Nov 2003 13:53:05 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
I think you're right about the seriousness of her intent, and she doesbring up interesting ideas. However, it's difficult to pursue a topicfor long with a person who claims to believe that words are nothingmore than a form of refuge, and that they only serve to obscuremeaning.

Sometimes words and the correction thereof.. confuse the real issue..

The core discussion..

A distraction to get a person out of being nailed.. Or actually having
an 'aha' moment..


One is hard put not to infer that she's saying (as indirectly aspossible) that the other person in the converstion is full of ****.

What I was saying (at that time) was that you are avoiding the real
conversation by sorting words..

She's the most aggressive passive aggressive I've ever had to dealwith.Really, it's quite a talent.

Ah you throw a label on me..

A word label... And a put down..

I guess I am in my place now!!!!!


Jackie

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:ZUhpb.3826$bD.15504@news.indigo.ie... "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:fj5bqvgi8ntf15tugf7c8cq2vop6fs7cu4@4ax.com... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:47:05 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:> But she is involved in reunion over there.. That is the scary part..> She must do an "I know best" on some folks..How little you know. You haven't a *clue*. So what happened to that woman (in her seventies?) who did not want to meet her bson Helen? She met him once. For an hour. If I remember correctly only her sister knew. Yes. Her sister accompanied her. Did she bend to your will Helen? What are you talking about "bend to your will"? You are a rather silly woman, Jackie, in the way that you throw your little digs around, sekeing
to wound as always.


No not Jackie! She doesn't do *anything* to provoke. She is attacked soley
because people have a desire to"yard*****" her due to her status as a
bmother People here want to drive nmothers from alt. a dontcha know.
(never mind that several others here have left - aparents included gasp!)
Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the content of her posts. Gosh
Helen I guess I was just "yard*****ing" you during the heat of the Iraq war
;)
It would take more than you, to do it to me, though.

What? You mean those who vehemently disagree with your positions and openly
say so aren't capable of driving you from the ng? Who knew? I guess it
*really is* about the poster and what they wish to do rather than alt. a
has *so much power*!


Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He
was at her funeral, incognito. Says that he was very glad he went, saw his half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive
enough not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due
course, and has asked me to help. Helen

I hope things go well for him.

Kathy 1

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 01:14:40 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
Did she bend to your will Helen?What are you talking about "bend to your will"? You are a rather sillywoman, Jackie, in the way that you throw your little digs around, sekeing towound as always.

Ya and you never ever do this Helen..

What was it.. ummmmm I need GR to speak for me?

It would take more than you, to do it to me, though.

Right.
Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He wasat her funeral, incognito. Says that he was very glad he went, saw hishalf-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enoughnot to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course,and has asked me to help.

I hope they accept him.. A sad story..

The result of secrecy keeping and control.. IMO

Jackie

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0311031015.69656ccb@posting.google.com ... "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bo5nkg$17u148$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0311021353.37d1e274@posting.google.com ... GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<d129qvkvguu2fj4bq6a13rrolu403q4v27@4ax.com>... > On 31 Oct 2003 19:01:27 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca
(Rhiannon) > wrote: > > <snip> >
<snip>
One is hard put not to infer that she's saying (as indirectly as possible) that the other person in the converstion is full of ****. She's the most aggressive passive aggressive I've ever had to deal with. I agree though I think Sue T. ran a close second. Didn't know her. She must have been before my time.

She was before *God's* time. <s>

Helen

Rh. Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bo5nak$17h7g4$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:ZUhpb.3826$bD.15504@news.indigo.ie... "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:fj5bqvgi8ntf15tugf7c8cq2vop6fs7cu4@4ax.com... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:47:05 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >> But she is involved in reunion over there.. That is the scary
part.. >> She must do an "I know best" on some folks.. > >How little you know. You haven't a *clue*. So what happened to that woman (in her seventies?) who did not want to meet her bson Helen? She met him once. For an hour. If I remember correctly only her sister knew. Yes. Her sister accompanied her. Did she bend to your will Helen? What are you talking about "bend to your will"? You are a rather silly woman, Jackie, in the way that you throw your little digs around,
sekeing to wound as always. No not Jackie! She doesn't do *anything* to provoke. She is attacked
soley because people have a desire to"yard*****" her due to her status as a bmother People here want to drive nmothers from alt. a dontcha know. (never mind that several others here have left - aparents included gasp!) Couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with the content of her posts.
Gosh Helen I guess I was just "yard*****ing" you during the heat of the Iraq
war ;)

God, is THAT what is was? Who knew?
It would take more than you, to do it to me, though. What? You mean those who vehemently disagree with your positions and
openly say so aren't capable of driving you from the ng? Who knew?

Hey - I just said that! ('Who knew' is an American expression that I find
amusing at the moment!)

Anyway, Kathy - as you know I can have terrible fights with people over
something or other, and they with me, but I don't carry grudges, and it
doesn't mean that I fall out with them *for life*. If someone really pisses
me off (like Wally, or Roy, say) then I really just give up bothering. Like
teasing though, I think you fight best with people you actually *like*!

I know I offended a lot of people over my position on the war, and Bush et
al, but it is to everyone's credit here that they didn't carry *that*
resentment over into other posts. That's why I'm so fond of you lot!

I guess it *really is* about the poster and what they wish to do rather than alt. a has *so much power*!

It's the great people on it. A bit like a family, I suppose.
Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was at her funeral, incognito. Says that he was very glad he went, saw his half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enough not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course, and has asked me to help. Helen I hope things go well for him.

He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birth
mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. I blame the
overly-controlling sister. <sigh> However he definitely will get to know his
half-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughter
knew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others if
they don't know already.

Helen Kathy 1

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:02:51 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:dafc70.0311031015.69656ccb@posting.goo gle.com... "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:<bo5nkg$17u148$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dafc70.0311021353.37d1e274@posting.google.com ... > GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<d129qvkvguu2fj4bq6a13rrolu403q4v27@4ax.com>... > > On 31 Oct 2003 19:01:27 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca(Rhiannon) > > wrote: > > > > <snip> > ><snip> > One is hard put not to infer that she's saying (as indirectly as > possible) that the other person in the converstion is full of ****. > She's the most aggressive passive aggressive I've ever had to deal > with. I agree though I think Sue T. ran a close second. > > Didn't know her. She must have been before my time.She was before *God's* time. <s>Helen

I think Sue was here last some time around mid-late 2001. I travelled
to India in Nov 2001. Sue had been here briefly in the months before
that because she helped me dig up some references I used for a speech
I gave at an adoption conference in Bangalore.

Julia

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was at her funeral, incognito.

Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...

Says that he was very glad he went, saw his half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enough not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course, and has asked me to help. Helen I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.

In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge
him.
I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>

Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..

However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others ifthey don't know already.

And all will be well and all things will be well..

And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?


Jackie

In article <1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote: > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enough > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course, > and has asked me to help. > > Helen I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others ifthey don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?

You know what, Jackie? Considering the size of that chip on your shoulder, I'm
amazed you can stand up straight.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/4/03 6:43 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com>On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote: > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enough > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course, > and has asked me to help. > > Helen I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others ifthey don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Jackie

Wtf?



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

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:43:34 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote: > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enough > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course, > and has asked me to help. > > Helen I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others ifthey don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Jackie

WTF?

Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find so
offensive. If you want people to take you seriously, it
might be a good idea to learn how and when to pick your
battles. This one is crap.

Nancy

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com... On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.
He was > at her funeral, incognito. Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...

WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?

> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive enough > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due course, > and has asked me to help. > > Helen I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his
birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him.

She met him for an hour. Of COURSE she acknowledged him. They sat face to
face. The image of each other, I believe.
I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh> Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..

Yes. The unmarried older sister, who controlled access to the birth mother
for a long time, who didn't pass on letters from the son when she said that
she would - saying that it would kill her, that she couldn't mention him,
and all that jazz. So yes, as you say it was the "ctonrolling sister" who
"controlled the woman" - or at least her access to contact with her son. The
*sister* decided, without reference to the woman.
However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others
ifthey don't know already. And all will be well and all things will be well..

What exactly are you trying to say, Jackie?
And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?

You really are a thoroughly nasty piece of work at times.

Helen
Jackie

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:HLPpb.26492$cJ5.4337@www.newsranger.com... In article <1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.
He> was> > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was
sensitive> enough> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due> course,> > and has asked me to help.> >> > Helen>> I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his
birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest
daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others
ifthey don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen? You know what, Jackie? Considering the size of that chip on your shoulder,
I'm amazed you can stand up straight.

Oh Robyn, didn't you know? Jackie is *perfectly* balanced - boulders on BOTH
shoulders.

Helen

Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:oprfqvs3vn6bkvm6rk53jvdmrg0g3c6b5m@4ax.com... On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:43:34 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.
He> was> > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was
sensitive> enough> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due> course,> > and has asked me to help.> >> > Helen>> I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his
birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest
daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others
ifthey don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Jackie WTF? Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find so offensive. If you want people to take you seriously, it might be a good idea to learn how and when to pick your battles. This one is crap.

It is senseless and heartless. This nice guy's birth mother was herself a
very nice woman, who was a victim of the very closed society in Ireland 50+
years' ago. She wasn't well-served by her sister, whose interference
prevented the contact between the son and his mother, until the woman's time
(life) ran out.

Helen
Nancy

On 2 Nov 2003 13:53:05 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:

<snip>

You wrote: It depends what you mean by 'engage'.
I wrote: I mean that she talks about major issues in adoption and addresses them with serious intent and real attention.
I think you're right about the seriousness of her intent, and she doesbring up interesting ideas.

Yep.
However, it's difficult to pursue a topicfor long with a person who claims to believe that words are nothingmore than a form of refuge, and that they only serve to obscuremeaning.

Well, it is often the case that they are used to obscure, rather than
clarify, meaning. Nonetheless, Jackie can hardly be found guilty of
not pursuing a topic for long.
One is hard put not to infer that she's saying (as indirectly aspossible) that the other person in the converstion is full of ****.

Yep, she may be saying that and she may well be right about it. She
also may not be saying that at all, and actually be trying to get at
deeper meanings, larger questions than the positional yapping we
generally do here allows for.
She's the most aggressive passive aggressive I've ever had to dealwith.

Really? You should get out more.
Really, it's quite a talent.

She's no slouch, nor (contrary to popular opinion) does she require my
assistance in any way, shape or form.
As far as I'm concerned, it seems like nothing more than 'pizza and amovie'.Deep play, maybe, but play nonetheless. You take it the way you take it. I take it differently.
Well, of course.And why not?

Excellent question. Why not, indeed?
I've tried, but frankly, I've given up. That's your option, of course.
I have no problem with having short chats with Jackie, but seriousissues - as of now, I cannot take what I see as the cat-and-mousestuff.

Well, that's unfortunate for you, imo, because Jackie gets a lot more
real about the serious issues than most folks. Certainly more than
you seem to recognize.
But then, you "see" her (sounds like something out of Henry James),and I so clearly don't. Love that Henry 'The Master' James. You could try looking again, sometime. Or not.
I take a dim view, if, indeed, it can in all consciousness be called aview, since, by definition, the very act of its perception is sobarely discernable, that it masks or otherwise creates, by virtue ofthe very nature of 'seeing', which, in and of itself, remains suspectfor reasons that can only be, at least in part, attributed to thedarker and more sorrowful influences of the inner recesses of thehuman spirit, the second sight or perhaps 'glance', as it were, that*seems* to reveal the intrinsic merits (or perhaps it should beotherwise?) of the authentic 'lustre' of a person beyond which themerest crapola of the internet, cannot begin to so beautifully go.

Amen to that!
Only joking.

Oh. Pity.
Seriously.

Aha! Excellent.
But maybe I'll give it another look, when I'm less pissed off.Or not.

And so it goes...

GR

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:44:48 -0000, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:oprfqvs3vn6bkvm6rk53jvdmrg0g3c6b5m@4ax .com... On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:43:34 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.He>> was>> > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his>> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He wassensitive>> enough>> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due>> course,>> > and has asked me to help.>> >>> > Helen>>>> I hope things go well for him.>>He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was hisbirth>mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.>I blame the>overly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..> However he definitely will get to know his>half-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldestdaughter>knew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the othersif>they don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Jackie WTF? Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find so offensive. If you want people to take you seriously, it might be a good idea to learn how and when to pick your battles. This one is crap.It is senseless and heartless. This nice guy's birth mother was herself avery nice woman, who was a victim of the very closed society in Ireland 50+years' ago. She wasn't well-served by her sister, whose interferenceprevented the contact between the son and his mother, until the woman's time(life) ran out.

Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm sure
that's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--a
bittersweet story with no blame put on either the
birthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was just
mean-spirited and senseless.

Nancy

Helen Nancy

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him.

That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would have
enjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man her
son has become.

So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in the
sense of a missed opportunity.
I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?

Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) She
missed out on meeting her lovely son, and (b) She's dead.

Rupa

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:35:01 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:43:34 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He> was> > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive> enough> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due> course,> > and has asked me to help.> >> > Helen>> I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others ifthey don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?JackieWTF?Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find sooffensive. If you want people to take you seriously, itmight be a good idea to learn how and when to pick yourbattles. This one is crap.Nancy

This *is* the battle Nancy..

Helen is an adoptive parent.. She is into reunions in Ireland..

IMO She has a built in prejudice against nmoms who refuse contact..I
came to this conclusion after reading what she posts here..

This from The Many Sided Triangle.. written by Audrey Marshall and
Margaret McDonald.

page 1 in the book..

Chapter title.. The Adoption Controversy

"Would you attend a rapist for you Pap Smear?" This bitter question
was raised in an anonymous letter to a journalist for a major
newspaper in the early 1990's. It was asked in response to an article
referring to the Post Adoptive Resource Center in Sydney, an agency
offering information and counselling to people seeking contact with
their birth relatives following the introduction of the Adoption
Information Act (NSW) of 1990. The writer objected to the appointment,
as manger of this new agency, of a social worker who had been involved
in adoption services for many years, describing it as 'a joke'.

end of quoting from that book.

IMO Helen involves herself in reunions as a volunteer..
She is an aparent.. IMO she has built in prejudices against nmoms who
wish to stay in the secrecy..
The woman has died.. Still Helen makes a judgment on her..

I think that is horrible.. I wonder what she inadvertently does to
other women (nmoms) who are struggling with coming out of the closet..

Jackie

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:44:48 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
It is senseless and heartless. This nice guy's birth mother was herself avery nice woman, who was a victim of the very closed society in Ireland 50+years' ago. She wasn't well-served by her sister, whose interferenceprevented the contact between the son and his mother, until the woman's time(life) ran out.

So this woman did not have a mind of her own?


Jackie

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.


It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved in
reunions..

She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMO

Jackie

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax .com... On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.He> was> > at her funeral, incognito. Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?

You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..

Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..

>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive> enough> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due> course,> > and has asked me to help.> >> > Helen>> I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was hisbirthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him.She met him for an hour. Of COURSE she acknowledged him. They sat face toface. The image of each other, I believe.

You know damn well what I meant Helen..

Acknowledge him to her family.. She did not do this did she..
Instead he had to go to her funeral incognito..
Its a movie..

Bad bad nmom hiding in the closet...
I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh> Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..Yes. The unmarried older sister, who controlled access to the birth motherfor a long time, who didn't pass on letters from the son when she said thatshe would - saying that it would kill her, that she couldn't mention him,and all that jazz.So yes, as you say it was the "ctonrolling sister" who"controlled the woman" - or at least her access to contact with her son. The*sister* decided, without reference to the woman.

Right the woman was a baby.. She could not do for herself..

Perfect imagery..

However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the othersifthey don't know already. And all will be well and all things will be well..What exactly are you trying to say, Jackie? And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?You really are a thoroughly nasty piece of work at times.

Ya I know.


Jackie

On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity.

The woman did meet him..
She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not
want to change who she was.. She was too old to change.
I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son,

She did meet him.

and (b) She's dead.

Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of
change involved in telling her family about her son..

Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.

Why did she have to say this?
Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just
died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..

And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this..
She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO

Jackie

In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax .com... On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.He >> was >> > at her funeral, incognito. Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..

Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women
"horrible" is............YOU.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <e5rhqvccu9b1ks3b74l5rbuele8h64vvat@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMO

Like YOU don't, you hypocrite.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:28:52 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMO

I see. In your expert opinion you don't think Helen is
qualified or capable of facilitating a reunion, so you took
a nice story and twisted it into a vicious and ugly
commentary on Helen. In my book, that's much more of a
reflection on you than on her. But not to worry--maybe GR
will be along shortly to tell us what you *really* meant,
why you said it, and why the rest of us are too stupid to
see that you're actually a wise and sensitive person in all
matters.

Nancy

Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:n5qhqv4komh2f5sa59q3q1qt6uv44ra235@4ax.com... On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:35:01 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:43:34 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son
again. He>> was>> > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his>> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was
sensitive>> enough>> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in
due>> course,>> > and has asked me to help.>> >>> > Helen>>>> I hope things go well for him.>>He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his
birth>mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.>I blame the>overly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..> However he definitely will get to know his>half-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest
daughter>knew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others
if>they don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?JackieWTF?Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find sooffensive. If you want people to take you seriously, itmight be a good idea to learn how and when to pick yourbattles. This one is crap.Nancy This *is* the battle Nancy..

It it *you* fighting your own battle, Jackie.
Helen is an adoptive parent.. She is into reunions in Ireland..

I am not *into* reunions. I support people who (amongst other things) wish
to reunite, and those who don't wish to, and others who are dithering.

When one does and the other doesn't I try to find a happy medium for them
both. *They* decide what they are going to do, I don't. I suggest strategies
and alternatives that might be acceptable to both people. It is up to *them*
to decide what degree of contact would be appropriate, and the manner of it.

I am of the opinion that there is no use in dragging someone unwillingly,
kicking and screaming, into a meeting that they don't want. I am also of the
*informed* (by experience) opinion that many women whose initial reaction
was a resounding NO to contact, *very* often decide - sometimes several
years later - to try to reactivate the reunion that they had previously
refused - themselves, on their own initiative.

The secret is to have respect for all the people who are involved but to
understand that nobody has the right to impose *their* opinion of what is
right or wrong on someone else.
IMO She has a built in prejudice against nmoms who refuse contact.

Utter and complete bull****. *Nothing* could be further from the truth.

..I came to this conclusion after reading what she posts here..

Once again you display your inability to read for comprehension. You haven't
a CLUE about me or what I do. Not an iota.

<snip> totally irrelevant quotation.
IMO Helen involves herself in reunions as a volunteer.. She is an aparent.. IMO she has built in prejudices against nmoms who wish to stay in the secrecy..

UTTER BULL**** You are offensive.
The woman has died.. Still Helen makes a judgment on her..

Oh no Jackie. It is YOU who makes the judgement, not I. YOU said that she
hadn't acknowledged her son. She bloody well DID acknowledge him. Perhaps
not to YOUR satisfaction, but it was enough for him that she met him, and
that they talked for an hour. It is to his regret that he didn't have the
opportunity to do it again, before her death intervened.

I spoke to her on the phone many times. It had nothing to do with *making*
her do anything - far from it. It was simply offering her a listening ear
now that things had resurfaced for her, and she was unable to share her
thoughts with anyone else simply because she felt that they would judge her.
SHE knew that *I did not*. I liked her a lot, and was very sorry that I
hadn't met her after all, although it was planned that I go to her home town
and have a coffee with her. She was open and warm and had a good sense of
humour - much like her son - although I never met him either.
I think that is horrible.. I wonder what she inadvertently does to other women (nmoms) who are struggling with coming out of the closet..

As I said to you before Jackie, you can be a nasty piece of work at times.
So *spiteful*.

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:k3rhqv4a0997tcjq7d3d41aicg2cisee9m@4ax.com... On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:44:48 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:It is senseless and heartless. This nice guy's birth mother was herself avery nice woman, who was a victim of the very closed society in Ireland
50+years' ago. She wasn't well-served by her sister, whose interferenceprevented the contact between the son and his mother, until the woman's
time(life) ran out. So this woman did not have a mind of her own?

So you are judging her *again*? She didn't have a car, or any other means of
transport, for a start.

She relied on her single, mobile, unencumbered sister to get her around.

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:e5rhqvccu9b1ks3b74l5rbuele8h64vvat@4ax.com... On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless. It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved in reunions.. She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMO

LOL - you display your spite and profound prejudices, once again.

Helen
Jackie

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:26:07 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:35:01 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:


<snip>
..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?JackieWTF?Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find sooffensive. If you want people to take you seriously, itmight be a good idea to learn how and when to pick yourbattles. This one is crap.NancyThis *is* the battle Nancy..Helen is an adoptive parent.. She is into reunions in Ireland..IMO She has a built in prejudice against nmoms who refuse contact..Icame to this conclusion after reading what she posts here..
<snip>IMO Helen involves herself in reunions as a volunteer..She is an aparent.. IMO she has built in prejudices against nmoms whowish to stay in the secrecy..The woman has died.. Still Helen makes a judgment on her..I think that is horrible.. I wonder what she inadvertently does toother women (nmoms) who are struggling with coming out of the closet..Jackie

I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the woman
out of the closet for that one meeting. She should have let
that woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.
And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,
sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these
people, are right. And the son should have just crawled
away after being properly chastised for having the audacity
to want to meet his mother. And all because Helen is an
[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly be
sensitive to the needs of anyone else.

Whatever, Jackie.

Nancy

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/5/03 4:45 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>

(snip)
And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this..

And why did you overly involve yourself in the real life reunion of an adoptee
here?
She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMOJackie

You're a birth parent and you have built in prejudices..IMO

Can you say HYPOCRITE?



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

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/5/03 5:42 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.com>In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax .com...> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>> wrote:>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.He> >> was> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women"horrible" is............YOU.Robyn

She ain't ever gonna' see that one. How could she? The boulders on her
shoulders are so big, they are blinding her.



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

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.com... In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax .com...> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>> wrote:>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son
again.He> >> was> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women.. Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these
women "horrible" is............YOU.

Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "little
ditty".

Helen
Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<qh9gqv4o4pnmf946cfbkjvtiod9dl7j1ln@4ax.com>... On 2 Nov 2003 13:53:05 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: <snip> You wrote: > It depends what you mean by 'engage'. I wrote: I mean that she talks about major issues in adoption and addresses them with serious intent and real attention.I think you're right about the seriousness of her intent, and she doesbring up interesting ideas. Yep.However, it's difficult to pursue a topicfor long with a person who claims to believe that words are nothingmore than a form of refuge, and that they only serve to obscuremeaning. Well, it is often the case that they are used to obscure, rather than clarify, meaning. Nonetheless, Jackie can hardly be found guilty of not pursuing a topic for long.


You contorted that one nicely.
I'm the one who lacks stamina, not Jackie, so please don't think I'm
finding her guilty of the above.
I find it difficult to talk to someone who dismisses what I feel to be
a sincere effort at communication as a cynical attempt to obfuscate >




One is hard put not to infer that she's saying (as indirectly aspossible) that the other person in the converstion is full of ****. Yep, she may be saying that and she may well be right about it. She also may not be saying that at all, and actually be trying to get at deeper meanings, larger questions than the positional yapping we generally do here allows for.


Well, then if she really is trying to get to 'deeper meanings', she'd
be better advised not to summarily dismiss the other person's words as
crap as soon as the going gets tough.
That ain't going to get anybody nowhere.
There are ways of questioning people's meanings without pissing on
them, you know (or perhaps you don't)

She's the most aggressive passive aggressive I've ever had to dealwith. Really? You should get out more.


A sin of ommision.
I meant, on alt.a.Really, it's quite a talent. She's no slouch, nor (contrary to popular opinion) does she require my assistance in any > way, shape or form.



I agree about the 'no slouch' bit.
As to the rest, I suggest you heed your own words.

>As far as I'm concerned, it seems like nothing more than 'pizza and a >movie'. >Deep play, maybe, but play nonetheless. You take it the way you take it. I take it differently.Well, of course.And why not? Excellent question. Why not, indeed? >



Your call.
I asked first. >I've tried, but frankly, I've given up. That's your option, of course.I have no problem with having short chats with Jackie, but seriousissues - as of now, I cannot take what I see as the cat-and-mousestuff. Well, that's unfortunate for you, imo, because Jackie gets a lot more real about the serious issues than most folks. Certainly more than you seem to recognize.


And certainly less willingly than you seem to understand.
I've already acknowledged that Jackie wants to discuss serious issues.
However, on another level, IMO, she is not really willing to engage
with anyone who does not fully share her (or Di's) point of view.
Let's just say she 'triggers' too easily.
It is extremely difficult trying to communicate with a person who has
made no bones about the fact that they consider you cold, indifferent
and basically full of ****, and has also (inexplicably, since they do
not know many of the significant facts of your life) stated that they
envy you.
As I've said, I've tried, but I'm no masochist.


>But then, you "see" her (sounds like something out of Henry James), >and I so clearly don't. Love that Henry 'The Master' James. You could try looking again, sometime. Or not.I take a dim view, if, indeed, it can in all consciousness be called aview, since, by definition, the very act of its perception is sobarely discernable, that it masks or otherwise creates, by virtue ofthe very nature of 'seeing', which, in and of itself, remains suspectfor reasons that can only be, at least in part, attributed to thedarker and more sorrowful influences of the inner recesses of thehuman spirit, the second sight or perhaps 'glance', as it were, that*seems* to reveal the intrinsic merits (or perhaps it should beotherwise?) of the authentic 'lustre' of a person beyond which themerest crapola of the internet, cannot begin to so beautifully go. Amen to that!Only joking. Oh. Pity.Seriously. Aha! Excellent.But maybe I'll give it another look, when I'm less pissed off.Or not. And so it goes... >



.. . . and so it goes,
.. . . and where it goes to, no-one knows.



Rh. GR

In article <Aj8qb.4396$bD.16820@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.co m... In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>> wrote:>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.>He>> >> was>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women.. Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling thesewomen "horrible" is............YOU.Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty".

LOL, either do I unless she just meant the story in general - or perhaps it's a
reference to showing up at the funeral icognito (Shoot, what do you think I'm
going to do when my bmom dies?)

I get the impression that Jackie misses Kim desperately. Since Kim's not around
to badmouth bmoms anymore, Jackie must feel she has to do it for her. Sheesh!

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <ug3iqvop5ld8hnvobeb1b2gcd0ng85c18j@4ax.com>, nancy says...
snipI take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting. She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right. And the son should have just crawledaway after being properly chastised for having the audacityto want to meet his mother. And all because Helen is an[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly besensitive to the needs of anyone else.Whatever, Jackie.

Bravo! Spot on! ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0311050716.40a0606f@posting.google.com>... GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<qh9gqv4o4pnmf946cfbkjvtiod9dl7j1ln@4ax.com>... That ain't going to get anybody nowhere.


Damn!
Allow me to correct myself.
'Nobody nowhere'


Rh.

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote
On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birth >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change.

Ah, I get what you're saying. And I guess I should have said "know"
rather than meet, because of course you're right, they did meet.

I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family,
though. I got that the focus was on not developing her own
relationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of.
>I blame the >overly-controlling sister. <sigh> > And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son..

Right. And no one forced her to do so. But what I read in the post was
more Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed out
on getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to the
family, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know. Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..

Jackie, but what's wrong with that? I think it was sensitive and
sensible of him to go incognito. What should he have done? Made a
public declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone?

How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? I think he honored her
by going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at a
time when people were thinking about *her.*

Rupa

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birth >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change. >I blame the >overly-controlling sister. <sigh> > And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son.. Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.. And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this.. She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO Jackie


I guess one could easily have guessed your approval of this woman's
behavior Jackie. Why don't you take up the cause to have all adoptees
tongues cut out and give us all plastic hearts at birth? What you
represent is an insult to adoptees. You approve, condone and placate
the very fiber of dysfunction. You and people like you compound the
crimes committed in adoption, and especially those committed against
adoptees.

She was too old to change? Now that's another juicy excuse, and I see
you have a whole collection of them here. Just where is your heart for
the young man going to her funeral in cognito like the secret bastard?
Can adoptees be subjected to any more indignation and disregard! I
think that's the epitome of disgrace and abandonment. I just don't
understand your thinking.

Kudos to you Helen!

SoulWhisper

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:28:52 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOJackie

Tell us more Jackie. What built in prejudices do adoptive mothers
have, or are these prejudices only applicable to Helen?

Julia

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)Date: 11/5/03 1:45 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c403a139.0311051345.34c6f1ee@posting.google.com>Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was hisbirth> >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.>> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge> him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change.> >I blame the> >overly-controlling sister. <sigh>> >> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son.. Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.. And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this.. She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO JackieI guess one could easily have guessed your approval of this woman'sbehavior Jackie. Why don't you take up the cause to have all adopteestongues cut out and give us all plastic hearts at birth? What yourepresent is an insult to adoptees. You approve, condone and placatethe very fiber of dysfunction. You and people like you compound thecrimes committed in adoption, and especially those committed againstadoptees.She was too old to change? Now that's another juicy excuse, and I seeyou have a whole collection of them here. Just where is your heart forthe young man going to her funeral in cognito like the secret bastard?Can adoptees be subjected to any more indignation and disregard! Ithink that's the epitome of disgrace and abandonment. I just don'tunderstand your thinking.
Kudos to you Helen!

Keep shouting,.. SoulWhisper. *

*catchy name btw..we had a poster here a few years ago who went under the name
of
GentleReader...

The irony.


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

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Julia jurol@nospam.hotmail.comDate: 11/5/03 2:00 PM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <ljsiqvc9jr2mj9jcqadf4v7orio578vu3h@4ax.com>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:28:52 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOJackieTell us more Jackie. What built in prejudices do adoptive mothershave, or are these prejudices only applicable to Helen?Julia

I can't wait to hear what GR has to say on Jackie's behalf.......;)



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

In article <1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was hisbirth >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity.The woman did meet him..She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did notwant to change who she was.. She was too old to change. >I blame the >overly-controlling sister. <sigh> > And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son,She did meet him. and (b) She's dead.Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind ofchange involved in telling her family about her son..Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.Why did she have to say this?Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has justdied.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this..She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMOJackie

Let's not forget you are a bmom and you have your built in prejudices....

KL

In article <n5qhqv4komh2f5sa59q3q1qt6uv44ra235@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:35:01 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:43:34 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.He>> was>> > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his>> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was sensitive>> enough>> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due>> course,>> > and has asked me to help.>> >>> > Helen>>>> I hope things go well for him.>>He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was hisbirth>mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.>I blame the>overly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..> However he definitely will get to know his>half-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest daughter>knew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others if>they don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?JackieWTF?Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find sooffensive. If you want people to take you seriously, itmight be a good idea to learn how and when to pick yourbattles. This one is crap.NancyThis *is* the battle Nancy..Helen is an adoptive parent.. She is into reunions in Ireland..IMO She has a built in prejudice against nmoms who refuse contact..Icame to this conclusion after reading what she posts here..This from The Many Sided Triangle.. written by Audrey Marshall andMargaret McDonald.page 1 in the book..Chapter title.. The Adoption Controversy"Would you attend a rapist for you Pap Smear?" This bitter questionwas raised in an anonymous letter to a journalist for a majornewspaper in the early 1990's. It was asked in response to an articlereferring to the Post Adoptive Resource Center in Sydney, an agencyoffering information and counselling to people seeking contact withtheir birth relatives following the introduction of the AdoptionInformation Act (NSW) of 1990. The writer objected to the appointment,as manger of this new agency, of a social worker who had been involvedin adoption services for many years, describing it as 'a joke'.end of quoting from that book.IMO Helen involves herself in reunions as a volunteer..She is an aparent.. IMO she has built in prejudices against nmoms whowish to stay in the secrecy..The woman has died.. Still Helen makes a judgment on her..I think that is horrible.. I wonder what she inadvertently does toother women (nmoms) who are struggling with coming out of the closet..Jackie

Well, I don't read Helen in that way at all. I may have missed...or the pain
pills have obscured from my memory...any bmom prejudices from Helen.

KL

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:gC8qb.26665$cJ5.4310@www.newsranger.com... In article <Aj8qb.4396$bD.16820@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.co m... In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says... > >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >wrote: > >> >>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain. >>He >>> >> was >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito. >>> >>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you... >> >>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"? > >You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by.. > >Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women.. Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling thesewomen "horrible" is............YOU.Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty". LOL, either do I unless she just meant the story in general - or perhaps
it's a reference to showing up at the funeral icognito (Shoot, what do you think
I'm going to do when my bmom dies?) I get the impression that Jackie misses Kim desperately. Since Kim's not
around to badmouth bmoms anymore, Jackie must feel she has to do it for her.
Sheesh!

I thought Kim only badmouthed CBs.

Helen
Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0311051305.103ba5e9@posting.google.c om... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was
his birth> >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.>> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not
acknowledge> him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change. Ah, I get what you're saying. And I guess I should have said "know" rather than meet, because of course you're right, they did meet. I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family, though. I got that the focus was on not developing her own relationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of.> >I blame the> >overly-controlling sister. <sigh>> >> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son.. Right. And no one forced her to do so. But what I read in the post was more Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed out on getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to the family, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know. Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.. Jackie, but what's wrong with that? I think it was sensitive and sensible of him to go incognito. What should he have done? Made a public declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone? How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? I think he honored her by going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at a time when people were thinking about *her.*

Thank you Rupa. Right to the heart of the matter, as always.

Helen
Rupa

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:oprfqvs3vn6bkvm6rk53jvdmrg0g3c6b5m@4ax.com... On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:43:34 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.
He> was> > at her funeral, incognito.Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He was
sensitive> enough> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them in due> course,> > and has asked me to help.> >> > Helen>> I hope things go well for him.He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his
birthmother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledgehim.I blame theoverly-controlling sister. <sigh>Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. However he definitely will get to know hishalf-sibs sometime in the future. I have an idea that the eldest
daughterknew about him, and she would be the one to pave the way for the others
ifthey don't know already.And all will be well and all things will be well..And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Jackie WTF? Jackie, it's **** like this that people here find so offensive.


Well there you go. A perfect example.


If you want people to take you seriously,


I'm beginning to think J. is right in the way he deals with Jackie.

it might be a good idea to learn how and when to pick your battles. This one is crap.

Anything "battle" will suffice as long as Jackie can use it to create havoc
and then complain that people are "attacking" her and she didn't have a
thing to do with it. It was all due to her bmother status/perspective and
the anger everyone has.

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:e5rhqvccu9b1ks3b74l5rbuele8h64vvat@4ax.com... On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless. It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved in reunions.. She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMO


Who's prejudice is showing? Hint: it's not Helen's

Kathy 1

>in.> >>He> >>> >> was> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.

I see myself doing the same -

DMC

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his >birth mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge him. >


I simply do not understand how can you read that into Helen's words
She said the woman 'didn't have a chance' to get to know her son.
There is no blame there, none whatsoever.
Helen is simply telling this story to illustrate how sad it is for
both parties when one attempts a reunion, the other resists (for
whatever reason), and time runs out for both.

That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man her son has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change. >I blame the >overly-controlling sister. <sigh> > And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?


That's not what I took from the above.
It's clear that Helen thinks that the sister's influence was
instrumental in preventing reunion.

Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him.


I thought I read that she did too.
Once, I think, but I can't remember for sure. and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son..


I'd prefer to say she couldn't afford to. She may have wanted to, but
.. . . time ran out on her (and on him too, in a different way)

Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.



I fail to see how it's a judgment call.
The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing his
mother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.
She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)

It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, so
why shouldn't Helen tell us about it?
In fact, she posted on this some time back, so I was very interested
to hear the outcome of this man's attempts to reunite.


And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this.. She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO


And you don't?





Rh. Jackie

In article <9Hgqb.4529$bD.16735@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:gC8qb.26665$cJ5.4310@www.newsranger.co m... In article <Aj8qb.4396$bD.16820@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.co m...> In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...> >> >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>> >wrote:> >> >>> >>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message> >>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...> >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>> >>> wrote:> >>>> >>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.> >>He> >>> >> was> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.> >>>> >>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...> >>> >>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?> >> >You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..> >> >Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..>> Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling thesewomen> "horrible" is............YOU.Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty". LOL, either do I unless she just meant the story in general - or perhapsit's a reference to showing up at the funeral icognito (Shoot, what do you thinkI'm going to do when my bmom dies?) I get the impression that Jackie misses Kim desperately. Since Kim's notaround to badmouth bmoms anymore, Jackie must feel she has to do it for her.Sheesh!I thought Kim only badmouthed CBs.

Well, I guess that's the closest to what Jackie thinks is here ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031105203556.05616.00000377@mb-m26.aol.com>, Dmc10709 says...in. >> >>He >> >>> >> was >> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.I see myself doing the same -

Me too.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <20031105193854.06226.00001358@mb-m19.aol.com>, KL says...
snipWell, I don't read Helen in that way at all. I may have missed...or the painpills have obscured from my memory...any bmom prejudices from Helen.KL

The only bmom prejudices are the ones Jackie projects here.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>He> >> >>> >> was> >> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.I see myself doing the same -Me too.Robyn

And, isn't that pitiful? I just cannot imagine having a child and never
wanting to ever meet her/him; and then going to the ends of the earth to keep
that secret of an unwed birth and relinquishment. It is crazy.

DMC

In article <20031105212644.05505.00000348@mb-m26.aol.com>, Dmc10709 says...He>> >> >>> >> was>> >> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.I see myself doing the same -Me too.RobynAnd, isn't that pitiful? I just cannot imagine having a child and neverwanting to ever meet her/him; and then going to the ends of the earth to keepthat secret of an unwed birth and relinquishment. It is crazy.

That was one definitely one of the hardest things I had to deal with. I'm so
sorry to hear that you're going through it too :(

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>That was one definitely one of the hardest things I had to deal with. I'm sosorry to hear that you're going through it too :(Robyn

Thanks. But, what can we do? Both uncle and aunt were very receptive to my
contact with them. Sorry about your b'mother troubles, too.

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:r72iqvcl49a5ev86am4nhnmsgjhgfijdje@4ax.com... On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:28:52 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMO I see. In your expert opinion you don't think Helen is qualified or capable of facilitating a reunion, so you took a nice story and twisted it into a vicious and ugly commentary on Helen. In my book, that's much more of a reflection on you than on her. But not to worry--maybe GR will be along shortly to tell us what you *really* meant, why you said it, and why the rest of us are too stupid to see that you're actually a wise and sensitive person in all matters. Nancy


ROR! (and *so* true!)

Kathy 1

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:gC8qb.26665$cJ5.4310@www.newsranger.com... In article <Aj8qb.4396$bD.16820@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.co m... In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says... > >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >wrote: > >> >>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain. >>He >>> >> was >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito. >>> >>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you... >> >>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"? > >You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by.. > >Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women.. Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling thesewomen "horrible" is............YOU.Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty". LOL, either do I unless she just meant the story in general - or perhaps
it's a reference to showing up at the funeral icognito (Shoot, what do you think
I'm going to do when my bmom dies?) I get the impression that Jackie misses Kim desperately. Since Kim's not
around to badmouth bmoms anymore, Jackie must feel she has to do it for her.
Sheesh!

Hey you might be on to something there!

Kathy 1 Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0311051305.103ba5e9@posting.google.c om... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was
his birth> >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.>> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not
acknowledge> him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change. Ah, I get what you're saying. And I guess I should have said "know" rather than meet, because of course you're right, they did meet. I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family, though. I got that the focus was on not developing her own relationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of.> >I blame the> >overly-controlling sister. <sigh>> >> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son.. Right. And no one forced her to do so. But what I read in the post was more Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed out on getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to the family, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know. Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.. Jackie, but what's wrong with that? I think it was sensitive and sensible of him to go incognito. What should he have done? Made a public declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone? How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? I think he honored her by going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at a time when people were thinking about *her.* Rupa

Rupa, I really admire your patience and I mean that sincerely.

Kathy 1

In article <bobsgn$1csudn$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>, "kat"
<katlat24@hotmail.com> writes:
I'm beginning to think J. is right in the way he deals with Jackie.

Just for the record: Jackie's in my filter. If she has responded to my posts
and I seem to have ignored her, it's because I never see her posts unless
someone quotes it and I happen to read that post. I don't recall that
happening in a very long time.

Because I wouldn't see her reply, I try not to respond to any of her posts I do
happen to see in the posts of others.

J.

In article <e5619372.0311051305.103ba5e9@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:

<SNIP>
Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..Jackie, but what's wrong with that? I think it was sensitive andsensible of him to go incognito. What should he have done? Made apublic declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone?How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? I think he honored herby going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at atime when people were thinking about *her.*Rupa

Bravo Rupa! You wrote this much more eloquently than I could have.

KL

dmc10709@aol.com (Dmc10709) wrote in message news:<20031105212644.05505.00000348@mb-m26.aol.com>...He>> >> >>> >> was>> >> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.I see myself doing the same -Me too.Robyn And, isn't that pitiful? I just cannot imagine having a child and never wanting to ever meet her/him; and then going to the ends of the earth to keep that secret of an unwed birth and relinquishment. It is crazy. DMC



DMC,

"Crazy" is a good word and in my mind it is a form of insanity. Very
sad for them to be trapped in their own thinking, and even more tragic
to be on the receiving end.

SoulWhisper

In article <20031105222801.05505.00000351@mb-m26.aol.com>, Dmc10709 says...That was one definitely one of the hardest things I had to deal with. I'm sosorry to hear that you're going through it too :(RobynThanks. But, what can we do? Both uncle and aunt were very receptive to mycontact with them. Sorry about your b'mother troubles, too.

Well, If I were you, I'd sincerely hope your aunt and uncle would develop some
balls and keep in contact with you despite what your bmom wants. However, they
probably feel their loyalty should lie with her. Hmmmmm.....;p

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311060352.3780c673@posting.google.com>... dmc10709@aol.com (Dmc10709) wrote in message news:<20031105212644.05505.00000348@mb-m26.aol.com>...He>>> >> >>> >> was>>> >> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>I see myself doing the same -Me too.Robyn And, isn't that pitiful? I just cannot imagine having a child and never wanting to ever meet her/him; and then going to the ends of the earth to keep that secret of an unwed birth and relinquishment. It is crazy. DMC DMC, "Crazy" is a good word and in my mind it is a form of insanity. Very sad for them to be trapped in their own thinking, and even more tragic to be on the receiving end. SoulWhisper

Well there you go. Adoption obviously sends poeple mad. It should
come with a health warning or be banned altogether.

Di

Di

Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<gC8qb.26665$cJ5.4310@www.newsranger.com>... In article <Aj8qb.4396$bD.16820@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.co m... In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says... > >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >wrote: > >> >>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito. >>> >>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you... >> >>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"? > >You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by.. > >Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women.. Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women "horrible" is............YOU.Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty". LOL, either do I unless she just meant the story in general - or perhaps it's a reference to showing up at the funeral icognito (Shoot, what do you think I'm going to do when my bmom dies?) I get the impression that Jackie misses Kim desperately. Since Kim's not around to badmouth bmoms anymore, Jackie must feel she has to do it for her. Sheesh!

Oh get real, Robyn. Most of you here do nothing BUT make snide and
contemptuous
little inuendos and remarks about nmothers. Surely none of you think
you're clever enough to have slipped them past us. If so, I've got
news for you and its all bad. Whatsmore, it's so ingrained in most of
you you probably don't even realise the habit it's become.

Di



Di

Di

Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 9:30 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311060930.53f72711@posting.google.com>Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:<gC8qb.26665$cJ5.4310@www.newsranger.com>... In article <Aj8qb.4396$bD.16820@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:s77qb.26639$cJ5.4420@www.newsranger.co m...> In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...> >> >On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>> >wrote:> >> >>> >>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message> >>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...> >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>> >>> wrote:> >>>> >>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again. He was> >>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.> >>>> >>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...> >>> >>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?> >> >You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..> >> >Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..>> Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women> "horrible" is............YOU.Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty". LOL, either do I unless she just meant the story in general - or perhapsit's a reference to showing up at the funeral icognito (Shoot, what do you thinkI'm going to do when my bmom dies?) I get the impression that Jackie misses Kim desperately. Since Kim's notaround to badmouth bmoms anymore, Jackie must feel she has to do it for her.Sheesh!Oh get real, Robyn. Most of you here do nothing BUT make snide andcontemptuouslittle inuendos and remarks about nmothers. Surely none of you thinkyou're clever enough to have slipped them past us. If so, I've gotnews for you and its all bad. Whatsmore, it's so ingrained in most ofyou you probably don't even realise the habit it's become.Di

Oh yeah, Di's way or the highway...let's blaim it all on their adopters.

Grow a thicker skin...If you are anti-adoption as you claim, then anything
derogative an adoptee says about nmothers shouldn't offend you.



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

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian)Date: 11/6/03 12:30 PM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <c599139c.0311060930.53f72711@posting.google.com>

< snip >
Oh get real, Robyn.

She is real, Diane, no matter what her nmother thinks.
Most of you here do nothing BUT make snide and contemptuouslittle inuendos and remarks about nmothers.

No dear, most of "us here" do not make snide and contemptuous remarks about
birthmothers. "We" make snide and contemptuous remarks about you - a rather
large distinction you repeatedly fail to grasp.
Surely none of you think you're clever enough to have slipped thempast us.

We're all aware of your superior intellect, Diane. < chuckle >

Dad

Dad advises Di:
No dear, most of "us here" do not make snide and contemptuous remarks aboutbirthmothers. "We" make snide and contemptuous remarks about you - a ratherlarge distinction you repeatedly fail to grasp.

Applause.


P2P

In article <c599139c.0311060930.53f72711@posting.google.com>, Dian says...
snipOh get real, Robyn. Most of you here do nothing BUT make snide andcontemptuouslittle inuendos and remarks about nmothers.

Really? Then get thee hence to Google and name some names and show us the posts.
Back it up. I'm curious to see all these snide remarks we've all supposedly
made here about birthmothers in general. If you claim that I have, then I
expect you to prove it. Anytime you're ready.

Surely none of you thinkyou're clever enough to have slipped them past us. If so, I've gotnews for you and its all bad.

Oh really? What's the bad news? I see you failed to mention it. I shaking in
my boots.

Whatsmore, it's so ingrained in most ofyou you probably don't even realise the habit it's become.

Prove it.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:28:52 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..
She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMO

Lordy, lordy, I remember doing this one to death a few years ago.

LOLOL Everything old is new again!

GR

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting.

Helen IMO should not have been involved.
She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.

Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.

No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..
No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..
What (some) aparents do..

Where is the equality in this?

And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right.

The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..
"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.

And the son should have just crawledaway after being properly chastised for having the audacityto want to meet his mother.

Crawled away? Very descriptive..

And all because Helen is an[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly besensitive to the needs of anyone else.


She made sure the woman looked bad..

The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..


Jackie

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:55:30 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:k3rhqv4a0997tcjq7d3d41aicg2cisee9m@4ax .com... On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:44:48 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:It is senseless and heartless. This nice guy's birth mother was herself avery nice woman, who was a victim of the very closed society in Ireland50+years' ago. She wasn't well-served by her sister, whose interferenceprevented the contact between the son and his mother, until the woman'stime(life) ran out. So this woman did not have a mind of her own?So you are judging her *again*?

I asked a question Helen... The question was based on the information
you gave..

She didn't have a car, or any other means oftransport, for a start.She relied on her single, mobile, unencumbered sister to get her around.

Ah so the sister controlled how she got around and not how she
thought..

Hmmmmmm


Jackie

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:00:20 +1100, Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:28:52 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm surethat's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--abittersweet story with no blame put on either thebirthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was justmean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOJackieTell us more Jackie. What built in prejudices do adoptive mothershave, or are these prejudices only applicable to Helen?


IMO some adoptive parents think of the adoptee first.. Why would then
not?
I believe that Helen is one of them.. I have come to the conclusion
after reading what she has said about this particular situation.

Now and in the past..

Jackie

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:42:28 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOLordy, lordy, I remember doing this one to death a few years ago.LOLOL Everything old is new again!


Yup.. Same old same old..


Jackie

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:42:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax .com...> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>> wrote:>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.He> >> was> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women"horrible" is............YOU.


Really?

The imagery was very condemning IMO.

Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. But
that was not said.. was it.

Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..
Blame blame blame..

Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!

Jackie

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:09:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty".


The little ditty helen was you saying the man had to go to her funeral
incognito..

That is guaranteed to make every one feel bad for him..
That is guaranteed to make sure some folks will think bad of the
woman.

IMO your prejudice is built in.. Built in because you are an aparent..


Jackie

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:02:21 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
In article <c599139c.0311060930.53f72711@posting.google.com>, Dian says...snipOh get real, Robyn. Most of you here do nothing BUT make snide andcontemptuouslittle inuendos and remarks about nmothers.Really? Then get thee hence to Google and name some names and show us the posts.Back it up.

What is the point Robyn..
Even when a person backs 'it' up you still deny that you were wrong..

Jackie


I'm curious to see all these snide remarks we've all supposedlymade here about birthmothers in general. If you claim that I have, then Iexpect you to prove it. Anytime you're ready.Surely none of you thinkyou're clever enough to have slipped them past us. If so, I've gotnews for you and its all bad.Oh really? What's the bad news? I see you failed to mention it. I shaking inmy boots.Whatsmore, it's so ingrained in most ofyou you probably don't even realise the habit it's become.Prove it.RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

On 5 Nov 2003 13:05:40 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his birth> >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.>> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge> him.That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man herson has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change.Ah, I get what you're saying. And I guess I should have said "know"rather than meet, because of course you're right, they did meet.I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family,though. I got that the focus was on not developing her ownrelationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of.

Should have could have.
> >I blame the> >overly-controlling sister. <sigh>> >> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son..Right. And no one forced her to do so.

No no one forced her.. But some judged her.
Found her lacking.. IMO
But what I read in the post wasmore Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed outon getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to thefamily, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know.

The woman was not given her dignity..

Her wants and desires were not honored..

Familiar ????
Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..Jackie, but what's wrong with that?

Because some of us play the blame game when something like that is
said..
I think it was sensitive andsensible of him to go incognito.

And private..
What should he have done? Made apublic declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone?

He did it how he wanted to do it.

That is what reunion *should* be about..
How does it turn into a judgement on the woman?

Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about the
funeral..
Poor poor adoptee..
I think he honored herby going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at atime when people were thinking about *her.*

Yes.. he did what I would have done..

What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an international
newsgroup..
IMO she made this woman look bad.


Jackie

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 6:02 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <2m5nqv4iss41mh7mph5429r6o21qb8i3k8@4ax.com>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:42:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>> wrote:>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.>He>> >> was>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women"horrible" is............YOU.Really?The imagery was very condemning IMO.Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it.Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame..Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!Jackie

So it's only ok when you do it. Gotcha.

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 5:56 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <0j5nqv8m8fndmeadeeao9sbar5fc4dm93a@4ax.com>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:42:28 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOLordy, lordy, I remember doing this one to death a few years ago.LOLOL Everything old is new again!Yup.. Same old same old..Jackie

That's pretty rich, considering you're the one who keeps beating this
particular dead horse...

On 5 Nov 2003 13:45:16 -0800, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)
wrote:
I guess one could easily have guessed your approval of this woman'sbehavior Jackie.

I approve when the woman is allowed to make her own decisions
regarding *her* reunion with her bson..
Why don't you take up the cause to have all adopteestongues cut out and give us all plastic hearts at birth?

I did not start this crap.. Someone with a good idea started this
crap.
What yourepresent is an insult to adoptees.

Why is that?

Heck some of my best friends are adoptee's...
You approve, condone and placatethe very fiber of dysfunction.

Ah... So you have made a judgment call on the woman..
You and people like you compound thecrimes committed in adoption, and especially those committed againstadoptees.

So we better get out there and start shaming the ones who are still in
the closet..

Ya that will work..
She was too old to change?

She is a human being who made her own decisions..

She is a human being that had a life..

May she rest in peace.. and I really mean that..
Now that's another juicy excuse, and I seeyou have a whole collection of them here. Just where is your heart forthe young man going to her funeral in cognito like the secret bastard?

Life is very difficult for some.

Can adoptees be subjected to any more indignation and disregard! Ithink that's the epitome of disgrace and abandonment. I just don'tunderstand your thinking.

I know you don't..
Kudos to you Helen!


Helen your gossiping worked..


Jackie

On 5 Nov 2003 17:44:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his> >birth mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him.> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge> him. > >I simply do not understand how can you read that into Helen's wordsShe said the woman 'didn't have a chance' to get to know her son.There is no blame there, none whatsoever.

That is not the impression I got.. But hey..

Helen is simply telling this story to illustrate how sad it is forboth parties when one attempts a reunion, the other resists (forwhatever reason), and time runs out for both.

Why did she have to say this?

Incognito?


That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would haveenjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man her son has become.So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in thesense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change.> >I blame the> >overly-controlling sister. <sigh>> >> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen?That's not what I took from the above.It's clear that Helen thinks that the sister's influence wasinstrumental in preventing reunion.

My goodness Rh.. That was gossip.. Conclusions made my Helen..

The birth mom made a decision to listen to her sister..

Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) Shemissed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him.I thought I read that she did too.Once, I think, but I can't remember for sure.

She met him and gave him his information.. That is the impression I
got from Helen's words.

She did not want to tell her children..
and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son..I'd prefer to say she couldn't afford to. She may have wanted to, but. . . time ran out on her (and on him too, in a different way) Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, sowhy shouldn't Helen tell us about it?

Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in the
story.. IMO

Another birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that!
IMO that was Helen's agenda..

In fact, she posted on this some time back, so I was very interestedto hear the outcome of this man's attempts to reunite.

Or Helen's attempt to reunite them!
And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this.. She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMOAnd you don't?


A reunion shoudl be between two people..

No one should lay their thinking onto that reunion and or the thoughts
of the parties involved..

In my opinion.

Rh what if your adopted son goes into reunion with someone who has an
agenda?
Someone who is going to decide what *should* be done..




Jackie

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved.

Yep, that seems to be your opinion.
She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this?

Where have you demonstrated inequality in this?
And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.

We mustn't talk about the dead here?
And the son should have just crawledaway after being properly chastised for having the audacityto want to meet his mother.Crawled away? Very descriptive..

Thank you.And all because Helen is an[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly besensitive to the needs of anyone else.She made sure the woman looked bad..The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..

Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?
And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement
right then and there?

I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a
daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed
a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly
raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,
just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking
hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and
threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love
you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.

Nancy
Jackie

In article <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>,
nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.We mustn't talk about the dead here?

No, silly, the first thing we must do in all reunion situations is "honor
the journey"*
of the birthmother, because, after all reunions are ALL
about
birthmothers. The first duty of the adopted person is to apologize to the
birth mother for causing her pain by being born.

No one should say anything criticizing a birth mother in any time or under
any circumstance. It is not allowed.


Linda

*This "honor the journey" crap is one annoying piece of psychobabble,
don't you think?

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>

< snip >
And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.

Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about her
abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?
We mustn't talk about the dead here?

Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially those who
carried their secrets with them to the grave.

It should not be allowed..

Dad

On 7 Nov 2003 09:59:29 -0500, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda
Fortney) wrote:
In article <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>,nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.We mustn't talk about the dead here?No, silly, the first thing we must do in all reunion situations is "honorthe journey"* of the birthmother, because, after all reunions are ALLaboutbirthmothers. The first duty of the adopted person is to apologize to thebirth mother for causing her pain by being born.No one should say anything criticizing a birth mother in any time or underany circumstance. It is not allowed.

Oh ****, I forgot. Bad adoptee!
Linda*This "honor the journey" crap is one annoying piece of psychobabble,don't you think?

Absolutely. I find 'giving her some time to get her act
together' a whole lot more palatable. But then again, when
using the latter terminology the birthmother doesn't seem
quite as much the goddess we should all believe her to be.
Bad, BAD adoptee.

Nancy

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/2003 8:04 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <tv5nqvo1a7vp59f5vv98b72lrgocm9crl5@4ax.com>On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:09:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty".

Little ditty 'bout Jackie and Diane...
The little ditty helen was you saying the man had to go to her funeralincognito..That is guaranteed to make every one feel bad for him..That is guaranteed to make sure some folks will think bad of thewoman.IMO your prejudice is built in.. Built in because you are an aparent..

As a birthmom, what prejudices might you have, Jackie?

Dad

In article <cf6nqvg4gjb28m5q4fkl10rb7pqjdqohlq@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:02:21 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <c599139c.0311060930.53f72711@posting.google.com>, Dian says...snipOh get real, Robyn. Most of you here do nothing BUT make snide andcontemptuouslittle inuendos and remarks about nmothers.Really? Then get thee hence to Google and name some names and show us the posts.Back it up.What is the point Robyn..Even when a person backs 'it' up you still deny that you were wrong..

You mean like you have?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <tv5nqvo1a7vp59f5vv98b72lrgocm9crl5@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:09:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty".The little ditty helen was you saying the man had to go to her funeralincognito..

And the problem with that was.............?
That is guaranteed to make every one feel bad for him..

Oh really? Why? Because that's what YOU think?
That is guaranteed to make sure some folks will think bad of thewoman.

Oh bull**** - I certainly don't think bad of the woman.
IMO your prejudice is built in.. Built in because you are an aparent..

And your own prejudice is built in because you're a bmom. You've made that
quite evident.

I have yet to see any prejudice on Helen's part.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)
wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com> < snip >>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>people, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about herabusive adoptive parents who were deceased?We mustn't talk about the dead here? Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially those whocarried their secrets with them to the grave. It should not be allowed..

We should change society. They should make a rule.

Nancy
Dad

In article <2m5nqv4iss41mh7mph5429r6o21qb8i3k8@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:42:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>> wrote:>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son again.>He>> >> was>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women"horrible" is............YOU.Really?

Yes, really. Have you seen anyone else here posting anything like that about
Helen's story? If you have, please Google it.
The imagery was very condemning IMO.

In YOUR opinion, it was - However, it would appear that YOU'RE the only one who
looked at it that way. I know I didn't.Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it.

Looks like it was to me. Honestly, IMO you look at any possible negative aspect
of a situation you can find. Why is that?
Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame..

Who's laying blame besides you?
Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!

Sorry, Jackie. I don't see the issue. Speaking of issues, it looks to me like
you've got some.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 4:50 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <3p4nqvcbj1rc7i22505gqbc24eprqvksqs@4ax.com>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved. She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this?And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.
Jackie

So why don't you let it rest? Or are you above reproach?





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

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 5:04 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <tv5nqvo1a7vp59f5vv98b72lrgocm9crl5@4ax.com>On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:09:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty".The little ditty helen was you saying the man had to go to her funeralincognito..That is guaranteed to make every one feel bad for him..That is guaranteed to make sure some folks will think bad of thewoman.IMO your prejudice is built in.. Built in because you are an aparent..Jackie

Reading your posts with my morning coffee is like reading the funny pages.

You are so whack in an amusing sort of way....hehehe



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

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 6:28 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <hg9nqvgfvgsq83bvhmvlb0taha8jo5lm60@4ax.com>On 5 Nov 2003 17:44:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote > >> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >> >> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was his >> >birth mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. >> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge >> him. > > >I simply do not understand how can you read that into Helen's wordsShe said the woman 'didn't have a chance' to get to know her son.There is no blame there, none whatsoever.That is not the impression I got.. But hey..Helen is simply telling this story to illustrate how sad it is forboth parties when one attempts a reunion, the other resists (forwhatever reason), and time runs out for both.Why did she have to say this?Incognito? >That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would have >enjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man > her son has become. >So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in the >sense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change. >> >I blame the >> >overly-controlling sister. <sigh> >> > >> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen? > >That's not what I took from the above.It's clear that Helen thinks that the sister's influence wasinstrumental in preventing reunion.My goodness Rh.. That was gossip.. Conclusions made my Helen..The birth mom made a decision to listen to her sister.. >Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) She >missed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. > >I thought I read that she did too.Once, I think, but I can't remember for sure.She met him and gave him his information.. That is the impression Igot from Helen's words.She did not want to tell her children.. > and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son.. > >I'd prefer to say she couldn't afford to. She may have wanted to, but. . . time ran out on her (and on him too, in a different way) > > Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace. > >I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, sowhy shouldn't Helen tell us about it?Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in thestory.. IMOAnother birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that!IMO that was Helen's agenda..

Move over Kim..............

....Helen's The All Powerful One now......



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

In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com> < snip >>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>people, are right.>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about herabusive adoptive parents who were deceased?We mustn't talk about the dead here? Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially those whocarried their secrets with them to the grave. It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.

But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoring them?

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:>Subject: Re: Just for the record>From: nancy me@privacy.net>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com> < snip >>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>people, are right.>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about herabusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>We mustn't talk about the dead here? Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially those whocarried their secrets with them to the grave. It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoring them?

We must honor them by skipping their funerals and never
speaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.
Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.

I went to my bmom's funeral--thank God I wasn't incognito.
Everyone knew who I was. Some of her relatives would not
speak to me--possibly because I was tainted, born in sin and
therefore icky, or possibly because it was all my fault.

Nancy

In article <5pjnqvoe2vn1d8q0se1b4uu37p26t924ns@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>> < snip >>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about her>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially those who>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>> It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoring them?We must honor them by skipping their funerals and neverspeaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.

Deary me - and here I was thinking that when my bmom shuffles off her mortal
coil, I'd be sneaking into her funeral.

Though actually what I think would be better would be to drive up there a couple
of weeks after her funeral, say my "goodbyes" at her grave, and then locate and
visit my half-sibs ;)
I went to my bmom's funeral--thank God I wasn't incognito.Everyone knew who I was. Some of her relatives would notspeak to me--possibly because I was tainted, born in sin andtherefore icky, or possibly because it was all my fault.

Oh, that's just terrible. I'm sorry to hear this :(

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/03 9:10 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <5pjnqvoe2vn1d8q0se1b4uu37p26t924ns@4ax.com>On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>> < snip >>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about her>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewho>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>> It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoringthem?We must honor them by skipping their funerals and neverspeaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.I went to my bmom's funeral--thank God I wasn't incognito.Everyone knew who I was. Some of her relatives would notspeak to me--possibly because I was tainted, born in sin andtherefore icky, or possibly because it was all my fault.Nancy

Are you serious? How old were these people? Maybe it's a generation thing. My
family and friends completely embraced my son. I can't imagine how this made
you feel..Sorry about that.



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

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 9:21 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <EwQqb.27080$cJ5.4464@www.newsranger.com>In article <5pjnqvoe2vn1d8q0se1b4uu37p26t924ns@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...>>On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)>wrote:>>>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>>>> < snip >>>>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>>>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted abouther>>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>>>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewho>>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>>>> It should not be allowed..>>We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoringthem?We must honor them by skipping their funerals and neverspeaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.Deary me - and here I was thinking that when my bmom shuffles off her mortalcoil, I'd be sneaking into her funeral.Though actually what I think would be better would be to drive up there acoupleof weeks after her funeral, say my "goodbyes" at her grave, and then locateandvisit my half-sibs ;)

Now there's a plan! :)





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

On 07 Nov 2003 17:55:22 GMT, meagan787@aol.comsthesun
(Kathy) wrote:
Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/03 9:10 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <5pjnqvoe2vn1d8q0se1b4uu37p26t924ns@4ax.com>On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...>>On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)>wrote:>>>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>>>> < snip >>>>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>>>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about her>>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>>>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewho>>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>>>> It should not be allowed..>>We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoringthem?We must honor them by skipping their funerals and neverspeaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.I went to my bmom's funeral--thank God I wasn't incognito.Everyone knew who I was. Some of her relatives would notspeak to me--possibly because I was tainted, born in sin andtherefore icky, or possibly because it was all my fault.NancyAre you serious? How old were these people? Maybe it's a generation thing. Myfamily and friends completely embraced my son. I can't imagine how this madeyou feel..Sorry about that.

Oh, it was no big deal. They were old. I just responded to
Robin with the rest of the story. LOL.

Nancy

In article <20031107125636.19657.00000246@mb-m24.aol.com>, Kathy says...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/03 9:21 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <EwQqb.27080$cJ5.4464@www.newsranger.com>In article <5pjnqvoe2vn1d8q0se1b4uu37p26t924ns@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:>In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...>>>>On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)>>wrote:>>>>>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>>>>>> < snip >>>>>>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>>>>>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted abouther>>>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>>>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>>>>>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewho>>>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>>>>>> It should not be allowed..>>>>We should change society. They should make a rule.>>But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoringthem?We must honor them by skipping their funerals and neverspeaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.Deary me - and here I was thinking that when my bmom shuffles off her mortalcoil, I'd be sneaking into her funeral.Though actually what I think would be better would be to drive up there acoupleof weeks after her funeral, say my "goodbyes" at her grave, and then locateandvisit my half-sibs ;)Now there's a plan! :)

Yes, but her family is long-lived. I'll probably be in my mid 60s by then! ;[

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <v1Qqb.27076$cJ5.4299@www.newsranger.com>,
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoring them?

We should honor the journey of both the birthmother and the closet.

Linda

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<hg9nqvgfvgsq83bvhmvlb0taha8jo5lm60@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 17:44:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, sowhy shouldn't Helen tell us about it? Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in the story.. IMO Another birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that! IMO that was Helen's agenda..



On the other hand, she may simply have been illustrating the sadness
of lost opportunity.



In fact, she posted on this some time back, so I was very interestedto hear the outcome of this man's attempts to reunite. Or Helen's attempt to reunite them!



I think we need to know how Helen and this man knew each other in the
first place, and what his wishes were on the matter, before we rush to
that judgment.


And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this.. She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO > >And you don't? A reunion shoudl be between two people.. >



That's my general feeling too (or at least it would be my preference),
but I'm aware that sometimes some people express the need for a
confidante or intermediatory.

No one should lay their thinking onto that reunion and or the thoughts of the parties involved.. In my opinion. Rh what if your adopted son goes into reunion with someone who has an agenda?



You mean if he goes into reunion and his mother has an agenda?
If you mean that, what kind of agenda?
Would you mind explaining a little more, please.

As far as I'm concerned, his reunion will be his business.
Hey, it may be that he won't even tell me (immediately, or maybe even
ever), and that would be entirely his decision to make.
If things go badly for him, I will feel badly for him. But I would
*never, ever* judge his mother if that were to be the case. I feel
too much empathy for her, and for him too.
I very much hope that he and his mother (and maybe father too)
reunite, and that they make a good permanent connection that will go
at least some way (I hope a long way) toward healing the pain I know
they've experienced, and which will bring them happiness.


Someone who is going to decide what *should* be done..


I really do wonder if you are getting personal here.
If so, the answer is, no, I don't have an agenda.
For my feelings on the matter, see above.




Rh. Jackie

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bogp0f$khn@tracy.umd.edu... In article <v1Qqb.27076$cJ5.4299@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoring
them? We should honor the journey of both the birthmother and the closet. Linda

How about getting a Presidential proclamation for National Birth Mother in
the Closet Day. I'm sure GEB would comply.

Marley

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: Why did you bring it here Helen? Why did you attempt to make that woman look bad? Why do you gossip about her?

Jackie, we don't know the names or places of these people. It scarcely
qualifies as gossip when we're talking about two very anonymous
people. And why do you feel the birthmother looked bad? I really don't
see anyone else feeling that way ... Jackie: Then he was not incognito.. The image I got was of him walking around the funeral forlorn..

Why wasn't that incognito? Incognito only means "unknown."

The image that you have is a sad one, and perhaps that is why you
reacted so strongly? But I didn't get that from Helen's post, more
like regret that two people who might have enjoyed knowing each other
will not now get a chance. >> >> Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. > >Yes. The unmarried older sister, who controlled access to the birth mother >for a long time, who didn't pass on letters from the son when she said that >she would - saying that it would kill her, that she couldn't mention him, >and all that jazz. >So yes, as you say it was the "ctonrolling sister" who >"controlled the woman" - or at least her access to contact with her son. The >*sister* decided, without reference to the woman. Right the woman was a baby.. She could not do for herself..

Jackie, what's upsetting you with this story?
The fact that the reunion was truncated by the woman's death? Or that
she was not autonomous? Or that you think everyone will feel that she
should have spoken more with her b-son, and acknowledged him to the
world?

I feel you are seeing something terribly negative while I'm just
seeing a bittersweet story.

Who knows how it would have ended if she hadn't died then? Maybe in
just the same way as now, but some years later. Or maybe she would
have gradually expanded her relationship with her b-son.

But Helen seems to have liked them both, and praised them both. Only
the sister comes in for judgement, I think; Helen calls her
controlling, and perhaps she was. But she, too, may have been doing
what she thought was best.

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/2003 11:22 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com> < snip >>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>people, are right.>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about herabusive adoptive parents who were deceased?We mustn't talk about the dead here? Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially those whocarried their secrets with them to the grave. It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.

I propose the following rules:

1) Under no circumstances should we talk bad about dead bmoms.
2) Under no circumstances should we talk bad about live bmoms who don't post
here.

Whadda you think?

Dad

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote
I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family,though. I got that the focus was on not developing her ownrelationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of. Should have could have.

True. Isn't that always the way when someone dies? "I wish I had..." No no one forced her.. But some judged her. Found her lacking.. IMO

Who judged her, Jackie? But what I read in the post wasmore Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed outon getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to thefamily, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know. The woman was not given her dignity.. Her wants and desires were not honored.. Familiar ????
Were they not? She met her son face to face for an hour. And then her
son went to her funeral incognito, so that he paid his respects, but
did not out her. Only her sister, according to Helen's account, did
not honor her wants and desires.
Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..Jackie, but what's wrong with that? Because some of us play the blame game when something like that is said..

What's to blame? He respected the fact that she had not told the
family about him. He did it how he wanted to do it. That is what reunion *should* be about..

Right. So that was all right, then. So why were you upset when you
heard that?How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about the funeral.. Poor poor adoptee..

Jackie, I didn't get any negative vibes. Nor any pity for the adoptee,
who did what was decent and appropriate.
I think he honored herby going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at atime when people were thinking about *her.* Yes.. he did what I would have done..
What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an international newsgroup.. IMO she made this woman look bad.

To whom is she looking bad? Not to me, anyway.
Are you uncomfortable with Helen's assumption that the b-mom would
have wanted to know her son better and didn't get to do so? Because,
in fact, the b-mom might not have wanted that at all, and wanted to
stay closeted instead?

Rupa

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/2003 11:48 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <v1Qqb.27076$cJ5.4299@www.newsranger.com>In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:>Subject: Re: Just for the record>From: nancy me@privacy.net>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com> < snip >>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>people, are right.>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about herabusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>We mustn't talk about the dead here? Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewhocarried their secrets with them to the grave. It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't webe honoring them?

No. I think we should bury them in a nice plot somewhere and post NO DANCING
signs all around.

Dad

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<c39nqvotb7dnjgj1ckeiqbd4roqn1b9bj5@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 13:45:16 -0800, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote:I guess one could easily have guessed your approval of this woman'sbehavior Jackie. I approve when the woman is allowed to make her own decisions regarding *her* reunion with her bson.. Why don't you take up the cause to have all adopteestongues cut out and give us all plastic hearts at birth? I did not start this crap.. Someone with a good idea started this crap. What yourepresent is an insult to adoptees. Why is that? Heck some of my best friends are adoptee's...You approve, condone and placatethe very fiber of dysfunction. Ah... So you have made a judgment call on the woman..You and people like you compound thecrimes committed in adoption, and especially those committed againstadoptees. So we better get out there and start shaming the ones who are still in the closet.. Ya that will work..She was too old to change? She is a human being who made her own decisions.. She is a human being that had a life.. May she rest in peace.. and I really mean that.. Now that's another juicy excuse, and I seeyou have a whole collection of them here. Just where is your heart forthe young man going to her funeral in cognito like the secret bastard? Life is very difficult for some.Can adoptees be subjected to any more indignation and disregard! Ithink that's the epitome of disgrace and abandonment. I just don'tunderstand your thinking. I know you don't..Kudos to you Helen! Helen your gossiping worked.. Jackie




Well, if that doesn't typify your attitude I don't know what does. So
nonchalantly she utters an unequivocal "Life is very difficult for
some."

Deflection and denial Jackie, do those words mean anything to you?
It is funny and sad that the personality of the closeted birthmother
seems to be one that is perpetually stuck somewhere on something, and
obsessively to the point of exclusion. I haven't necessarily made a
real judgment on that woman but it is very sad to me that her son had
to go to her funeral the way he did. I suppose it was extremely
elegant and noble on his part, I sure hope it didn't cost him much in
pride and self esteem, by his own perception of the circumstances.

Ah yes, Jackie, life is very difficult for some...

SoulWhisper

On 5 Nov 2003 07:16:58 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
Let's just say she 'triggers' too easily.

Really?
It is extremely difficult trying to communicate with a person who hasmade no bones about the fact that they consider you cold, indifferentand basically full of ****, and has also (inexplicably, since they donot know many of the significant facts of your life) stated that theyenvy you.

I envy you when you got to hold your son. Easily.
As I've said, I've tried, but I'm no masochist.

I am very grateful that you gave up.


Jackie

In article <20031107145407.00108.00000193@mb-m10.aol.com>, AdoptaDad says...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Robibnikoff nospam@newsranger.comDate: 11/7/2003 11:48 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <v1Qqb.27076$cJ5.4299@www.newsranger.com>In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>> < snip >>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about her>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewho>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>> It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't webe honoring them? No. I think we should bury them in a nice plot somewhere and post NO DANCINGsigns all around.

<chuckle> Oh dear ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:3p4nqvcbj1rc7i22505gqbc24eprqvksqs@4ax.com... On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting. Helen IMO should not have been involved.

I was *invited* to be involved.
She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son. Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.

I did allow both people to make their own decisions. What do you take me
for? (No, I'll retract that, you have already taken far too much liberty.)
No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling.. No protecting the emotions of the adoptee.. What (some) aparents do..

If there were any emotions protected, they were the birth mother's emotions,
as she was the person who was *found*, and therefore was unprepared for it.
Where is the equality in this?

What are you talking about?
And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right. The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.. "Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.

Why should it be left at that? The woman is dead, and he paid his respects
to her at her funeral. He has an aunt who has met him - indeed who used to
visit him *incognito* when he is eight or nine. He has siblings. They are
mutually entitled to know each other if they wish.
And the son should have just crawledaway after being properly chastised for having the audacityto want to meet his mother. Crawled away? Very descriptive..

Why is that? You have no respect for anyone, Jackie. None whatsoever.
And all because Helen is an[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly besensitive to the needs of anyone else. She made sure the woman looked bad..

What are you talking about? "Looked bad" to whom? Why would I do that? She
was a very nice, decent, humourous person - I doubt she had a mean spark in
her.
The son goes incognito to the funeral..

So? Why wouldn't he?
The sister controlled her..

Yes she did. Quite a lot. She never passed on letters that were sent,
although they were addressed to the mother, care of *her*. She had no right
to withold letters addressed to an adult.

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l95nqvgsev0b4ivdbmiink51a9dae5f2e7@4ax.com... On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:55:30 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:k3rhqv4a0997tcjq7d3d41aicg2cisee9m@4ax .com... On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:44:48 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >It is senseless and heartless. This nice guy's birth mother was
herself a >very nice woman, who was a victim of the very closed society in
Ireland50+ >years' ago. She wasn't well-served by her sister, whose interference >prevented the contact between the son and his mother, until the
woman'stime >(life) ran out. So this woman did not have a mind of her own?So you are judging her *again*? I asked a question Helen... The question was based on the information you gave.. She didn't have a car, or any other means oftransport, for a start.She relied on her single, mobile, unencumbered sister to get her around. Ah so the sister controlled how she got around and not how she thought.. Hmmmmmm

You are a great one for Hmmmmmmmmmmms. Rather like Playroy with his
hahahahahahas.

The sister facilitated her to get around when public transport wasn't
available, yes. If you have ever lived in a rural area (I gather that you
do, often) and if you don't drive (I gather that you don't like to) then you
must be aware of the difficulty in getting from A to B when the distance is
greater than one would walk in an hour or two.

Insofar as she limited the information available to her, the sister
certainly controlled some of her thoughts. Letters weren't given to her.
She had no reason to suspect that her 51 year old son was on the horizon.
Why would she?

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:pe5nqv8tql72sqdnp8sr9kjrfolsbpu4u6@4ax.com... On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:00:20 +1100, Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:28:52 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:04:27 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>Exactly. That's what I took from your post, and I'm sure>that's what most (reasonable) people heard as well--a>bittersweet story with no blame put on either the>birthmother or the adoptee. Jackie's response was just>mean-spirited and senseless.It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOJackieTell us more Jackie. What built in prejudices do adoptive mothershave, or are these prejudices only applicable to Helen? IMO some adoptive parents think of the adoptee first.. Why would then not? I believe that Helen is one of them.. I have come to the conclusion after reading what she has said about this particular situation. Now and in the past..

Well dear, how wrong you are. I tend to think of both parties, with
particular emphasis on the person who is found - quite simply because they
have had no warning, therefore they are much more vulnerable. I don't care
who it is - adopted, fostered, parent of any hue, siblings or none of those.
If someone asks me for help - and they do, every day, then I do my very
best. My intentions are always *to do no harm*.

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0j5nqv8m8fndmeadeeao9sbar5fc4dm93a@4ax.com... On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:42:28 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved inreunions..She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOLordy, lordy, I remember doing this one to death a few years ago.LOLOL Everything old is new again! Yup.. Same old same old..

....****e. You have never changed one iota.

Helen
Jackie

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031107090113.28640.00000336@mb-m15.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/03 5:56 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <0j5nqv8m8fndmeadeeao9sbar5fc4dm93a@4ax.com>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:42:28 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:>It was not senseless.. Why in hell is an adoptive mother involved in>reunions..>She is not a neutral party.. She has built in prejudices..IMOLordy, lordy, I remember doing this one to death a few years ago.LOLOL Everything old is new again!Yup.. Same old same old..Jackie That's pretty rich, considering you're the one who keeps beating this particular dead horse...

....with a warm lettuce.

Helen

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2m5nqv4iss41mh7mph5429r6o21qb8i3k8@4ax.com... On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:42:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>> wrote:>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son
again.>He>> >> was>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these
women"horrible" is............YOU. Really? The imagery was very condemning IMO.

What is it about *incognito* that gets on your wick?
Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. But that was not said.. was it.

Yes it was. He went to the church long before anyone else was there.
Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito.. Blame blame blame..

Just who is blaming anyone? YOU are - you are blaming him for going to his
mother's funeral. Do you know anything about Irish funerals, Jackie? Any
idea how *many* people would have been there? Do you? *About one hundred and
fifty* people, Jackie. How many others would have been there who were
incognito to others?

You really are so bloody *stupid*.
Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!

Yeah Jackie. We all know what can be posted on an international newsgroup,
don't we? Unlike you, I don't name people. Fortunately, it would seem, from
what I know about you and your amazing capacity for spite.

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:tv5nqvo1a7vp59f5vv98b72lrgocm9crl5@4ax.com... On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:09:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty". The little ditty helen was you saying the man had
to go to her funeral incognito..

Ditty = a short simple song
That is guaranteed to make every one feel bad for him..

Why is that?
That is guaranteed to make sure some folks will think bad of the woman.

The ONLY person thinking bad about her is YOU.
IMO your prejudice is built in.. Built in because you are an aparent..

You are too stupid for words.

Helen Jackie

"AdoptaDad" <adoptadad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031107111808.03150.00000120@mb-m02.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/2003 8:04 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <tv5nqvo1a7vp59f5vv98b72lrgocm9crl5@4ax.com>On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:09:31 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:Thank you Robyn. And I STILL don't know what she meant about a "littleditty". Little ditty 'bout Jackie and Diane...The little ditty helen was you saying the man had to go to her funeralincognito..That is guaranteed to make every one feel bad for him..That is guaranteed to make sure some folks will think bad of thewoman.IMO your prejudice is built in.. Built in because you are an aparent.. As a birthmom, what prejudices might you have, Jackie?

She is hugely resentful of adopted people and adoptive parents. Even some
birth mothers get her goat. She is full of resentment.

Helen
Dad

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bi6nqv4nst3d51n42g2tliv9p07bfneqj5@4ax.com... On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:08:37 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax .com... On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: > >"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >> wrote:
<snip>

Instead he had to go to her funeral incognito..

No you have it wrong, once again. I never said that he HAD to go to her
funeral incognito.
I said he was "at her funeral, incognito." There is a big difference. You
evidently don;t know the meaning of the word.

Yes, in a display of quiet respect for her he went to the church long
beforeanyone else was there. He sat in a pew near the coffin, and 'communed'
withher. He said that he felt close to her, and a weight left his shoulders.
Hesaid he got a great sense of peace, and closure. He felt blessed by her. Then he was not incognito..

He was. The only person there who knew him was the sister. He was just
another mourner amongst many strangers. Incognito.

<snip>
Damn I thought I was just stupid..

<snort> Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bi6nqv4nst3d51n42g2tliv9p07bfneqj5@4ax.com... On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 15:08:37 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax .com... On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: > >"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain. >He >> >> was >> >> > at her funeral, incognito. >> >> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you... > >WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"? You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by.. Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..You are more to be pitied than laughed at. Why did you bring it here Helen? Why did you attempt to make that woman look bad? Why do you gossip about her? >> >>> Says that he was very glad he went, saw his >> >> > half-siblings and all, but didn't introduce himself. He wassensitive >> >> enough >> >> > not to add to their grief. He will make himself known to them
indue >> >> course, >> >> > and has asked me to help. >> >> > >> >> > Helen >> >> >> >> I hope things go well for him. >> > >> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was
his >birth >> >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. >> >> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not
acknowledge >> him. > >She met him for an hour. Of COURSE she acknowledged him. They sat face
to >face. The image of each other, I believe. You know damn well what I meant Helen..No I don't. She bloody well DID acknowledge him Not to her family.. That is why he had to go to the funeral incognito.. According to you. Acknowledge him to her family.. She did not do this did she..Did someone set a time-frame on her doing this? Did someone say "you have
Xnumber of months to tell them, and if you don't I'll out you"? Hint:
nobodyput any pressure on her, not me, and not her son, not at all. Ah but you did not just say.. "May she rest in peace". Nooooooo You had to put some awful zingers into your post.. Instead he had to go to her funeral incognito..Yes, in a display of quiet respect for her he went to the church long
beforeanyone else was there. He sat in a pew near the coffin, and 'communed'
withher. He said that he felt close to her, and a weight left his shoulders.
Hesaid he got a great sense of peace, and closure. He felt blessed by her. Then he was not incognito.. The image I got was of him walking around the funeral forlorn.. Its a movie..In your florid imagination, perhaps. Bad bad nmom hiding in the closet...You are sick. Ah..... I must not call you on your prejudices helen.. I am sick if I do.

You are the only one with prejudices, and you are full of hate.
Damn I thought I was stupid.. I thought I was unable to cope. I thought I needed GR to help me.. Maybe GR may disagree with me here.. What will I do what will I do.

You sound unbalanced, if the truth be known.

Helen


<snip> Damn I thought I was just stupid..

Yeah?

Helen Jackie

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0311071138.74695273@posting.google.c om... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: Why did you bring it here Helen? Why did you attempt to make that woman look bad? Why do you gossip about her? Jackie, we don't know the names or places of these people. It scarcely qualifies as gossip when we're talking about two very anonymous people. And why do you feel the birthmother looked bad? I really don't see anyone else feeling that way ... Jackie: Then he was not incognito.. The image I got was of him walking
around the funeral forlorn.. Why wasn't that incognito? Incognito only means "unknown." The image that you have is a sad one, and perhaps that is why you reacted so strongly? But I didn't get that from Helen's post, more like regret that two people who might have enjoyed knowing each other will not now get a chance.> >>> >> Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..> >> >Yes. The unmarried older sister, who controlled access to the birth mother> >for a long time, who didn't pass on letters from the son when she
said that> >she would - saying that it would kill her, that she couldn't mention
him,> >and all that jazz.> >So yes, as you say it was the "ctonrolling sister" who> >"controlled the woman" - or at least her access to contact with her
son. The> >*sister* decided, without reference to the woman.>> Right the woman was a baby.. She could not do for herself.. Jackie, what's upsetting you with this story? The fact that the reunion was truncated by the woman's death? Or that she was not autonomous? Or that you think everyone will feel that she should have spoken more with her b-son, and acknowledged him to the world? I feel you are seeing something terribly negative while I'm just seeing a bittersweet story. Who knows how it would have ended if she hadn't died then? Maybe in just the same way as now, but some years later. Or maybe she would have gradually expanded her relationship with her b-son. But Helen seems to have liked them both, and praised them both. Only the sister comes in for judgement, I think; Helen calls her controlling, and perhaps she was. But she, too, may have been doing what she thought was best.

She was doing what she was always expected to do, and did well.
Unfortunately she forgot that these two people were adults, and that her
sister was entitled to know that her son was looking for her and had written
to her.

I am very glad for them both that they had the opportunity to meet and talk.
They both told me that it had gone well, and both expressed a wish to repeat
it.

Thank you Rupa, for seeing the truth of what I wrote, and sensing the liking
that I had for them. Certainly no prejudices!

Helen
Rupa

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0311071049.fd806ff@posting.google.com. .. Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<hg9nqvgfvgsq83bvhmvlb0taha8jo5lm60@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 17:44:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
<snip>

I think we need to know how Helen and this man knew each other in the first place, and what his wishes were on the matter, before we rush to that judgment.

He wrote to me initially, and then phoned and emailed me regularly, hoping
that I could find his birth mother for him. He had written care of the
mother's sister (who had known all about the pregnancy and relinquishment)
but she obviously chose not to pass on the letters. Neither did she 'return
them to sender'.

When I found her I wrote to her in such a manner that only she would know
what it was about. SHE then phoned ME. I liked her a lot - I liked them
both, in fact. They were very alike.

Helen


> And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this..> She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO> >> >>>>And you don't? A reunion shoudl be between two people.. > > That's my general feeling too (or at least it would be my preference), but I'm aware that sometimes some people express the need for a confidante or intermediatory. No one should lay their thinking onto that reunion and or the thoughts of the parties involved.. In my opinion. Rh what if your adopted son goes into reunion with someone who has an agenda? You mean if he goes into reunion and his mother has an agenda? If you mean that, what kind of agenda? Would you mind explaining a little more, please. As far as I'm concerned, his reunion will be his business. Hey, it may be that he won't even tell me (immediately, or maybe even ever), and that would be entirely his decision to make. If things go badly for him, I will feel badly for him. But I would *never, ever* judge his mother if that were to be the case. I feel too much empathy for her, and for him too. I very much hope that he and his mother (and maybe father too) reunite, and that they make a good permanent connection that will go at least some way (I hope a long way) toward healing the pain I know they've experienced, and which will bring them happiness. Someone who is going to decide what *should* be done.. I really do wonder if you are getting personal here. If so, the answer is, no, I don't have an agenda. For my feelings on the matter, see above. Rh. Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<4iunqv082c6g8h6e5lus06u4cc7lrq5kei@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 07:16:58 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Let's just say she 'triggers' too easily. Really?It is extremely difficult trying to communicate with a person who hasmade no bones about the fact that they consider you cold, indifferentand basically full of ****, and has also (inexplicably, since they donot know many of the significant facts of your life) stated that theyenvy you. I envy you when you got to hold your son. Easily.As I've said, I've tried, but I'm no masochist. I am very grateful that you gave up.




Thanks.
Moi aussi.


Rh. Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<4iunqv082c6g8h6e5lus06u4cc7lrq5kei@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 07:16:58 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Let's just say she 'triggers' too easily. Really?It is extremely difficult trying to communicate with a person who hasmade no bones about the fact that they consider you cold, indifferentand basically full of ****, and has also (inexplicably, since they donot know many of the significant facts of your life) stated that theyenvy you. I envy you when you got to hold your son. Easily.



Easily?
You presume too much.



Rh.As I've said, I've tried, but I'm no masochist. I am very grateful that you gave up. Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote
Why did she have to say this? Incognito?
So we wouldn't get the impression that he rode into the funeral
triumphantly declaring a relationship that his b-mother had not
acknowledged before?

I feel you are reading a huge negative meaning into "incognito" that I
for one did not see there.
Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)

She's also anonymous; which is why I can't classify it as gossip. "Did
you hear the one about the old lady whom you don't know and her son
who you also don't know" doesn't quite cut it as gossip in my view.
Juicy gossip has to be about people you know or know of.

Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0311072051.2e01db95@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote Why did she have to say this? Incognito? So we wouldn't get the impression that he rode into the funeral triumphantly declaring a relationship that his b-mother had not acknowledged before? I feel you are reading a huge negative meaning into "incognito" that I for one did not see there.>> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.> Why did she have to say this?> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.>I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway) She's also anonymous; which is why I can't classify it as gossip. "Did you hear the one about the old lady whom you don't know and her son who you also don't know" doesn't quite cut it as gossip in my view. Juicy gossip has to be about people you know or know of.



The only possible reasons I can suppose for Jackies objection to his
attending the funeral incognito, is that she thinks it would have been
more appropiate if he *not* gone incognito, but 'outed' himself to his
fellow mourners. Or else not gone at all.
I don't really think she thinks either of these things.
So I'm very mystified.

And not only are these people anonymous , but also, 'That was in
another country, and besides, the wench is dead.'



Rh.

Rupa

rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0311072051.2e01db95@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote Why did she have to say this? Incognito? So we wouldn't get the impression that he rode into the funeral triumphantly declaring a relationship that his b-mother had not acknowledged before? I feel you are reading a huge negative meaning into "incognito" that I for one did not see there.>> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.> Why did she have to say this?> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.>I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway) She's also anonymous; which is why I can't classify it as gossip. "Did you hear the one about the old lady whom you don't know and her son who you also don't know" doesn't quite cut it as gossip in my view. Juicy gossip has to be about people you know or know of.



The only reasons I can think of for Jackie's objection to Helen's use
of the word 'incognito', are that she thinks it would have been more
appropriate for this man to attend the funeral openly as the dead
woman's son.
Or else not to have gone at all.

And I don't really thinks she thinks either of these things.
So I'm very mystified.

I agree with you that it was an honorable solution for him. He paid
his respects to his mother, and satisfied a need within himself
without hurting others.

Anyway, not only are these people anonymous, but, 'That was in another
country, and besides, the wench is dead.'
No gossip here.


Rh. Rupa

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:28:43 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved.Yep, that seems to be your opinion.

It is..
She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this?Where have you demonstrated inequality in this?

I am sorry you missed my point Nancy..
And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.We mustn't talk about the dead here?

I don't like to see a person doing a critique on the dead..

IMO Helen did this.

IMO she has never said anything nice about this woman..
Can you think of anything Nancy?
And the son should have just crawledaway after being properly chastised for having the audacityto want to meet his mother.Crawled away? Very descriptive..Thank you.And all because Helen is an[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly besensitive to the needs of anyone else.She made sure the woman looked bad..The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?

Okay lets change your sentence..

Exactly what is wrong with the son going incognito to the funeral?

Now we got some stuff to get upset about... Right?
And do you think he should have made the Big Announcementright then and there?

I guess you are totally missing my point.. Or you are deliberately
changing it in order to confuse.. But hey.
I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had adaughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placeda pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainlyraised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,just before they closed the casket, she went into shriekinghysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel andthrew herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I loveyou", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.


Must have been awful.


Jackie

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:23:36 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>
wrote:
The imagery was very condemning IMO.In YOUR opinion, it was - However, it would appear that YOU'RE the only one wholooked at it that way. I know I didn't.

I am sure Helen and people like Helen depend on this.
Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it.Looks like it was to me.

Really?????
Honestly, IMO you look at any possible negative aspectof a situation you can find. Why is that?

"All the better to brainwash you my dear!"

Kackle Kackle
Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame..Who's laying blame besides you?

LOL that is funny.
Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!Sorry, Jackie. I don't see the issue. Speaking of issues, it looks to me likeyou've got some.

Robyn.. There are no words..


Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hg9nqvgfvgsq83bvhmvlb0taha8jo5lm60@4ax.com... On 5 Nov 2003 17:44:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote > >> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >> >> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was
his >> >birth mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know
him. >> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not
acknowledge >> him.
I simply do not understand how can you read that into Helen's wordsShe said the woman 'didn't have a chance' to get to know her son.There is no blame there, none whatsoever. That is not the impression I got.. But hey..

Your "impressions" are suspect.
Helen is simply telling this story to illustrate how sad it is forboth parties when one attempts a reunion, the other resists (forwhatever reason), and time runs out for both. Why did she have to say this? Incognito?

You are obsessed with the word. You evidently do not understand its meaning.

<snip>
That's not what I took from the above.It's clear that Helen thinks that the sister's influence wasinstrumental in preventing reunion. My goodness Rh.. That was gossip.. Conclusions made my Helen.. The birth mom made a decision to listen to her sister..

The birth mom didn't have the opportunity to make her own choices. When the
sister received the letters from the son, addressed to the bmom, she chose
not to give the birth mother the opportunity to decide for herself what she
wanted to do.

Imagine controlling what a 60+ woman should receive in the post! Would YOU
like it?

When you were searching for your son, how would you have liked it if letters
you had writen to him 'care of' someone - his adoptive parents, say - had
been retained by them? I reckon you would have been bursting with that
famous, much-loved anger of yours.
I thought I read that she did too.Once, I think, but I can't remember for sure. She met him and gave him his information.. That is the impression I got from Helen's words.

He already *knew* "his information". He knew who both parents were. He knew
their homeplaces. He knew that his birth father was dead. He knew that he
had siblings on that side. He knew his birth mother's name, her dead
husband's profession but not his name (therefore not her married name), but
he only had a rough idea where she lived.

I got the information about his birth mother. His first meeting was not to
"get his information", because he already had all of that.
She did not want to tell her children..

Prior to meeting him, yes. So what?

Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace. >>I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, sowhy shouldn't Helen tell us about it? Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in the story.. IMO

The only prejudices being displayed are your own.
Another birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that! IMO that was Helen's agenda..

What must she not do? *Die*? Is this a *nanny* newsgroup? Have we to edit
every post in case its content causes someone, somewhere to to say "Wooo I
better not do that"?

Why is it that you are constantly pathologising women who have relinquished,
as though they have no intellect, no powers of discernment? You are trying
to 'fix things' for them by keeping them in the dark, in the same way that
people tried to 'fix things' for them in the past by removing their babies
from them. In their young adulthood someone else assumed the right to make
choices that impacted on their lives. Now in their late adulthood you are
contriving to do the same thing.

Think of this: this guy asked me to locate his birth mother. I did so. He
asked me to make contact with her on his behalf. I did so, by letter. She
phoned me. He phoned me and emailed me. They made arrangements (through me)
to meet somewhere midway between where they all lived. They didn't want to
meet anyone they knew. (They wanted to remain incognito. <eg>) Her sister
accompanied her, and he went alone.

I had nothing to do with it. I did not drag anyone, kicking and screaming,
to have a reunion. The son wanted it, the mother *chose to go*. She made
*choices*, Jackie. Does that stick in your gullet?
In fact, she posted on this some time back, so I was very interestedto hear the outcome of this man's attempts to reunite. Or Helen's attempt to reunite them!

Your spite is showing, Jackie. They reunited *themselves*. I found the bmom.
They made arrangements through me, by phone. I liaised with them both, but
the mother chose the time and the place to meet. They didn't want their
first conversation to be by phone.

I had no further part in their meeting.
A reunion shoudl be between two people..

Well it wasn't *only* between the two people. Her sister was there, all the
time.
No one should lay their thinking onto that reunion and or the thoughts of the parties involved..

What are YOU doing?
In my opinion.

It's always in *your*opinion, but you never validate anyone else's.

Rh what if your adopted son goes into reunion with someone who has an agenda? Someone who is going to decide what *should* be done..

You are the only shudda wudda cudda around here.

If I hadn't been ask to help, if I hadn't found her, she would have died
never knowing that her eldest (50) had been looking for her for most of his
adult life. Eventually he would have found the rest of the family, but his
mother would have been long gone.

You are so locked into the closed era that you want to keep all the doors
shut - particularly against the adopted person finding his/her birth mother.
You are still so *closed* in your own heart that you cannot see that other
people are *able* to open their eyes and hearts to reunion.

In my opinion, and from all the guff that you write, you really and truly do
not believe that the adopted person has any right to 'search and find'.

Helen

Jackie

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com... On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved. Yep, that seems to be your opinion. She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this? Where have you demonstrated inequality in this?And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. We mustn't talk about the dead here? And the son should have just crawledaway after being properly chastised for having the audacityto want to meet his mother.Crawled away? Very descriptive.. Thank you.And all because Helen is an[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly besensitive to the needs of anyone else.She made sure the woman looked bad..The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her.. Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral? And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement right then and there? I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when, just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.

Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOL

Helen
NancyJackie

"AdoptaDad" <adoptadad@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031107145112.00108.00000189@mb-m10.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: nancy me@privacy.netDate: 11/7/2003 11:22 AM Eastern Standard TimeMessage-id: <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:>Subject: Re: Just for the record>From: nancy me@privacy.net>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com> < snip >>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>people, are right.>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about
herabusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>We mustn't talk about the dead here? Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially those
whocarried their secrets with them to the grave. It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule. I propose the following rules: 1) Under no circumstances should we talk bad about dead bmoms. 2) Under no circumstances should we talk bad about live bmoms who don't
post here. Whadda you think?

Ask Jackie.

Helen
Dad

On 7 Nov 2003 11:38:02 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: Why did you bring it here Helen? Why did you attempt to make that woman look bad? Why do you gossip about her?Jackie, we don't know the names or places of these people. It scarcelyqualifies as gossip when we're talking about two very anonymouspeople.

IMO Helen was condemning women who do not wish to come out of the
secrecy.. A name on it would not matter..

She was relating a story that was sure to make a woman like that look
bad or pathetic..
And why do you feel the birthmother looked bad?

Her son went to her funeral incognito because she would not tell her
family about him..

Where does your mind go when you read that Rupa?
I really don'tsee anyone else feeling that way ...

I know.

Jackie: Then he was not incognito.. The image I got was of him walking around the funeral forlorn..Why wasn't that incognito? Incognito only means "unknown."

Now we are told he went and had a private moment with his mother and
then left..
He knew who he was ..

I am now assuming he did not go to the actual funeral ceremony..
Helen I am sure will correct me if I am wrong.
The image that you have is a sad one, and perhaps that is why youreacted so strongly? But I didn't get that from Helen's post, morelike regret that two people who might have enjoyed knowing each otherwill not now get a chance.

And you don't see any manipulation in what Helen told us?
> >> Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman..> >> >Yes. The unmarried older sister, who controlled access to the birth mother> >for a long time, who didn't pass on letters from the son when she said that> >she would - saying that it would kill her, that she couldn't mention him,> >and all that jazz.> >So yes, as you say it was the "ctonrolling sister" who> >"controlled the woman" - or at least her access to contact with her son. The> >*sister* decided, without reference to the woman.>> Right the woman was a baby.. She could not do for herself..Jackie, what's upsetting you with this story?

She is given no dignity..
The fact that the reunion was truncated by the woman's death?

The fact that the woman was not allowed to rest in peace..

Her life.. her wishes where not honored... She believed in the secrecy
and she was found by her bson.. She met him.. And she asked if she
could keep her secrecy.. (<my take from what Helen said)
IMO the son respected this and honored her wishes.
A good man. God bless him.
Or thatshe was not autonomous?

Her story is not autonomous..

Or that you think everyone will feel that sheshould have spoken more with her b-son, and acknowledged him to theworld?

I feel that someone may read Helen's words and be swayed to do
something she really does not want to do..
Do it out of pathos or "I better not do one of those!"

I wonder if she tells this story to other nmoms who are into the
secrecy.. Tells them in order to upset them emotionally..
Tells them in order that they change their mind and 'out' themselves
to the family.. *This because she thinks it's best.*
I feel you are seeing something terribly negative while I'm justseeing a bittersweet story.

Yes terribly negative..
Who knows how it would have ended if she hadn't died then? Maybe injust the same way as now, but some years later. Or maybe she wouldhave gradually expanded her relationship with her b-son.But Helen seems to have liked them both, and praised them both. Onlythe sister comes in for judgement, I think; Helen calls hercontrolling, and perhaps she was. But she, too, may have been doingwhat she thought was best.


Helen is an adoptive parent..

She is involved in reunions in Ireland..

When I told her about a quote I found in a book she dismissed it..
"Irrelevant" she said..
This from The Many Sided Triangle.. written by Audrey Marshall andMargaret McDonald.page 1 in the book..Chapter title.. The Adoption Controversy"Would you attend a rapist for you Pap Smear?" This bitter questionwas raised in an anonymous letter to a journalist for a majornewspaper in the early 1990's. It was asked in response to an articlereferring to the Post Adoptive Resource Center in Sydney, an agencyoffering information and counselling to people seeking contact withtheir birth relatives following the introduction of the AdoptionInformation Act (NSW) of 1990. The writer objected to the appointment,as manger of this new agency, of a social worker who had been involvedin adoption services for many years, describing it as 'a joke'.end of quoting from that book.


Above it says that some women in Australia were upset that social
workers were in charge of post adoptive healing ... Upset that they
were the very same social workers who manipulated (some) women who
were considering relinquishing their children in the past.

Now we have Helen in Ireland.. She adopted children..
She IMO knows nothing of the issues that some women went through when
they relinquished.. But she is involved in their reunion.

I am offended that she said what she said about that man going
incognito to the funeral.. I am offended that she said that the women
was controlled by the sister..

Jackie

On 7 Nov 2003 10:49:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:

I said. Or Helen's attempt to reunite them!
I think we need to know how Helen and this man knew each other in thefirst place, and what his wishes were on the matter, before we rush tothat judgment.

I'll let Helen tell you.. see below..

> And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this..> She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO> >> >>>>And you don't? A reunion shoudl be between two people.. > >That's my general feeling too (or at least it would be my preference),but I'm aware that sometimes some people express the need for aconfidante or intermediatory.

Here are Helen's words..

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Q4Ag7.3562%24s5.48508%40news.indigo.ie&output=gplain

While I can truthfully say that I have NOT been "involved in thousands ofreunions" <s> all of those that I have been involved in have been generallysuccessful in that both sides were satisfied to some degree of other.Some didn't get *exactly* what they had hoped for, and had to be satisfiedwith a less emotionally fulfilling experience than they might have liked.Some people simply have unrealistic expectations, and think that the otherperson is going to fall into their arms. Adopted people in particular areoften put off by too much (though understandable) emotion on the part of their birth mothers.Others are resentful because there isn't *enough* emotion!In every single case that I had anything to do with they began the reunionslowly, by correspondence leading to phonecalls, and ultimately to face toface. One guy I found on his 60th birthday exactly a year ago in Australiaactually is the subject of a television programme being made about hisreunion! There was a *bus-load* of relatives to meet him at the airport whenhe came back to Ireland at the beginning of June. I *was* to have been *astar* (ahem) but (thank God!) I ended up on the cutting room floor before Iwas even interviewed! LOL They had simply too much material and I wassurplus to requirements! :-( <s>I find it very hard to believe that Australian adoptive parents are sodifferent from their European counterparts in their - according to you -unwillingness to contemplate the search and reunion between their childrenand their natural parents. I really cannot credit that they are in the DarkAges still, on this matter when they are ahead of the posse in others.I know that very often adopted people will try to avoid mentioning theirwish to search as they are 'afraid to hurt their parents'. They want toavoid confrontation and anything that will upset the status quo. I try tocoax them to broach the subject the next time adoption is in the media(there is *always* a 'next time'!) and more often than not the parents areeither immediately delighted (never thought you'd get around to it - whattook you so long?) or else a bit shocked and nervous (afraid that theirchild will be 'rejected once again')If you have been involved with *thousands* of search and reunions and thevast majority are problematic, then I am glad to say that it is far from my(albeit more limited) experience.Helen
end of quoting..


No one should lay their thinking onto that reunion and or the thoughts of the parties involved.. In my opinion. Rh what if your adopted son goes into reunion with someone who has an agenda?
You mean if he goes into reunion and his mother has an agenda?

I was talking about a so called search angel..One who volunteers their
time..
If you mean that, what kind of agenda?

See Helen's letter above.
Would you mind explaining a little more, please.

Well IMO some people want to control what other people do in reunion.

Sort of like make sure it has a happy ending.. Cause after all they
are volunteering their time..
As far as I'm concerned, his reunion will be his business.Hey, it may be that he won't even tell me (immediately, or maybe evenever), and that would be entirely his decision to make.

That was not the question.. What would you do if a search angel got
involved.. and swayed the young man into doing what he or she wanted
him to do?
If things go badly for him, I will feel badly for him. But I would*never, ever* judge his mother if that were to be the case. I feeltoo much empathy for her, and for him too.I very much hope that he and his mother (and maybe father too)reunite, and that they make a good permanent connection that will goat least some way (I hope a long way) toward healing the pain I knowthey've experienced, and which will bring them happiness. Someone who is going to decide what *should* be done..I really do wonder if you are getting personal here.If so, the answer is, no, I don't have an agenda.For my feelings on the matter, see above.

But as I said that was not my question.

Jackie

On 7 Nov 2003 11:53:32 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wroteI don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family,though. I got that the focus was on not developing her ownrelationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of. Should have could have.True. Isn't that always the way when someone dies? "I wish I had..."

Trouble is it is Helen who is doing the wishing..IMO
No no one forced her.. But some judged her. Found her lacking.. IMOWho judged her, Jackie?

Helen judged her.

She judge her by saying that the man was incognito and the sister
manipulated..

Others have agreed..
But what I read in the post wasmore Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed outon getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to thefamily, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know. The woman was not given her dignity.. Her wants and desires were not honored.. Familiar ????Were they not? She met her son face to face for an hour. And then herson went to her funeral incognito, so that he paid his respects, butdid not out her.

The son did honor her.. I respect that man.
He gave her her dignity..
Only her sister, according to Helen's account, didnot honor her wants and desires.

Helen was gossiping.. I do not believe Helen..
> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.>> Why did she have to say this?> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..Jackie, but what's wrong with that? Because some of us play the blame game when something like that is said..What's to blame? He respected the fact that she had not told thefamily about him.

Ah but we are given the pathos.. We are given fuel for the fire..

We are given what Kathy said..


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20031105183208.07307.00000380%40mb-m18.aol.com&output=gplain

So color me clueless, but...I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep on lying...and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have theright to know the names of their parents...Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth control. Iknow that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go alongwith the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesy forhaving kept self-serving secrets.

end of quoting Kathy.
He did it how he wanted to do it. That is what reunion *should* be about..Right. So that was all right, then. So why were you upset when youheard that?

I am upset that Helen made it her business to tell us about him being
incognito and the sisters manipulation.
How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about the funeral.. Poor poor adoptee..Jackie, I didn't get any negative vibes. Nor any pity for the adoptee,who did what was decent and appropriate.

Well I do get them.
I think he honored herby going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at atime when people were thinking about *her.* Yes.. he did what I would have done.. What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an international newsgroup.. IMO she made this woman look bad.To whom is she looking bad?

How about Kathy and her comments.. Maybe Kathy will use this situation
in order to further her hatred of (some) nmoms..
Not to me, anyway.Are you uncomfortable with Helen's assumption that the b-mom wouldhave wanted to know her son better and didn't get to do so? Because,in fact, the b-mom might not have wanted that at all, and wanted tostay closeted instead?

She did want to stay in the secrecy..

May she rest in peace..


Jackie

On 7 Nov 2003 12:31:40 -0800, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper)
wrote:>
Well, if that doesn't typify your attitude I don't know what does. Sononchalantly she utters an unequivocal "Life is very difficult forsome."

Do you not think that this is a true statement?
Deflection and denial Jackie, do those words mean anything to you?

I bet you carry them words in your little bag of tricks..
It is funny and sad that the personality of the closeted birthmotherseems to be one that is perpetually stuck somewhere on something, andobsessively to the point of exclusion.

Funny and sad being the key words here..
I haven't necessarily made areal judgment on that woman but it is very sad to me that her son hadto go to her funeral the way he did.

Helen.. Here is the results of what you said..
I suppose it was extremelyelegant and noble on his part,

Everyone loves a hero..

I sure hope it didn't cost him much inpride and self esteem, by his own perception of the circumstances.

I know.. Can you imagine??? Goodness the poor poor soul..
Ah yes, Jackie, life is very difficult for some...



Can we say "Manipulation by deflection."

Very clever.. Soul Whipper.


Jackie

On 7 Nov 2003 20:51:58 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote Why did she have to say this? Incognito?So we wouldn't get the impression that he rode into the funeraltriumphantly declaring a relationship that his b-mother had notacknowledged before?I feel you are reading a huge negative meaning into "incognito" that Ifor one did not see there.

I did see it.. I see this from my personal perspective..
> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.> Why did she have to say this?> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.>I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)She's also anonymous; which is why I can't classify it as gossip. "Didyou hear the one about the old lady whom you don't know and her sonwho you also don't know" doesn't quite cut it as gossip in my view.Juicy gossip has to be about people you know or know of.

We can agree to disagree..


Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:efopqv8028rekfhrl3mij361blkc6ss5an@4ax.com... On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:28:43 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the woman>out of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved.Yep, that seems to be your opinion. It is..> She should have let>that woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this?Where have you demonstrated inequality in this? I am sorry you missed my point Nancy..>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>people, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.We mustn't talk about the dead here? I don't like to see a person doing a critique on the dead.. IMO Helen did this. IMO she has never said anything nice about this woman.. Can you think of anything Nancy?


You are SO stupid. I have said *plenty* that was "nice about this woman".
Nice, decent, humourous, for a start.
> And the son should have just crawled>away after being properly chastised for having the audacity>to want to meet his mother.Crawled away? Very descriptive..Thank you.>And all because Helen is an>[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly be>sensitive to the needs of anyone else.She made sure the woman looked bad..The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral? Okay lets change your sentence.. Exactly what is wrong with the son going incognito to the funeral?

No Jackie, YOU tell US.
Now we got some stuff to get upset about... Right?

Wrong. Except in your small-minded, overwrought little head.
And do you think he should have made the Big Announcementright then and there? I guess you are totally missing my point.. Or you are deliberately changing it in order to confuse.. But hey.I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had adaughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placeda pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainlyraised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,just before they closed the casket, she went into shriekinghysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel andthrew herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I loveyou", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper. Must have been awful.

Funny you should say that.

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:h5ppqvskp1pd181ob90qckipc7e3fdegba@4ax.com... On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:23:36 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:The imagery was very condemning IMO.In YOUR opinion, it was - However, it would appear that YOU'RE the only
one wholooked at it that way. I know I didn't. I am sure Helen and people like Helen depend on this.Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it.Looks like it was to me. Really????? Honestly, IMO you look at any possible negative aspectof a situation you can find. Why is that? "All the better to brainwash you my dear!" Kackle Kackle

You really need to get out more. Hallowe'en is long over.

Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame..Who's laying blame besides you? LOL that is funny.Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!Sorry, Jackie. I don't see the issue. Speaking of issues, it looks to
me likeyou've got some. Robyn.. There are no words..

LOL. There never ARE, Jackie. Hug that anger.

Helen
Jackie

In article <h5ppqvskp1pd181ob90qckipc7e3fdegba@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:23:36 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:The imagery was very condemning IMO.In YOUR opinion, it was - However, it would appear that YOU'RE the only one wholooked at it that way. I know I didn't.I am sure Helen and people like Helen depend on this.Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it.Looks like it was to me.Really?????

I'm sorry, I thought you read what I wrote.
Honestly, IMO you look at any possible negative aspectof a situation you can find. Why is that?"All the better to brainwash you my dear!"Kackle Kackle

Ooookay. Sorry, but I prefer to look at things in a more positive manner and
not try to dig up negative aspects that aren't actually there. It's a much more
productive way of thinking IMO.
Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame..Who's laying blame besides you?LOL that is funny.

No really, who is? I don't see anyone else here using that word but you.
Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!Sorry, Jackie. I don't see the issue. Speaking of issues, it looks to me likeyou've got some.Robyn.. There are no words..

Bull**** - You always seem to think of some ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <H17rb.5031$bD.18266@news.indigo.ie>, helicon says..."Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:dafc70.0311071049.fd806ff@posting.goog le.com... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<hg9nqvgfvgsq83bvhmvlb0taha8jo5lm60@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 17:44:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)<snip> I think we need to know how Helen and this man knew each other in the first place, and what his wishes were on the matter, before we rush to that judgment.He wrote to me initially, and then phoned and emailed me regularly, hopingthat I could find his birth mother for him. He had written care of themother's sister (who had known all about the pregnancy and relinquishment)but she obviously chose not to pass on the letters. Neither did she 'returnthem to sender'.When I found her I wrote to her in such a manner that only she would knowwhat it was about. SHE then phoned ME. I liked her a lot - I liked themboth, in fact. They were very alike.

Oh Helen! You malicious gossip you! How DARE you write such a heart-warming
tale.........oh, wait a sec :)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2dppqvork4usm8hh9bri5jhuq2olcct7r1@4ax.com... On 7 Nov 2003 11:38:02 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: Why did you bring it here Helen? Why did you attempt to make that woman look bad? Why do you gossip about her?Jackie, we don't know the names or places of these people. It scarcelyqualifies as gossip when we're talking about two very anonymouspeople. IMO Helen was condemning women who do not wish to come out of the secrecy.. A name on it would not matter..

You said it was gossip. You love the word. You told GR that you were going
to gossip about me. You planned it all. Silly ***.
She was relating a story that was sure to make a woman like that look bad or pathetic..

Only in your eyes. Not one person has agreed with you yet. GR is strangely
silent. So where does that leave you with your crazy-lady imagination?
And why do you feel the birthmother looked bad? Her son went to her funeral incognito because she would not tell her family about him..

Her son went to the funeral, incognito. Period. One amongst 150+. How many
will attend YOUR funeral, Jackie? I hazard a guess that it will be a few
short of that.
Where does your mind go when you read that Rupa?

That you are thick?
I really don'tsee anyone else feeling that way ... I know.

Yet you can't stop and wonder why that is. Why you are the only one with
such a dtupid take on a simple matter. Jackie: Then he was not incognito.. The image I got was of him walking
around the funeral forlorn..Why wasn't that incognito? Incognito only means "unknown." Now we are told he went and had a private moment with his mother and then left..

Who said that "he went and had a private moment with his mother and then left.."? WHO DID? You make it up as you go along. He went to the
funeral. Ergo he went to the Requiem Mass and then to the interment.

The fact is that he ALSO went to the church long before anyone else was
there, to have his own time with her, alone. As is traditional, after the
wake in the house, the removal to the church had taken place the previous
night, and after prayers, the coffin remained there overnight, in front of
the altar.

He then left the church until others started arriving, including the chief
mourners. Then he too went into the church. Incognito.
He knew who he was ..

Of course he knew who he was. Don't be so stupid.
I am now assuming he did not go to the actual funeral ceremony.. Helen I am sure will correct me if I am wrong.

Damn right you are wrong. Once again, and about everything.
The image that you have is a sad one, and perhaps that is why youreacted so strongly? But I didn't get that from Helen's post, morelike regret that two people who might have enjoyed knowing each otherwill not now get a chance. And you don't see any manipulation in what Helen told us?

Only you do, dear. How can you manipulate the dead?
>> >> Ah.. Its the controlling sister that controlled the woman.. >> > >> >Yes. The unmarried older sister, who controlled access to the birth mother >> >for a long time, who didn't pass on letters from the son when she
said that >> >she would - saying that it would kill her, that she couldn't
mention him, >> >and all that jazz. >> >So yes, as you say it was the "ctonrolling sister" who >> >"controlled the woman" - or at least her access to contact with her
son. The >> >*sister* decided, without reference to the woman. >> >> Right the woman was a baby.. She could not do for herself..Jackie, what's upsetting you with this story? She is given no dignity..

On the contrary. He gave her total respect, in every manner and means at his
disposal. He subsumed *his* rights to hers. He behaved impeccably, in my
opinion.

The fact that the reunion was truncated by the woman's death? The fact that the woman was not allowed to rest in peace..

The woman IS resting in peace - not least because she met her son against
all the odds, in the year before she died, and not least because he loved
her enough to bid her farewell in a quiet and dignified way. Alone.
Incognito. Causing her family no embarrassment.
Her life.. her wishes where not honored... She believed in the secrecy and she was found by her bson.. She met him.. And she asked if she could keep her secrecy.. (<my take from what Helen said)

Your take is as always, *flawed* beyond recognition.
IMO the son respected this and honored her wishes. A good man. God bless him.

Sanctimonious crap, after all that you have said.
Or thatshe was not autonomous? Her story is not autonomous..Or that you think everyone will feel that sheshould have spoken more with her b-son, and acknowledged him to theworld? I feel that someone may read Helen's words and be swayed to do something she really does not want to do.. Do it out of pathos or "I better not do one of those!"

You are so full of it.
I wonder if she tells this story to other nmoms who are into the secrecy.. Tells them in order to upset them emotionally.. Tells them in order that they change their mind and 'out' themselves to the family.. *This because she thinks it's best.*

You are a small-minded, mean-spirited, pathetic little woman.
I feel you are seeing something terribly negative while I'm justseeing a bittersweet story. Yes terribly negative..

YOU are.
Who knows how it would have ended if she hadn't died then? Maybe injust the same way as now, but some years later. Or maybe she wouldhave gradually expanded her relationship with her b-son.But Helen seems to have liked them both, and praised them both. Onlythe sister comes in for judgement, I think; Helen calls hercontrolling, and perhaps she was. But she, too, may have been doingwhat she thought was best. Helen is an adoptive parent.. She is involved in reunions in Ireland.. When I told her about a quote I found in a book she dismissed it.. "Irrelevant" she said..
<snip>

Irrelevant to this matter.
Above it says that some women in Australia were upset that social workers were in charge of post adoptive healing ...

I am not a social worker.

Upset that they were the very same social workers who manipulated (some) women who were considering relinquishing their children in the past.

I have never been involved in relinquishment, in any way, shape or form.
Now we have Helen in Ireland.. She adopted children.. She IMO knows nothing of the issues that some women went through when they relinquished.. But she is involved in their reunion.

You know damn all about anything Jackie, except your own screwed up take on
Life.
I am offended that she said what she said about that man going incognito to the funeral..

What did I say:
"He went to the funeral, incognito" - you are *offended* by that?

I am offended that she said that the women was controlled by the sister..

The sister denied her sister knowledge of and access to, letters sent for
re-addressing.

If the *truth* offends you, what does that say about you?

Helen Jackie

On 7 Nov 2003 20:15:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
I envy you when you got to hold your son. Easily.Easily?You presume too much.


I was thinking of the ones who controlled the relinquishment..

I am sure it was very difficult for you.


Jackie

Top post: Jackie, two words come to mind in regard to you: Dumb. Cluck.

Helen


"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:s3upqv4dbkdugs7g5ucrr595f10itopv6k@4ax.com... On 7 Nov 2003 10:49:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: I said. Or Helen's attempt to reunite them!I think we need to know how Helen and this man knew each other in thefirst place, and what his wishes were on the matter, before we rush tothat judgment. I'll let Helen tell you.. see below.. >> And why is Helen involved in reunion situations such as this.. >> She is an adoptive parent and she has built in prejudices..IMO >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >And you don't? A reunion shoudl be between two people.. > > >That's my general feeling too (or at least it would be my preference),but I'm aware that sometimes some people express the need for aconfidante or intermediatory. Here are Helen's words..
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Q4Ag7.3562%24s5.48508%40news.indigo.ie&output=gplainWhile I can truthfully say that I have NOT been "involved in thousands ofreunions" <s> all of those that I have been involved in have been
generallysuccessful in that both sides were satisfied to some degree of other.Some didn't get *exactly* what they had hoped for, and had to be
satisfiedwith a less emotionally fulfilling experience than they might have liked.Some people simply have unrealistic expectations, and think that the
otherperson is going to fall into their arms. Adopted people in particular areoften put off by too much (though understandable) emotion on the part of
their birth mothers.Others are resentful because there isn't *enough* emotion!In every single case that I had anything to do with they began the
reunionslowly, by correspondence leading to phonecalls, and ultimately to face
toface. One guy I found on his 60th birthday exactly a year ago in
Australiaactually is the subject of a television programme being made about hisreunion! There was a *bus-load* of relatives to meet him at the airport
whenhe came back to Ireland at the beginning of June. I *was* to have been *astar* (ahem) but (thank God!) I ended up on the cutting room floor before
Iwas even interviewed! LOL They had simply too much material and I wassurplus to requirements! :-( <s>I find it very hard to believe that Australian adoptive parents are sodifferent from their European counterparts in their - according to you -unwillingness to contemplate the search and reunion between their
childrenand their natural parents. I really cannot credit that they are in the
DarkAges still, on this matter when they are ahead of the posse in others.I know that very often adopted people will try to avoid mentioning theirwish to search as they are 'afraid to hurt their parents'. They want toavoid confrontation and anything that will upset the status quo. I try tocoax them to broach the subject the next time adoption is in the media(there is *always* a 'next time'!) and more often than not the parents
areeither immediately delighted (never thought you'd get around to it - whattook you so long?) or else a bit shocked and nervous (afraid that theirchild will be 'rejected once again')If you have been involved with *thousands* of search and reunions and thevast majority are problematic, then I am glad to say that it is far from
my(albeit more limited) experience.Helen end of quoting.. No one should lay their thinking onto that reunion and or the thoughts of the parties involved.. In my opinion. Rh what if your adopted son goes into reunion with someone who has an agenda?You mean if he goes into reunion and his mother has an agenda? I was talking about a so called search angel..One who volunteers their time..If you mean that, what kind of agenda? See Helen's letter above.Would you mind explaining a little more, please. Well IMO some people want to control what other people do in reunion. Sort of like make sure it has a happy ending.. Cause after all they are volunteering their time..As far as I'm concerned, his reunion will be his business.Hey, it may be that he won't even tell me (immediately, or maybe evenever), and that would be entirely his decision to make. That was not the question.. What would you do if a search angel got involved.. and swayed the young man into doing what he or she wanted him to do?If things go badly for him, I will feel badly for him. But I would*never, ever* judge his mother if that were to be the case. I feeltoo much empathy for her, and for him too.I very much hope that he and his mother (and maybe father too)reunite, and that they make a good permanent connection that will goat least some way (I hope a long way) toward healing the pain I knowthey've experienced, and which will bring them happiness. Someone who is going to decide what *should* be done.. > >I really do wonder if you are getting personal here.If so, the answer is, no, I don't have an agenda.For my feelings on the matter, see above. But as I said that was not my question. Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5trpqv8d6392l761ksl4iefldnbsjk8u4t@4ax.com... On 7 Nov 2003 11:53:32 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote >I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family, >though. I got that the focus was on not developing her own >relationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of. Should have could have.True. Isn't that always the way when someone dies? "I wish I had..." Trouble is it is Helen who is doing the wishing..IMO No no one forced her.. But some judged her. Found her lacking.. IMOWho judged her, Jackie? Helen judged her. She judge her by saying that the man was incognito and the sister manipulated.. Others have agreed..

Who exactly was that person, Jackie? Who agreed with you? I haver yet to
read one post agreeing with your skewed take on this.

Helen

> But what I read in the post was >more Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed out >on getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to the >family, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know. The woman was not given her dignity.. Her wants and desires were not honored.. Familiar ????Were they not? She met her son face to face for an hour. And then herson went to her funeral incognito, so that he paid his respects, butdid not out her. The son did honor her.. I respect that man. He gave her her dignity.. Only her sister, according to Helen's account, didnot honor her wants and desires. Helen was gossiping.. I do not believe Helen.. >> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. >> >> Why did she have to say this? >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.. > >Jackie, but what's wrong with that? Because some of us play the blame game when something like that is said..What's to blame? He respected the fact that she had not told thefamily about him. Ah but we are given the pathos.. We are given fuel for the fire.. We are given what Kathy said..
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20031105183208.07307.00000380%40mb-m18.aol.com&output=gplainSo color me clueless, but...I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep on
lying...and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have
theright to know the names of their parents...Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth
control. Iknow that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go
alongwith the idea that women like you have just described are owed a
courtesy forhaving kept self-serving secrets. end of quoting Kathy. He did it how he wanted to do it. That is what reunion *should* be about..Right. So that was all right, then. So why were you upset when youheard that? I am upset that Helen made it her business to tell us about him being incognito and the sisters manipulation. >How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about the funeral.. Poor poor adoptee..Jackie, I didn't get any negative vibes. Nor any pity for the adoptee,who did what was decent and appropriate. Well I do get them. > I think he honored her >by going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at a >time when people were thinking about *her.* Yes.. he did what I would have done.. What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an international newsgroup.. IMO she made this woman look bad.To whom is she looking bad? How about Kathy and her comments.. Maybe Kathy will use this situation in order to further her hatred of (some) nmoms..Not to me, anyway.Are you uncomfortable with Helen's assumption that the b-mom wouldhave wanted to know her son better and didn't get to do so? Because,in fact, the b-mom might not have wanted that at all, and wanted tostay closeted instead? She did want to stay in the secrecy.. May she rest in peace.. Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:r4vpqvcrvbdvlbc6k5r4t290ohr5e94mb6@4ax.com... On 7 Nov 2003 20:51:58 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote Why did she have to say this? Incognito?So we wouldn't get the impression that he rode into the funeraltriumphantly declaring a relationship that his b-mother had notacknowledged before?I feel you are reading a huge negative meaning into "incognito" that Ifor one did not see there. I did see it.. I see this from my personal perspective..

Try seeing it from the woman's perspective, from the grave. Do you think he
would have been respectful of her and of the rest of the family, to have
gone there cognito?

Helen
>> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. >> Why did she have to say this? >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace. >> >I fail to see how it's a judgment call. >The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing his >mother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest. >She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)She's also anonymous; which is why I can't classify it as gossip. "Didyou hear the one about the old lady whom you don't know and her sonwho you also don't know" doesn't quite cut it as gossip in my view.Juicy gossip has to be about people you know or know of. We can agree to disagree.. Jackie

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:37:34 -0500, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:28:43 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the woman>out of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved.Yep, that seems to be your opinion.It is..> She should have let>that woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this?Where have you demonstrated inequality in this?I am sorry you missed my point Nancy..

Apparently I'm still missing it. I'm sorry too.
>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>people, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.We mustn't talk about the dead here?I don't like to see a person doing a critique on the dead..IMO Helen did this.IMO she has never said anything nice about this woman..Can you think of anything Nancy?

I can't find the original post, but I came away from her
post with no impression that she judged the woman. I felt
Helen was sensitive to the woman's feelings. I don't recall
her saying anything negative about the woman.

<snip>Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?Okay lets change your sentence..Exactly what is wrong with the son going incognito to the funeral?Now we got some stuff to get upset about... Right?

Um...no? I think it was a respectful thing to do under the
circumstances. I honestly don't understand the issue you
have with his decision to pay his respects anonymously. Do
you think he should have revealed his position in her life
to all and sundry beforehand, or do you think he should
stayed away from his mother's funeral altogether? That's
what I truly don't understand.
And do you think he should have made the Big Announcementright then and there?I guess you are totally missing my point.. Or you are deliberatelychanging it in order to confuse.. But hey.

I guess I am missing the point. If something is being
changed, it's not deliberate--but "confused" is certainly
what I am.
I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had adaughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placeda pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainlyraised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,just before they closed the casket, she went into shriekinghysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel andthrew herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I loveyou", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Must have been awful.

You can't even imagine how awful it was!

Nancy

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:05:16 -0000, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax .com... On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:

<snip>
She made sure the woman looked bad..The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her.. Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral? And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement right then and there? I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when, just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOLHelen

It was one of the more, er...unusual things I've ever seen.
And talk about being "outed"!

Nancy
NancyJackie

On 6 Nov 2003 18:40:21 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:

<snip>

Rhiannon wrote:Don't have time to ask more questions now,
I wrote: Several extremely personal questions at once is more than adequate for one post.
'More than adequate' That's a relief.I'd hate it to have been less than adequate.

You're golden!
Sorry if I overwhelmed you.

It was okay. I was certainly under no obligation to respond and would
not have answered you if I hadn't felt like doing so. Oldtimers here
already know this stuff about me, though I wouldn't imagine they ever
found it particularly interesting.
Anyway, thanks for a civil and thoughtful response to my rude andthoughtless questions.

You're quite welcome. They weren't all that rude and/or awful, but
there were several extremely personal questions involved. I'm not the
type to let that go without comment.
but will do so later. Okay, Rhiannon, maybe I'll answer them later.
Ta.I'll try and make that sufficient to satisfy my curiousity (orwhatever)

Okay. Or don't, and ask me whatever you want to know. Truly,
Rhiannon, I feel under no obligation whatsoever to respond to any
questions. If I don't want to, I won't.

GR

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:22:44 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>
wrote:

<snip>
Damn I thought I was stupid.. I thought I was unable to cope.I thought I needed GR to help me..Maybe GR may disagree with me here.. What will I do what will I do.

<snip>

LOLOL

I haven't been following the thread with any real attention. You're
on your own! Oh. My. God.

It's Armaggedon for sure!

<snicker>

GR

In article <2p8qqvg9rgp909rpambvumq8k46j3nat80@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:05:16 -0000, "helicon"<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax .com... On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:<snip> > > >She made sure the woman looked bad.. > >The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her.. Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral? And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement right then and there? I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when, just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOLHelenIt was one of the more, er...unusual things I've ever seen.And talk about being "outed"!Nancy

So, I should probably do this when my bmom dies, right? :)

NOT!!!

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <j03qqvgmp52jclin2f175ulu9kobv05s9q@4ax.com>, nancy says...
snipThe only thing that would have shocked the folks of E. B.more is if my brothers had shown up--not everyone knew aboutthem, but it would have been obvious. One of my brothers isa roadie and a biker who doesn't even own a shirt with acollar and whose arms are completely covered in tats, andthe other is about 6' 9" and isn't exactly inconspicuouseither.Whew! I'd say not!As it was, I think *I* was the tallest person in that churchat 5' 8"--my bmom's family is composed of little munchkins.That, and the fact that my s-i-l (whom I'd brought along formoral support after I learned my brothers weren't going tobe there) was the only one there who sobbed and blubberedduring the whole service, didn't help me to keep a lowprofile.

LOL, oh dear! :)
Actually, all this was probably a good thing. The scrutinyI was getting distracted me from the business at hand--thatof sending off my mother.

Oh goodness, yes. I'm sorry, but your description was so funny, I forgot why
you were there in the first place. Please excuse my lack of respect/
Their flights were canceled by the weather, so Ihad to go it alone. Oh well, at least I didn't startscreaming and throw myself in her casket.Oh my gracious! Did these relatives know about you before you walked into thefuneral?Yep. *Everyone* had *always* known about me. My birth hadnever been a secret, although my brothers' births weren'tcommon knowledge. My reappearance had never been a secreteither. Everything was right out in the open from start tofinish.

Well, at least that was a good thing, though you must have still felt so awkward
;/


Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:C7brb.27332$cJ5.4464@www.newsranger.com... In article <2p8qqvg9rgp909rpambvumq8k46j3nat80@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:05:16 -0000, "helicon"<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax .com...> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie> <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:<snip>> >> >> >She made sure the woman looked bad..> >> >The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..>> Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?> And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement> right then and there?>> I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a> daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed> a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly> raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,> just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking> hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and> threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love> you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOLHelenIt was one of the more, er...unusual things I've ever seen.And talk about being "outed"!Nancy

Whoa! Who says funerals can't be fun. I attended the funeral once of a
17-year old who was killed in a traffic accident. Here parents who were
separated and living in different states showed up at the funeral. They had
pretty much told her she was on her own when they split up and she'd been
living on her own, attending high school and planning to go to college (She
had a lot more the ball than her parents, trust me.) The mother went
hysterical at the funeral and had to be carried out by her other kids
before she had the opportunity to throw herself on the casket-- while we all
just sat there on disbelief. Later, I attended the wake and the mother and
two ofs her sons got into a cake fight with them shoivng cake in each
other's faces. Another son was so embarassed he drove away. I know nobody
will believe this story, or the one I posted a little while ago about the
litigation in SF, but both are true. All this happened in a small town out
of Cochocton, Ohio in January 1990.

Marley

Marley

So, I should probably do this when my bmom dies, right? :) NOT!!! Robyn Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster #1557

In article <5pjnqvoe2vn1d8q0se1b4uu37p26t924ns@4ax.com>, nancy <me@privacy.net>
writes:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)wrote:>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>> < snip >>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about her>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewho>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>> It should not be allowed..We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoringthem?We must honor them by skipping their funerals and neverspeaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.I went to my bmom's funeral--thank God I wasn't incognito.Everyone knew who I was. Some of her relatives would notspeak to me--possibly because I was tainted, born in sin andtherefore icky, or possibly because it was all my fault.Nancy

I went to my bmom's funeral. But I was known about. Had already met her one
brother, but at the funeral I had to cope with meeting my half-brother, my
other uncle, a cousin, and my grandfather. It was great for that, but so
terrible to have to happen at her funeral. My grandfather even hugged me and
gave me a kiss. Reminds me I need to call him today.

I know that my bmom would have much rather it be a gathering where she was with
us and we were all in a better state of mind. But I am glad I didn't have to
go incognito, as I probably will have to at my bfathers.

KL

In article <rn7nqvcv6qh9kaelr7pnlkia228kulci84@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On 5 Nov 2003 13:05:40 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote On 5 Nov 2003 00:52:41 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: >Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote > >> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: >> >> >He's a very nice guy, decent and thoughtful. I really think it was hisbirth >> >mother's loss that she didn't have a chance to get to know him. >> >> In other words she was wrong to stand by her desire to not acknowledge >> him. > >That's not quite the sense I got of it...more like, she would have >enjoyed meeting him. She probably would have felt pride in the man her >son has become. > >So, not 'wrong' in the sense of morally wrong, but perhaps in the >sense of a missed opportunity. The woman did meet him.. She did not want to tell her subsequent children.. IMO she did not want to change who she was.. She was too old to change.Ah, I get what you're saying. And I guess I should have said "know"rather than meet, because of course you're right, they did meet.I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family,though. I got that the focus was on not developing her ownrelationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of.Should have could have. >> >I blame the >> >overly-controlling sister. <sigh> >> > >> And a pox on that woman and her controlling sister.. Correct Helen? > >Perhaps on the sister, for interfering...but how on the woman? (a) She >missed out on meeting her lovely son, She did meet him. > and (b) She's dead. Yes she died staying as she was.. She did not want to make the kind of change involved in telling her family about her son..Right. And no one forced her to do so.No no one forced her.. But some judged her.Found her lacking.. IMO But what I read in the post wasmore Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed outon getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to thefamily, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know.The woman was not given her dignity..Her wants and desires were not honored..Familiar ????

Yes, as you continue to want adoptees wants and desires and needs to go
unhonored.
Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..Jackie, but what's wrong with that?Because some of us play the blame game when something like that issaid.. I think it was sensitive andsensible of him to go incognito.And private..What should he have done? Made apublic declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone?He did it how he wanted to do it.

Where did it say that was how he wanted to do it? If you ask me, that was how
he was forced to do it. And by doing it that way, did he not honor the bmom's
wishes? How can you be so blind?
That is what reunion *should* be about..How does it turn into a judgement on the woman?Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about thefuneral..Poor poor adoptee..

Helen did not gossip. She simply relayed a story. That is NOT gossipping.
I think he honored herby going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at atime when people were thinking about *her.*Yes.. he did what I would have done..What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an internationalnewsgroup..IMO she made this woman look bad.

Look bad to whom? To you? Cause you were the only one who saw it that way.
Jackie

KL

In article <2m5nqv4iss41mh7mph5429r6o21qb8i3k8@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:42:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>> wrote:>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.>He>> >> was>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these women"horrible" is............YOU.Really?The imagery was very condemning IMO.Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it.Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame..Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!Jackie

I am positive this one situation is not the only one where an adoptee has gone
to a parents funeral incognito. Hardly damning to post about a case here.

KL

In article <3p4nqvcbj1rc7i22505gqbc24eprqvksqs@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the womanout of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved. She should have letthat woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this?And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,sitting thousands of miles away and never having met thesepeople, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that. And the son should have just crawledaway after being properly chastised for having the audacityto want to meet his mother.Crawled away? Very descriptive..And all because Helen is an[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly besensitive to the needs of anyone else.She made sure the woman looked bad..The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..Jackie

I don't think that telling how the son went incognito to the funeral makes the
woman look bad. I think Helen was just telling what happened.

KL

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0311080422.14bc7954@posting.google.com>... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message news:<e5619372.0311072051.2e01db95@posting.google.com>...



Sorry about the multiple postings.
There seem to be gremlins in both me and the computer.
They have now been excorcised.


Rh.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:07:54 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <j03qqvgmp52jclin2f175ulu9kobv05s9q@4ax.com>, nancy says...snip>The only thing that would have shocked the folks of E. B.>more is if my brothers had shown up--not everyone knew about>them, but it would have been obvious. One of my brothers is>a roadie and a biker who doesn't even own a shirt with a>collar and whose arms are completely covered in tats, and>the other is about 6' 9" and isn't exactly inconspicuous>either.Whew! I'd say not!As it was, I think *I* was the tallest person in that churchat 5' 8"--my bmom's family is composed of little munchkins.That, and the fact that my s-i-l (whom I'd brought along formoral support after I learned my brothers weren't going tobe there) was the only one there who sobbed and blubberedduring the whole service, didn't help me to keep a lowprofile.LOL, oh dear! :)Actually, all this was probably a good thing. The scrutinyI was getting distracted me from the business at hand--thatof sending off my mother.Oh goodness, yes. I'm sorry, but your description was so funny, I forgot whyyou were there in the first place. Please excuse my lack of respect/

No problem. This was a memorial service that took place
several months after her death, at a time when the whole
flock could be gathered. Her death had been a release from
a long and catastrophic illness (Alzheimer's), and the grief
I felt was greatly overshadowed by relief and peace. If I'd
been wrought with despair I probably wouldn't have told the
story, or would I have probably even seen the humor in it.
Their flights were canceled by the weather, so I>had to go it alone. Oh well, at least I didn't start>screaming and throw myself in her casket.Oh my gracious! Did these relatives know about you before you walked into thefuneral?Yep. *Everyone* had *always* known about me. My birth hadnever been a secret, although my brothers' births weren'tcommon knowledge. My reappearance had never been a secreteither. Everything was right out in the open from start tofinish.Well, at least that was a good thing, though you must have still felt so awkward;/

I didn't, actually, except for those first few seconds as I
entered the church "tardy". Actually, I felt more like the
Woman of Mystery in a cheap movie. I was wishing I'd
dressed all in black widow's weeds, with a heavy veil
concealing my face and carrying one red rose, just to drive
'em nuts. :-)

I had no idea what kind of service this would be, and my
biggest worry was that it would be one of those informal
memorials where people are called to get up and relate
amusing little stories of their favorite memories of the
deceased. I decided I'd better be prepared for the
possibility that someone would passive-agressively call on
me to speak, so I'd spent weeks working on a short speech
guaranteed to melt even the stoniest little judgmental heart
in E.B. It was, if I do say so myself, a masterpiece; every
person I practiced it on was moved to tears. Fortunately
(or possibly unfortunately) the service was strictly a
memorial mass with no input from the peanut gallery.

Nancy

RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:05:06 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <2p8qqvg9rgp909rpambvumq8k46j3nat80@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:05:16 -0000, "helicon"<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax .com...> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie> <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:<snip>> >> >> >She made sure the woman looked bad..> >> >The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..>> Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?> And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement> right then and there?>> I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a> daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed> a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly> raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,> just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking> hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and> threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love> you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOLHelenIt was one of the more, er...unusual things I've ever seen.And talk about being "outed"!NancySo, I should probably do this when my bmom dies, right? :)

Well, at least you wouldn't be incognito for long.

Nancy
NOT!!!RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

Top post

I think I'm beginning to get what you mean. I

s this how you see it?

An elderly birthmother wants to maintain her secrecy, being too old to
change. Owing to the intervention of others, she is persuaded to meet
her b-son face-to-face. After that one meeting, she wishes to return
to her secrecy, and does so.

Her b-son would have liked to know her better, and others encourage
that thought, believing that the b-mother will come around, and that
her sister's interference is what prevents it.

However, before any further contact, the woman dies. Her b-son, whom
she did not publicly acknowledge, attends her funeral incognito. He
wanders around the edges of the crowd, feeling lonely and out-of-place
because everyone else there knows each other. He can't say, "I am her
son," because he was not publicly acknowledged. People wonder who he
is and why he's there.

This pathetic image of the b-son will make everyone want to take his
side, and blame the b-mother for being so heartless as to not
acknowledge her son. And it will coerce some reluctant b-mothers into
contact, thinking that the same thing might happen to them.

Is that how you read it?

And you think the reason Helen posted it is to achieve that particular
objective?

Rupa








Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<5trpqv8d6392l761ksl4iefldnbsjk8u4t@4ax.com>... On 7 Nov 2003 11:53:32 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote >I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family, >though. I got that the focus was on not developing her own >relationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of. Should have could have.True. Isn't that always the way when someone dies? "I wish I had..." Trouble is it is Helen who is doing the wishing..IMO No no one forced her.. But some judged her. Found her lacking.. IMOWho judged her, Jackie? Helen judged her. She judge her by saying that the man was incognito and the sister manipulated.. Others have agreed.. > But what I read in the post was >more Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed out >on getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to the >family, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know. The woman was not given her dignity.. Her wants and desires were not honored.. Familiar ????Were they not? She met her son face to face for an hour. And then herson went to her funeral incognito, so that he paid his respects, butdid not out her. The son did honor her.. I respect that man. He gave her her dignity.. Only her sister, according to Helen's account, didnot honor her wants and desires. Helen was gossiping.. I do not believe Helen.. >> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. >> >> Why did she have to say this? >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.. > >Jackie, but what's wrong with that? Because some of us play the blame game when something like that is said..What's to blame? He respected the fact that she had not told thefamily about him. Ah but we are given the pathos.. We are given fuel for the fire.. We are given what Kathy said.. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20031105183208.07307.00000380%40mb-m18.aol.com&output=gplainSo color me clueless, but...I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep on lying...and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have theright to know the names of their parents...Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth control. Iknow that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go alongwith the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesy forhaving kept self-serving secrets. end of quoting Kathy. He did it how he wanted to do it. That is what reunion *should* be about..Right. So that was all right, then. So why were you upset when youheard that? I am upset that Helen made it her business to tell us about him being incognito and the sisters manipulation. >How does it turn into a judgement on the woman? Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about the funeral.. Poor poor adoptee..Jackie, I didn't get any negative vibes. Nor any pity for the adoptee,who did what was decent and appropriate. Well I do get them. > I think he honored her >by going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at a >time when people were thinking about *her.* Yes.. he did what I would have done.. What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an international newsgroup.. IMO she made this woman look bad.To whom is she looking bad? How about Kathy and her comments.. Maybe Kathy will use this situation in order to further her hatred of (some) nmoms..Not to me, anyway.Are you uncomfortable with Helen's assumption that the b-mom wouldhave wanted to know her son better and didn't get to do so? Because,in fact, the b-mom might not have wanted that at all, and wanted tostay closeted instead? She did want to stay in the secrecy.. May she rest in peace.. Jackie

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:14:13 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in messagenews:C7brb.27332$cJ5.4464@www.newsranger.co m... In article <2p8qqvg9rgp909rpambvumq8k46j3nat80@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:05:16 -0000, "helicon"<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>>"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message>news:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com...>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie>> <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:<snip>>> >>> >>> >She made sure the woman looked bad..>> >>> >The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..>>>> Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?>> And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement>> right then and there?>>>> I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a>> daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed>> a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly>> raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,>> just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking>> hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and>> threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love>> you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.>>Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOL>>HelenIt was one of the more, er...unusual things I've ever seen.And talk about being "outed"!NancyWhoa! Who says funerals can't be fun. I attended the funeral once of a17-year old who was killed in a traffic accident. Here parents who wereseparated and living in different states showed up at the funeral. They hadpretty much told her she was on her own when they split up and she'd beenliving on her own, attending high school and planning to go to college (Shehad a lot more the ball than her parents, trust me.) The mother wenthysterical at the funeral and had to be carried out by her other kidsbefore she had the opportunity to throw herself on the casket-- while we alljust sat there on disbelief. Later, I attended the wake and the mother andtwo ofs her sons got into a cake fight with them shoivng cake in eachother's faces. Another son was so embarassed he drove away. I know nobodywill believe this story, or the one I posted a little while ago about thelitigation in SF, but both are true. All this happened in a small town outof Cochocton, Ohio in January 1990.

Yikes! That's *really horrible, considering the
circumstances.

After my experience at my bmom's funeral, one of my brothers
gave me a bumper sticker that says "Don't take the 'fun' out
of funerals". LOL! I know what you mean about people not
believing this stuff. That also occurred to me when I
related the story above, but it really did happen. The
deceased was actually my b-i-l. I heard that an incident
similar to the one you described also happened at another
funeral on that side of the family, but I was lucky enough
to miss it.

Nancy

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:qe7qqv0h4bf7f735d8psethl9smc4rfj1u@4ax.com... On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:37:34 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:28:43 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>>>I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the woman>>out of the closet for that one meeting.>>Helen IMO should not have been involved.Yep, that seems to be your opinion.It is..>> She should have let>>that woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.>>Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.>>No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..>No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..>What (some) aparents do..>>Where is the equality in this?Where have you demonstrated inequality in this?I am sorry you missed my point Nancy.. Apparently I'm still missing it. I'm sorry too.>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>people, are right.>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.We mustn't talk about the dead here?I don't like to see a person doing a critique on the dead..IMO Helen did this.IMO she has never said anything nice about this woman..Can you think of anything Nancy? I can't find the original post, but I came away from her post with no impression that she judged the woman. I felt Helen was sensitive to the woman's feelings. I don't recall her saying anything negative about the woman.

Because I never did. I never even *thought* anything negative about her.
<snip>Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?Okay lets change your sentence..Exactly what is wrong with the son going incognito to the funeral?Now we got some stuff to get upset about... Right? Um...no? I think it was a respectful thing to do under the circumstances. I honestly don't understand the issue you have with his decision to pay his respects anonymously. Do you think he should have revealed his position in her life to all and sundry beforehand, or do you think he should stayed away from his mother's funeral altogether? That's what I truly don't understand.

Join the queue. There is nobody here who has agreed with anything that
Jackie has said regarding this matter. (As far as I can see, anyway)

And do you think he should have made the Big Announcementright then and there?I guess you are totally missing my point.. Or you are deliberatelychanging it in order to confuse.. But hey. I guess I am missing the point. If something is being changed, it's not deliberate--but "confused" is certainly what I am.

LOL - no you are not, Nancy. Clear as a bell.
I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had adaughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placeda pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainlyraised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,just before they closed the casket, she went into shriekinghysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel andthrew herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I loveyou", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Must have been awful. You can't even imagine how awful it was!

I can, LOL. (Sorry)

Helen Nancy

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<s3upqv4dbkdugs7g5ucrr595f10itopv6k@4ax.com>... On 7 Nov 2003 10:49:17 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) Rh what if your adopted son goes into reunion with someone who has an agenda?You mean if he goes into reunion and his mother has an agenda? I was talking about a so called search angel..One who volunteers their time..If you mean that, what kind of agenda? See Helen's letter above.


Well, if to 'try to coax them to broach' is anything to go by, it
seems to me that Helen is tentative almost to the point of giving
little more than a nudge. If that. Maybe the merest wisp of a breath.
I'm sure if Helen felt any resistance at all she'd respect it. Hardly
coercive, or indicative of an agenda.
Of course, if hoping for a positive reunion (i.e, for people to be
happy) is an agenda . . .

I hope I have answered your question.


Rh.
Would you mind explaining a little more, please. Well IMO some people want to control what other people do in reunion. Sort of like make sure it has a happy ending.. Cause after all they are volunteering their time..As far as I'm concerned, his reunion will be his business.Hey, it may be that he won't even tell me (immediately, or maybe evenever), and that would be entirely his decision to make. That was not the question.. What would you do if a search angel got involved.. and swayed the young man into doing what he or she wanted him to do?



O.K. Got it now.
If he *were* to contact a 'search angel' (hate the name, but that's
just me) on his own initiative, I'm confident that he'd have the
strength of character to still do things his way.
Not that he wouldn't listen to suggestions, but he wouldn't
necessarily follow them if they didn't feel right to him.


Rh.


If things go badly for him, I will feel badly for him. But I would*never, ever* judge his mother if that were to be the case. I feeltoo much empathy for her, and for him too.I very much hope that he and his mother (and maybe father too)reunite, and that they make a good permanent connection that will goat least some way (I hope a long way) toward healing the pain I knowthey've experienced, and which will bring them happiness. Someone who is going to decide what *should* be done.. > >I really do wonder if you are getting personal here.If so, the answer is, no, I don't have an agenda.For my feelings on the matter, see above. But as I said that was not my question. Jackie

On 08 Nov 2003 19:50:53 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL)
wrote:
In article <5pjnqvoe2vn1d8q0se1b4uu37p26t924ns@4ax.com>, nancy <me@privacy.net>writes:On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:48:27 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <ilhnqvkelgj25ui45f2pma9ppbuomu7kss@4ax.com>, nancy says...>>On 07 Nov 2003 15:07:35 GMT, adoptadad@aol.com (AdoptaDad)>wrote:>>>>Subject: Re: Just for the record>>>From: nancy me@privacy.net>>>Date: 11/7/2003 9:28 AM Eastern Standard Time>>>Message-id: <ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com>>>>> < snip >>>>>>>>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>>>>>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>>>>>people, are right.>>>>>>>>The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say..>>>>"Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.>>>> Strange, but I don't recall you objecting when "justme" posted about her>>abusive adoptive parents who were deceased?>>>>>We mustn't talk about the dead here?>>>> Correction: we mustn't talk about dead *bmoms* here, especially thosewho>>carried their secrets with them to the grave.>>>> It should not be allowed..>>We should change society. They should make a rule.But what about bmoms who are dead in a closet? Shouldn't we be honoringthem?We must honor them by skipping their funerals and neverspeaking of them again. Then we must honor their sisters.Incognito is the greatest dishonor of all.I went to my bmom's funeral--thank God I wasn't incognito.Everyone knew who I was. Some of her relatives would notspeak to me--possibly because I was tainted, born in sin andtherefore icky, or possibly because it was all my fault.NancyI went to my bmom's funeral. But I was known about. Had already met her onebrother, but at the funeral I had to cope with meeting my half-brother, myother uncle, a cousin, and my grandfather. It was great for that, but soterrible to have to happen at her funeral. My grandfather even hugged me andgave me a kiss. Reminds me I need to call him today.

Funerals and weddings are very difficult times to meet the
extended family, I think, though it seems like it often
happens that way. In my case, I'd already met everyone
close to my bmom. I can't even imagine how difficult that
was for you.
I know that my bmom would have much rather it be a gathering where she was withus and we were all in a better state of mind. But I am glad I didn't have togo incognito, as I probably will have to at my bfathers.

I hope you don't have to do that, KL.

Nancy
KL

In article <oujqqvk25hsv9vgov8862gnoh266f9s24a@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:05:06 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <2p8qqvg9rgp909rpambvumq8k46j3nat80@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:05:16 -0000, "helicon"<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>>"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message>news:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com...>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie>> <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:<snip>>> >>> >>> >She made sure the woman looked bad..>> >>> >The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..>>>> Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?>> And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement>> right then and there?>>>> I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a>> daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed>> a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly>> raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,>> just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking>> hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and>> threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love>> you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.>>Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOL>>HelenIt was one of the more, er...unusual things I've ever seen.And talk about being "outed"!NancySo, I should probably do this when my bmom dies, right? :)Well, at least you wouldn't be incognito for long.

D'oh! I suppose not ;)

Of course, there's always the fantasy of being the mystery woman in black with
the big hat and a veil who puts a single red rose on the coffin and walks away
;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

In article <fvgqqvc88ii4o102gf5i5pcfg0db847hsv@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:07:54 GMT, Robibnikoff
snipOh goodness, yes. I'm sorry, but your description was so funny, I forgot whyyou were there in the first place. Please excuse my lack of respect/No problem. This was a memorial service that took placeseveral months after her death, at a time when the wholeflock could be gathered. Her death had been a release froma long and catastrophic illness (Alzheimer's), and the griefI felt was greatly overshadowed by relief and peace. If I'dbeen wrought with despair I probably wouldn't have told thestory, or would I have probably even seen the humor in it.>Their flights were canceled by the weather, so I>>had to go it alone. Oh well, at least I didn't start>>screaming and throw myself in her casket.>>Oh my gracious! Did these relatives know about you before you walked into the>funeral?Yep. *Everyone* had *always* known about me. My birth hadnever been a secret, although my brothers' births weren'tcommon knowledge. My reappearance had never been a secreteither. Everything was right out in the open from start tofinish.Well, at least that was a good thing, though you must have still felt so awkward;/I didn't, actually, except for those first few seconds as Ientered the church "tardy". Actually, I felt more like theWoman of Mystery in a cheap movie. I was wishing I'ddressed all in black widow's weeds, with a heavy veilconcealing my face and carrying one red rose, just to drive'em nuts. :-)

LOL!!! Oh my goodness, I just posted a message where I said that this is the why
I should sneak into my bmom's funeral! I think I hear The Twilight Zone music
playing in the background :D
I had no idea what kind of service this would be, and mybiggest worry was that it would be one of those informalmemorials where people are called to get up and relateamusing little stories of their favorite memories of thedeceased. I decided I'd better be prepared for thepossibility that someone would passive-agressively call onme to speak, so I'd spent weeks working on a short speechguaranteed to melt even the stoniest little judgmental heartin E.B. It was, if I do say so myself, a masterpiece; everyperson I practiced it on was moved to tears. Fortunately(or possibly unfortunately) the service was strictly amemorial mass with no input from the peanut gallery.

Boogers - Still, I'm sure that speech still means a great deal to you :)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose)Date: 11/8/2003
This pathetic image of the b-son will make everyone want to take hisside, and blame the b-mother for being so heartless as to notacknowledge her son. And it will coerce some reluctant b-mothers intocontact, thinking that the same thing might happen to them.
Is that how you read it?And you think the reason Helen posted it is to achieve that particularobjective?Rupa

It's also an example that makes one think of how they might handle, or not be
able to handle a similar situation, the death of a birthfamily member. Kathy J

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:42:28 -0000, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:qe7qqv0h4bf7f735d8psethl9smc4rfj1u@4ax .com... On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:37:34 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:

<snip>IMO she has never said anything nice about this woman..Can you think of anything Nancy? I can't find the original post, but I came away from her post with no impression that she judged the woman. I felt Helen was sensitive to the woman's feelings. I don't recall her saying anything negative about the woman.Because I never did. I never even *thought* anything negative about her.

That's what I thought. And since I posted my response I've
found the original and my impression has been reinforced.
<snip>>>Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?Okay lets change your sentence..Exactly what is wrong with the son going incognito to the funeral?Now we got some stuff to get upset about... Right? Um...no? I think it was a respectful thing to do under the circumstances. I honestly don't understand the issue you have with his decision to pay his respects anonymously. Do you think he should have revealed his position in her life to all and sundry beforehand, or do you think he should stayed away from his mother's funeral altogether? That's what I truly don't understand.Join the queue. There is nobody here who has agreed with anything thatJackie has said regarding this matter. (As far as I can see, anyway)

I really wish Jackie would clearly explain what the problem
is. I'm so baffled I wouldn't even mind if GR came along
and explained it for her.
>And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement>right then and there?I guess you are totally missing my point.. Or you are deliberatelychanging it in order to confuse.. But hey. I guess I am missing the point. If something is being changed, it's not deliberate--but "confused" is certainly what I am.LOL - no you are not, Nancy. Clear as a bell.

Well, it's certainly clear that Jackie's issue is beyond my
comprehension.
>I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a>daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed>a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly>raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,>just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking>hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and>threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love>you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Must have been awful. You can't even imagine how awful it was!I can, LOL. (Sorry)

It was...interesting. We've laughed about it over the
years, but it was anything but funny at the time. The
deceased left a young son (just turned 7) who was already
traumatized by his father's death, and this was almost the
last straw for him.

Nancy
Helen Nancy

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 21:18:51 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <oujqqvk25hsv9vgov8862gnoh266f9s24a@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:05:06 GMT, Robibnikoff<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <2p8qqvg9rgp909rpambvumq8k46j3nat80@4ax.com>, nancy says...>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:05:16 -0000, "helicon"><helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>>>>>"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message>>news:ov9nqv4pp5i981aqhrrm45tgea8fvrc23i@4ax.com...>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie>>> <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:>><snip>>>>> >>>> >>>> >She made sure the woman looked bad..>>> >>>> >The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..>>>>>> Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?>>> And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement>>> right then and there?>>>>>> I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a>>> daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed>>> a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly>>> raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,>>> just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking>>> hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and>>> threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love>>> you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.>>>>Oh. My. God. "They have their exits and their entrances..." LOL>>>>Helen>>It was one of the more, er...unusual things I've ever seen.>And talk about being "outed"!>>NancySo, I should probably do this when my bmom dies, right? :)Well, at least you wouldn't be incognito for long.D'oh! I suppose not ;)Of course, there's always the fantasy of being the mystery woman in black withthe big hat and a veil who puts a single red rose on the coffin and walks away;)

Now you're talkin'! :-)

Nancy
RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 21:21:11 GMT, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <fvgqqvc88ii4o102gf5i5pcfg0db847hsv@4ax.com>, nancy says...On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:07:54 GMT, RobibnikoffsnipOh goodness, yes. I'm sorry, but your description was so funny, I forgot whyyou were there in the first place. Please excuse my lack of respect/No problem. This was a memorial service that took placeseveral months after her death, at a time when the wholeflock could be gathered. Her death had been a release froma long and catastrophic illness (Alzheimer's), and the griefI felt was greatly overshadowed by relief and peace. If I'dbeen wrought with despair I probably wouldn't have told thestory, or would I have probably even seen the humor in it.>>Their flights were canceled by the weather, so I>>>had to go it alone. Oh well, at least I didn't start>>>screaming and throw myself in her casket.>>>>Oh my gracious! Did these relatives know about you before you walked into the>>funeral?>>Yep. *Everyone* had *always* known about me. My birth had>never been a secret, although my brothers' births weren't>common knowledge. My reappearance had never been a secret>either. Everything was right out in the open from start to>finish.Well, at least that was a good thing, though you must have still felt so awkward;/I didn't, actually, except for those first few seconds as Ientered the church "tardy". Actually, I felt more like theWoman of Mystery in a cheap movie. I was wishing I'ddressed all in black widow's weeds, with a heavy veilconcealing my face and carrying one red rose, just to drive'em nuts. :-)LOL!!! Oh my goodness, I just posted a message where I said that this is the whyI should sneak into my bmom's funeral! I think I hear The Twilight Zone musicplaying in the background :D

We're just a couple of drama queens, I guess. :-)
I had no idea what kind of service this would be, and mybiggest worry was that it would be one of those informalmemorials where people are called to get up and relateamusing little stories of their favorite memories of thedeceased. I decided I'd better be prepared for thepossibility that someone would passive-agressively call onme to speak, so I'd spent weeks working on a short speechguaranteed to melt even the stoniest little judgmental heartin E.B. It was, if I do say so myself, a masterpiece; everyperson I practiced it on was moved to tears. Fortunately(or possibly unfortunately) the service was strictly amemorial mass with no input from the peanut gallery.Boogers - Still, I'm sure that speech still means a great deal to you :)

It does, actually. I have a copy packed away with my other
memorabilia.

Nancy
RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0311081228.57a5e9ba@posting.google.c om... Top post I think I'm beginning to get what you mean. I s this how you see it? An elderly birthmother wants to maintain her secrecy, being too old to change. Owing to the intervention of others, she is persuaded to meet her b-son face-to-face. After that one meeting, she wishes to return to her secrecy, and does so. Her b-son would have liked to know her better, and others encourage that thought, believing that the b-mother will come around, and that her sister's interference is what prevents it. However, before any further contact, the woman dies. Her b-son, whom she did not publicly acknowledge, attends her funeral incognito. He wanders around the edges of the crowd, feeling lonely and out-of-place because everyone else there knows each other. He can't say, "I am her son," because he was not publicly acknowledged. People wonder who he is and why he's there. This pathetic image of the b-son will make everyone want to take his side, and blame the b-mother for being so heartless as to not acknowledge her son. And it will coerce some reluctant b-mothers into contact, thinking that the same thing might happen to them. Is that how you read it?

Yes, Rupa. That is exactly Jackie's reading of the story. She has it in her
head, verbatim. The trouble is, it is all a fiction. A Mills & Boon
pot-boiler.

In this instance truth is much stranger than fiction, and as it happens, far
kinder and less dramatic.

Thanks for trying, but you are speaking to one whose mind is firmly shut.
Nailed down.
And you think the reason Helen posted it is to achieve that particular objective?

Oh yes, of course she does. Jackie loves the High Drama where she can ride
in to the rescue.

Helen
Rupa Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<5trpqv8d6392l761ksl4iefldnbsjk8u4t@4ax.com>... On 7 Nov 2003 11:53:32 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> >I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her
family,> >though. I got that the focus was on not developing her own> >relationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of.>> Should have could have.True. Isn't that always the way when someone dies? "I wish I had..." Trouble is it is Helen who is doing the wishing..IMO> No no one forced her.. But some judged her.> Found her lacking.. IMOWho judged her, Jackie? Helen judged her. She judge her by saying that the man was incognito and the sister manipulated.. Others have agreed..> > But what I read in the post was> >more Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed out> >on getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to
the> >family, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know.>> The woman was not given her dignity..> Her wants and desires were not honored..> Familiar ????>Were they not? She met her son face to face for an hour. And then herson went to her funeral incognito, so that he paid his respects, butdid not out her. The son did honor her.. I respect that man. He gave her her dignity.. Only her sister, according to Helen's account, didnot honor her wants and desires. Helen was gossiping.. I do not believe Helen..> >> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral
incognito.> >>> >> Why did she have to say this?> >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just> >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..> >> >Jackie, but what's wrong with that?>> Because some of us play the blame game when something like that is> said..What's to blame? He respected the fact that she had not told thefamily about him. Ah but we are given the pathos.. We are given fuel for the fire.. We are given what Kathy said..
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20031105183208.07307.00000380%40mb-m18.aol.com&output=gplain>So color me clueless, but...>I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep on
lying...>and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have
the>right to know the names of their parents...>Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth
control. I>know that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go
along>with the idea that women like you have just described are owed a
courtesy for>having kept self-serving secrets. end of quoting Kathy.> He did it how he wanted to do it.> That is what reunion *should* be about..Right. So that was all right, then. So why were you upset when youheard that? I am upset that Helen made it her business to tell us about him being incognito and the sisters manipulation.> >How does it turn into a judgement on the woman?>> Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about the> funeral..> Poor poor adoptee..Jackie, I didn't get any negative vibes. Nor any pity for the adoptee,who did what was decent and appropriate. Well I do get them.> > I think he honored her> >by going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at a> >time when people were thinking about *her.*>> Yes.. he did what I would have done..>> What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an international> newsgroup..> IMO she made this woman look bad.To whom is she looking bad? How about Kathy and her comments.. Maybe Kathy will use this situation in order to further her hatred of (some) nmoms..Not to me, anyway.Are you uncomfortable with Helen's assumption that the b-mom wouldhave wanted to know her son better and didn't get to do so? Because,in fact, the b-mom might not have wanted that at all, and wanted tostay closeted instead? She did want to stay in the secrecy.. May she rest in peace.. Jackie

In article <eR7rb.5051$bD.18211@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
writes:
"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:2dppqvork4usm8hh9bri5jhuq2olcct7r1@4ax .com... On 7 Nov 2003 11:38:02 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>>> Why did you bring it here Helen?> Why did you attempt to make that woman look bad?> Why do you gossip about her?Jackie, we don't know the names or places of these people. It scarcelyqualifies as gossip when we're talking about two very anonymouspeople. IMO Helen was condemning women who do not wish to come out of the secrecy.. A name on it would not matter..You said it was gossip. You love the word. You told GR that you were goingto gossip about me. You planned it all. Silly ***. She was relating a story that was sure to make a woman like that look bad or pathetic..Only in your eyes. Not one person has agreed with you yet. GR is strangelysilent. So where does that leave you with your crazy-lady imagination?And why do you feel the birthmother looked bad? Her son went to her funeral incognito because she would not tell her family about him..Her son went to the funeral, incognito. Period. One amongst 150+. How manywill attend YOUR funeral, Jackie? I hazard a guess that it will be a fewshort of that.

OK perhaps Jackie is confusing the word incognito with some other word...here
from Mirriam Webster at www.m-w.com

Main Entry: 1in·cog·ni·to
Pronunciation: "in-"käg-'nE-(")tO also in-'käg-n&-"tO
Function: adverb or adjective
Etymology: Italian, from Latin incognitus unknown, from in- + cognitus, past
participle of cognoscere to know -- more at COGNITION
Date: 1635
: with one's identity concealed

Does that help you any Jackie?

<SNIPPED>

KL

In article <h5ppqvskp1pd181ob90qckipc7e3fdegba@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:23:36 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:The imagery was very condemning IMO.In YOUR opinion, it was - However, it would appear that YOU'RE the only onewholooked at it that way. I know I didn't.I am sure Helen and people like Helen depend on this.Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it.Looks like it was to me.Really????? Honestly, IMO you look at any possible negative aspectof a situation you can find. Why is that?"All the better to brainwash you my dear!"Kackle KackleNooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame..Who's laying blame besides you?LOL that is funny.Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!Sorry, Jackie. I don't see the issue. Speaking of issues, it looks to melikeyou've got some.Robyn.. There are no words..

For there being no words, you sure do rant a bit...

KL
Jackie

In article <efopqv8028rekfhrl3mij361blkc6ss5an@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:28:43 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:50:23 -0500, Jackie<jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:59:11 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:>I take it you think Helen should have not coaxed the woman>out of the closet for that one meeting.Helen IMO should not have been involved.Yep, that seems to be your opinion.It is..> She should have let>that woman go to her grave without ever meeting her son.Helen should have allowed the person to make her own decisions.No gentle persuasions in situations such as this.. No controlling..No protecting the emotions of the adoptee..What (some) aparents do..Where is the equality in this?Where have you demonstrated inequality in this?I am sorry you missed my point Nancy..>And Helen is wrong in her assessment of the sister, and you,>sitting thousands of miles away and never having met these>people, are right.The woman is dead.. IMO a person should say.."Rest in Peace." And then leave it at that.We mustn't talk about the dead here?I don't like to see a person doing a critique on the dead..IMO Helen did this.IMO she has never said anything nice about this woman..Can you think of anything Nancy?> And the son should have just crawled>away after being properly chastised for having the audacity>to want to meet his mother.Crawled away? Very descriptive..Thank you.>And all because Helen is an>[GASP!] adoptive mother and therefore can't possibly be>sensitive to the needs of anyone else.She made sure the woman looked bad..The son goes incognito to the funeral.. The sister controlled her..Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral?Okay lets change your sentence..Exactly what is wrong with the son going incognito to the funeral?Now we got some stuff to get upset about... Right?

No...why should we have something to get upset about when he goes incognito to
the funeral? Maybe saddened that he wasn't acknowledged ahead of time and able
to attend without being incognito, but nothing to get "upset" about, like you
have.

KL
And do you think he should have made the Big Announcementright then and there?I guess you are totally missing my point.. Or you are deliberatelychanging it in order to confuse.. But hey.I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had adaughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placeda pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainlyraised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,just before they closed the casket, she went into shriekinghysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel andthrew herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I loveyou", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.Must have been awful.Jackie

In article <dafc70.0311072015.46665f68@posting.google.com>,
sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) writes:
Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:<4iunqv082c6g8h6e5lus06u4cc7lrq5kei@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 07:16:58 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Let's just say she 'triggers' too easily. Really?It is extremely difficult trying to communicate with a person who hasmade no bones about the fact that they consider you cold, indifferentand basically full of ****, and has also (inexplicably, since they donot know many of the significant facts of your life) stated that theyenvy you. I envy you when you got to hold your son. Easily.Easily?You presume too much.

I think she meant she envies you easily....not that you held your son easily.
Rh.As I've said, I've tried, but I'm no masochist. I am very grateful that you gave up. Jackie

KL

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:v17rb.5018$bD.18112@news.indigo.ie... "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message

The sister controlled her.. Yes she did. Quite a lot. She never passed on letters that were sent, although they were addressed to the mother, care of *her*. She had no
right to withold letters addressed to an adult. Helen


Maybe you've mentioned this before and I missed it, but why were they
addressed to the sister?

Kathy 1

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2m5nqv4iss41mh7mph5429r6o21qb8i3k8@4ax.com... On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:42:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote:>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>> wrote:>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son
again.>He>> >> was>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these
women"horrible" is............YOU. Really? The imagery was very condemning IMO. Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. But that was not said.. was it.

Maybe because this is alt. adoption and that's the point - to discuss all
things relating to adoption- up to and including how adoptees handle the
death of their bmothers.

Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito.. Blame blame blame..


Blame in *your* mind because that is all you *ever* see when people talk
about bmothers.
Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not!

Oh brother. Yeah we all know who this woman, her son, and her sister are.
Too funny!

Kathy 1

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:cGPqb.27068$cJ5.4302@www.newsranger.com... In article <2m5nqv4iss41mh7mph5429r6o21qb8i3k8@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:42:48 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com>wrote:In article <a8rhqvs9079caf7hoq3jqclb9tav8pn55h@4ax.com>, Jackie says...>>On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:38:35 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>wrote:>>>>>"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message>>news:1iefqvcjk9d6c3j09lo83bm8qna9nbefp4@4ax.com...>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:19:43 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>>>> wrote:>>>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her son
again.>>He>>> >> was>>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.>>>>>> Made sure you posted that little ditty Helen.. Didn't you...>>>>WHAT are you talking about? WHAT "little ditty"?>>You made sure we all knew that this man was hard done by..>>Poor poor soul done in by those horrible women..Here's something to mull over, Jackie. The only person calling these
women"horrible" is............YOU.Really? Yes, really. Have you seen anyone else here posting anything like that
about Helen's story? If you have, please Google it.The imagery was very condemning IMO. In YOUR opinion, it was - However, it would appear that YOU'RE the only
one who looked at it that way. I know I didn't.Rest in peace is a nice thing to say in situations such as this.. Butthat was not said.. was it. Looks like it was to me. Honestly, IMO you look at any possible negative
aspect of a situation you can find. Why is that?Nooooooo we have a man walking around the funeral incognito..Blame blame blame.. Who's laying blame besides you?Helen posts this on an international newsgroup.. Very nice. Not! Sorry, Jackie. I don't see the issue. Speaking of issues, it looks to me
like you've got some.


Plenty of them and rather than allowing her to see things "clearly", they
instead cloud her vision.

Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bojnj2$1bqlfr$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:v17rb.5018$bD.18112@news.indigo.ie... "Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in messageThe sister controlled her.. Yes she did. Quite a lot. She never passed on letters that were sent, although they were addressed to the mother, care of *her*. She had no right to withold letters addressed to an adult. Helen Maybe you've mentioned this before and I missed it, but why were they addressed to the sister?

He knew the family name, and knew that the sister knew about him as she
called to the adoptive parents' house a few times when he was - I'm not
sure - 8,9,10. He didn't know his birth mother's married name, or where she
was living. He sent a letter care of the sister, with a covering note,
explaining to the sister who he was, that he remembered her visiting, etc.,
asking her to pass the letter on to his birth mother, discreetly. He had no
reason to believe that she wouldn't do that. Time passed and there was no
response, and he wrote again.

He found her actions very hurtful, contemptuous and dismissive.

Helen
Kathy 1

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bojqhk$1fc3dq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:L17rb.5034$bD.18186@news.indigo.ie... The birth mom didn't have the opportunity to make her own choices. When the sister received the letters from the son, addressed to the bmom, she
chose not to give the birth mother the opportunity to decide for herself what she wanted to do. Imagine controlling what a 60+ woman should receive in the post! Would
YOU like it? Well to tie this into another thread :) it's not much different , imo,
than the bmother withholding information about either the bfather or the circumstances of the relinquishment (ie. rape) because she has taken it
upon herself to "protect" another adult. Only this time the adult in question
is a sister and not a son/daughter.

In the other case, it was early days in reuinion for disclosure by one
principal to the other of something of a disturbing nature. (That one's
birth father was a rapist and near-murderer - not something you toss out
with an oh-by-the-way)

In this case, it was an intoductory letter from a fifty year old birth son
to his 69 year old birth mother, sent on trust to her vigorous, single
sister, to be passed on in a discreet manner, accompanied by some caring
support from said sister.
When you were searching for your son, how would you have liked it if letters you had writen to him 'care of' someone - his adoptive parents, say -
had been retained by them? I reckon you would have been bursting with that famous, much-loved anger of yours. > > >> >I thought I read that she did too. >Once, I think, but I can't remember for sure. She met him and gave him his information.. That is the impression I got from Helen's words. He already *knew* "his information". He knew who both parents were. He knew their homeplaces. He knew that his birth father was dead. He knew that
he had siblings on that side. He knew his birth mother's name, her dead husband's profession but not his name (therefore not her married name), but he only had a rough idea where she lived. ' How did he come to know who the sister was?

Because she used to call occasionally to the home where he grew up. It
wasn't too far from the birth family's homeplace. Everyone knew, but
everyone let on that they didn't.

I got the information about his birth mother. His first meeting was not
to "get his information", because he already had all of that. She did not want to tell her children.. Prior to meeting him, yes. So what? >> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. >> Why did she have to say this? >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace. >> >> >> >I fail to see how it's a judgment call. >The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing
his >mother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest. >She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway) > >It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion,
so >why shouldn't Helen tell us about it? Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in the story.. IMO The only prejudices being displayed are your own. Another birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that! IMO that was Helen's agenda.. What must she not do? *Die*? Is this a *nanny* newsgroup? Have we to
edit every post in case its content causes someone, somewhere to to say "Wooo
I better not do that"? Why is it that you are constantly pathologising women who have relinquished, as though they have no intellect, no powers of discernment? You are
trying to 'fix things' for them by keeping them in the dark, in the same way
that people tried to 'fix things' for them in the past by removing their
babies from them. In their young adulthood someone else assumed the right to
make choices that impacted on their lives. Now in their late adulthood you
are contriving to do the same thing. This isn't directed at you Helen :) but why is it that people can't see
the connection between this and keeping secrets from the adoptee. Just different sides of the same coin.

I don't think that secrets *should* be kept from anyone, but it is up to the
two adult individuals to arrive at telling things during the course of their
reunion and the building of their relationship. It is NOT up to a third
party to dictate what should be told, and at what speed things should be
discussed.

(y mother is 83 and I am still learning things from her about her young life
that I never knew.)
Think of this: this guy asked me to locate his birth mother. I did so.
He asked me to make contact with her on his behalf. I did so, by letter.
She phoned me. He phoned me and emailed me. They made arrangements (through me) to meet somewhere midway between where they all lived. They didn't want
to meet anyone they knew. (They wanted to remain incognito. <eg>) Her
sister accompanied her, and he went alone. I had nothing to do with it. I did not drag anyone, kicking and
screaming, to have a reunion. The son wanted it, the mother *chose to go*. She made *choices*, Jackie. Does that stick in your gullet? It doesn't jive with what Jackies *thinks* her choice was i.e secrecy in
any and all matters.

What consoles me is this woman would have refuted Jackie's take on things.

Helen

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hg9nqvgfvgsq83bvhmvlb0taha8jo5lm60@4ax.com... On 5 Nov 2003 17:44:42 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<1prhqv4f3crlat8kradm7ulvvrtkdmu8h2@4ax.com>...


Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. Why did she have to say this? Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace. > >I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, sowhy shouldn't Helen tell us about it?


Jackiemakes the rules for what can and can't be discussed on alt. a:

Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in the story.. IMO Another birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that!


Kathy 1

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:solqqvs4en5qb1ts3kaib7e7lbh6e5j7tf@4ax.com... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:42:28 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:qe7qqv0h4bf7f735d8psethl9smc4rfj1u@4ax .com... On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:37:34 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote: <snip> > >IMO she has never said anything nice about this woman.. >Can you think of anything Nancy? I can't find the original post, but I came away from her post with no impression that she judged the woman. I felt Helen was sensitive to the woman's feelings. I don't recall her saying anything negative about the woman.Because I never did. I never even *thought* anything negative about her. That's what I thought. And since I posted my response I've found the original and my impression has been reinforced. <snip> >> >>Exactly what is wrong with the son going to the funeral? > >Okay lets change your sentence.. > >Exactly what is wrong with the son going incognito to the funeral? > >Now we got some stuff to get upset about... Right? Um...no? I think it was a respectful thing to do under the circumstances. I honestly don't understand the issue you have with his decision to pay his respects anonymously. Do you think he should have revealed his position in her life to all and sundry beforehand, or do you think he should stayed away from his mother's funeral altogether? That's what I truly don't understand.Join the queue. There is nobody here who has agreed with anything thatJackie has said regarding this matter. (As far as I can see, anyway) I really wish Jackie would clearly explain what the problem is. I'm so baffled I wouldn't even mind if GR came along and explained it for her. > >>And do you think he should have made the Big Announcement >>right then and there? > >I guess you are totally missing my point.. Or you are deliberately >changing it in order to confuse.. But hey. I guess I am missing the point. If something is being changed, it's not deliberate--but "confused" is certainly what I am.LOL - no you are not, Nancy. Clear as a bell. Well, it's certainly clear that Jackie's issue is beyond my comprehension.

Don't worry. It's beyond Jackie's comprehension, too.

Helen

>>I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a >>daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed >>a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly >>raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when, >>just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking >>hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and >>threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love >>you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper. > > >Must have been awful. You can't even imagine how awful it was!I can, LOL. (Sorry) It was...interesting. We've laughed about it over the years, but it was anything but funny at the time. The deceased left a young son (just turned 7) who was already traumatized by his father's death, and this was almost the last straw for him. NancyHelen Nancy

"Rhiannon" <sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:dafc70.0311080422.14bc7954@posting.google.com ... rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote in message
news:<e5619372.0311072051.2e01db95@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote Why did she have to say this? Incognito? So we wouldn't get the impression that he rode into the funeral triumphantly declaring a relationship that his b-mother had not acknowledged before? I feel you are reading a huge negative meaning into "incognito" that I for one did not see there. >> >> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito. >> Why did she have to say this? >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace. >> >I fail to see how it's a judgment call. >The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing
his >mother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest. >She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway) She's also anonymous; which is why I can't classify it as gossip. "Did you hear the one about the old lady whom you don't know and her son who you also don't know" doesn't quite cut it as gossip in my view. Juicy gossip has to be about people you know or know of. The only reasons I can think of for Jackie's objection to Helen's use of the word 'incognito', are that she thinks it would have been more appropriate for this man to attend the funeral openly as the dead woman's son. Or else not to have gone at all. And I don't really thinks she thinks either of these things. So I'm very mystified. I agree with you that it was an honorable solution for him. He paid his respects to his mother, and satisfied a need within himself without hurting others. Anyway, not only are these people anonymous, but, 'That was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.'


May she rest in peace. There. It's been said. Now Jackie can be happy ;)

Kathy 1

"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:solqqvs4en5qb1ts3kaib7e7lbh6e5j7tf@4ax.com... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:42:28 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:qe7qqv0h4bf7f735d8psethl9smc4rfj1u@4ax .com... On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:37:34 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a >>daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed >>a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly >>raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when, >>just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking >>hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and >>threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love >>you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper. > > >Must have been awful. You can't even imagine how awful it was!I can, LOL. (Sorry) It was...interesting. We've laughed about it over the years, but it was anything but funny at the time. The deceased left a young son (just turned 7) who was already traumatized by his father's death, and this was almost the last straw for him.

I'm sorry I was so crass. I hope the little guy's life was mended somehow.

Helen NancyHelen Nancy

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:L17rb.5034$bD.18186@news.indigo.ie...




The birth mom didn't have the opportunity to make her own choices. When
the sister received the letters from the son, addressed to the bmom, she chose not to give the birth mother the opportunity to decide for herself what
she wanted to do. Imagine controlling what a 60+ woman should receive in the post! Would YOU like it?

Well to tie this into another thread :) it's not much different , imo, than
the bmother withholding information about either the bfather or the
circumstances of the relinquishment (ie. rape) because she has taken it upon
herself to "protect" another adult. Only this time the adult in question is
a sister and not a son/daughter.
When you were searching for your son, how would you have liked it if
letters you had writen to him 'care of' someone - his adoptive parents, say - had been retained by them? I reckon you would have been bursting with that famous, much-loved anger of yours.>I thought I read that she did too.Once, I think, but I can't remember for sure. She met him and gave him his information.. That is the impression I got from Helen's words. He already *knew* "his information". He knew who both parents were. He
knew their homeplaces. He knew that his birth father was dead. He knew that he had siblings on that side. He knew his birth mother's name, her dead husband's profession but not his name (therefore not her married name),
but he only had a rough idea where she lived.
'
How did he come to know who the sister was?

I got the information about his birth mother. His first meeting was not to "get his information", because he already had all of that. She did not want to tell her children.. Prior to meeting him, yes. So what?> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.> Why did she have to say this?> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace.> > >>I fail to see how it's a judgment call.The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing hismother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest.She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway)It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, sowhy shouldn't Helen tell us about it? Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in the story.. IMO The only prejudices being displayed are your own. Another birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that! IMO that was Helen's agenda.. What must she not do? *Die*? Is this a *nanny* newsgroup? Have we to edit every post in case its content causes someone, somewhere to to say "Wooo I better not do that"? Why is it that you are constantly pathologising women who have
relinquished, as though they have no intellect, no powers of discernment? You are trying to 'fix things' for them by keeping them in the dark, in the same way that people tried to 'fix things' for them in the past by removing their babies from them. In their young adulthood someone else assumed the right to make choices that impacted on their lives. Now in their late adulthood you are contriving to do the same thing.


This isn't directed at you Helen :) but why is it that people can't see the
connection between this and keeping secrets from the adoptee. Just
different sides of the same coin.

Think of this: this guy asked me to locate his birth mother. I did so. He asked me to make contact with her on his behalf. I did so, by letter. She phoned me. He phoned me and emailed me. They made arrangements (through
me) to meet somewhere midway between where they all lived. They didn't want to meet anyone they knew. (They wanted to remain incognito. <eg>) Her sister accompanied her, and he went alone. I had nothing to do with it. I did not drag anyone, kicking and screaming, to have a reunion. The son wanted it, the mother *chose to go*. She made *choices*, Jackie. Does that stick in your gullet?

It doesn't jive with what Jackies *thinks* her choice was i.e secrecy in any
and all matters.



Kathy 1

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<c39nqvotb7dnjgj1ckeiqbd4roqn1b9bj5@4ax.com>... On 5 Nov 2003 13:45:16 -0800, soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote:I guess one could easily have guessed your approval of this woman'sbehavior Jackie. I approve when the woman is allowed to make her own decisions regarding *her* reunion with her bson.. Why don't you take up the cause to have all adopteestongues cut out and give us all plastic hearts at birth? I did not start this crap.. Someone with a good idea started this crap. What yourepresent is an insult to adoptees. Why is that? Heck some of my best friends are adoptee's...You approve, condone and placatethe very fiber of dysfunction. Ah... So you have made a judgment call on the woman..You and people like you compound thecrimes committed in adoption, and especially those committed againstadoptees. So we better get out there and start shaming the ones who are still in the closet.. Ya that will work..She was too old to change? She is a human being who made her own decisions.. She is a human being that had a life.. May she rest in peace.. and I really mean that.. Now that's another juicy excuse, and I seeyou have a whole collection of them here. Just where is your heart forthe young man going to her funeral in cognito like the secret bastard? Life is very difficult for some.

So, when it comes to a birthmother she has your full sympathy but for
this man you seem to feel ho hum life is tough. That does not surprise
me or anger me. You are a birthmom. You know how you feel and how you
feel about what you went through. Adoptees have a whole different set
of adoption related injuries and most likely only other adoptees fully
understand these feelings. In my opinion, that is why reunions can be
so very hard.

<bowing out of conversation now>

On 8 Nov 2003 12:28:55 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Top postI think I'm beginning to get what you mean. Is this how you see it?An elderly birthmother wants to maintain her secrecy, being too old tochange. Owing to the intervention of others, she is persuaded to meether b-son face-to-face. After that one meeting, she wishes to returnto her secrecy, and does so.

Yes.
Her b-son would have liked to know her better, and others encouragethat thought, believing that the b-mother will come around, and thather sister's interference is what prevents it.However, before any further contact, the woman dies. Her b-son, whomshe did not publicly acknowledge, attends her funeral incognito. Hewanders around the edges of the crowd, feeling lonely and out-of-placebecause everyone else there knows each other. He can't say, "I am herson," because he was not publicly acknowledged. People wonder who heis and why he's there.This pathetic image of the b-son will make everyone want to take hisside, and blame the b-mother for being so heartless as to notacknowledge her son. And it will coerce some reluctant b-mothers intocontact, thinking that the same thing might happen to them.

That is my point..
Is that how you read it?And you think the reason Helen posted it is to achieve that particularobjective?

She is an adoptive parent doing reunions.. I personally believe that
Helen's interests and sympathies are with the adoptee.


JackieJackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<5trpqv8d6392l761ksl4iefldnbsjk8u4t@4ax.com>... On 7 Nov 2003 11:53:32 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote> >I don't think Helen said a word about acknowledging him to her family,> >though. I got that the focus was on not developing her own> >relationship with a son she could have enjoyed and been proud of.>> Should have could have.True. Isn't that always the way when someone dies? "I wish I had..." Trouble is it is Helen who is doing the wishing..IMO> No no one forced her.. But some judged her.> Found her lacking.. IMOWho judged her, Jackie? Helen judged her. She judge her by saying that the man was incognito and the sister manipulated.. Others have agreed..> > But what I read in the post was> >more Helen regretted that the lady, because of her fears, missed out> >on getting to know her son. There really wasn't much reference to the> >family, except to the sister -- who obviously *did* know.>> The woman was not given her dignity..> Her wants and desires were not honored..> Familiar ????>Were they not? She met her son face to face for an hour. And then herson went to her funeral incognito, so that he paid his respects, butdid not out her. The son did honor her.. I respect that man. He gave her her dignity.. Only her sister, according to Helen's account, didnot honor her wants and desires. Helen was gossiping.. I do not believe Helen..> >> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral incognito.> >>> >> Why did she have to say this?> >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has just> >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace..> >> >Jackie, but what's wrong with that?>> Because some of us play the blame game when something like that is> said..What's to blame? He respected the fact that she had not told thefamily about him. Ah but we are given the pathos.. We are given fuel for the fire.. We are given what Kathy said.. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20031105183208.07307.00000380%40mb-m18.aol.com&output=gplain>So color me clueless, but...>I can't seem to think of a good enough reason why anyone could keep on lying...>and put the rights of themselves over that of their bchildren who have the>right to know the names of their parents...>Women, like these, are scumbags that use relinquishment as birth control. I>know that this will burst Jackie and Di's bubbles....but I will not go along>with the idea that women like you have just described are owed a courtesy for>having kept self-serving secrets. end of quoting Kathy.> He did it how he wanted to do it.> That is what reunion *should* be about..Right. So that was all right, then. So why were you upset when youheard that? I am upset that Helen made it her business to tell us about him being incognito and the sisters manipulation.> >How does it turn into a judgement on the woman?>> Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about the> funeral..> Poor poor adoptee..Jackie, I didn't get any negative vibes. Nor any pity for the adoptee,who did what was decent and appropriate. Well I do get them.> > I think he honored her> >by going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at a> >time when people were thinking about *her.*>> Yes.. he did what I would have done..>> What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an international> newsgroup..> IMO she made this woman look bad.To whom is she looking bad? How about Kathy and her comments.. Maybe Kathy will use this situation in order to further her hatred of (some) nmoms..Not to me, anyway.Are you uncomfortable with Helen's assumption that the b-mom wouldhave wanted to know her son better and didn't get to do so? Because,in fact, the b-mom might not have wanted that at all, and wanted tostay closeted instead? She did want to stay in the secrecy.. May she rest in peace.. Jackie

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:18:50 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:22:44 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:<snip>Damn I thought I was stupid.. I thought I was unable to cope.I thought I needed GR to help me..Maybe GR may disagree with me here.. What will I do what will I do.<snip>LOLOLI haven't been following the thread with any real attention. You'reon your own! Oh. My. God.It's Armaggedon for sure!<snicker>GR


If this is about the Helen debate.. I am dropping it.. I said what I
wanted to say.
I am not going to argue with her..

Jackie

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 01:22:32 -0000, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:solqqvs4en5qb1ts3kaib7e7lbh6e5j7tf@4ax .com... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:42:28 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in messagenews:qe7qqv0h4bf7f735d8psethl9smc4rfj1u@4ax .com...> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:37:34 -0500, Jackie> <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote:<snip>> >>I went to a funeral once where that happened. The man had a> >>daughter no one knew about. When she walked in, she placed> >>a pillow in the casket that said "Daddy", which certainly> >>raised a few eyebrows, but the big revelation came when,> >>just before they closed the casket, she went into shrieking> >>hysterics and actually ran up to the front of the chapel and> >>threw herself on him in the casket screaming "Daddy, I love> >>you", etc. I'll tell you, it was a real show-stopper.> >> >> >Must have been awful.>> You can't even imagine how awful it was!I can, LOL. (Sorry) It was...interesting. We've laughed about it over the years, but it was anything but funny at the time. The deceased left a young son (just turned 7) who was already traumatized by his father's death, and this was almost the last straw for him.I'm sorry I was so crass. I hope the little guy's life was mended somehow.Helen

Not to worry. :-) He's now 12, he's got a wonderful
step-father, and he's doing just fine. I was just
illustrating the negatives of *not* going to funerals
incognito...just in case someone was listening.

Nancy

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:aj8rqvgf3vg391j5cj8rbtl6rgcjn94ogm@4ax.com... On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:18:50 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:22:44 -0500, Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com>wrote:<snip>Damn I thought I was stupid.. I thought I was unable to cope.I thought I needed GR to help me..Maybe GR may disagree with me here.. What will I do what will I do.<snip>LOLOLI haven't been following the thread with any real attention. You'reon your own! Oh. My. God.It's Armaggedon for sure!<snicker>GR If this is about the Helen debate.. I am dropping it.. I said what I wanted to say. I am not going to argue with her..

Yeah, you certainly squeezed that one for all it was worth. Not a single
person agreed with your arguments and comments. Nary a one.

Helen
Jackie

On 08 Nov 2003 19:51:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:

Helen wrote.>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.>>He>>> >> was>>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.

snipped the post.
I am positive this one situation is not the only one where an adoptee has goneto a parents funeral incognito. Hardly damning to post about a case here.

Do you not see condemnation in Helen's words?

I do.

Why couldn't Helen have said... The woman died a few months ago.. and
left it at that..
Why the drama?


Jackie

On 08 Nov 2003 19:50:57 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:
What should he have done? Made apublic declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone?He did it how he wanted to do it.Where did it say that was how he wanted to do it?

He did what he wanted to do.. As anyone does..
He decided how he would attend the funeral and then attended the
funeral. What is complicated about that?
If you ask me, that was howhe was forced to do it.

Right.. and who did the forcing?
And by doing it that way, did he not honor the bmom'swishes? How can you be so blind?

So is he a hero now?
That is what reunion *should* be about..How does it turn into a judgement on the woman?Helen made a judgment.. Helen gossiped in a negative way about thefuneral..Poor poor adoptee..Helen did not gossip. She simply relayed a story. That is NOT gossipping. I think he honored herby going, and by going in a way that her secret would be kept at atime when people were thinking about *her.*Yes.. he did what I would have done..What I am addressing is Helen adding her comments on an internationalnewsgroup..IMO she made this woman look bad.Look bad to whom? To you? Cause you were the only one who saw it that way.

Well maybe someone else saw it..

I can live in hope.


Jackie

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bojqhk$1fc3dq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de>... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:L17rb.5034$bD.18186@news.indigo.ie... Why is it that you are constantly pathologising women who have relinquished, as though they have no intellect, no powers of discernment? You are trying to 'fix things' for them by keeping them in the dark, in the same way that people tried to 'fix things' for them in the past by removing their babies from them. In their young adulthood someone else assumed the right to make choices that impacted on their lives. Now in their late adulthood you are contriving to do the same thing. This isn't directed at you Helen :) but why is it that people can't see the connection between this and keeping secrets from the adoptee. Just different sides of the same coin. >



Absolutely agree. Thanks for saying it.
The relationship is obvious, and it's curious that more people don't
make the connection.



Think of this: this guy asked me to locate his birth mother. I did so. He asked me to make contact with her on his behalf. I did so, by letter. She phoned me. He phoned me and emailed me. They made arrangements (through me) to meet somewhere midway between where they all lived. They didn't want to meet anyone they knew. (They wanted to remain incognito. <eg>) Her sister accompanied her, and he went alone. I had nothing to do with it. I did not drag anyone, kicking and screaming, to have a reunion. The son wanted it, the mother *chose to go*. She made *choices*, Jackie. Does that stick in your gullet? It doesn't jive with what Jackies *thinks* her choice was i.e secrecy in any and all matters.


It doesn't jive at all.
Ah, the contradictions, the never-ending contradictions of Jackie ;-)
I sometimes think she gets a kick out of disagreeing just for it's own
sake. An excercise in defiance that confirms her reality. Like a
child.

It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, at
least in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at which
they relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? I don't exclude myself),
especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young,
but emotionally immature as well.
If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) say
in the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certain
aspects of their development, IMO
Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meet
an adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child.
One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough.
And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their child
abuses similar to the ones they endured.





Rh.





Kathy 1

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:26drqvch2fc19thaeastggie1jd9m8a0pu@4ax.com... On 08 Nov 2003 19:51:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote: Helen wrote.>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.>>>He>>>> >> was>>>> >> > at her funeral, incognito. snipped the post.I am positive this one situation is not the only one where an adoptee has
goneto a parents funeral incognito. Hardly damning to post about a case
here. Do you not see condemnation in Helen's words?

What an imagination you have - for spite.
I do. Why couldn't Helen have said... The woman died a few months ago.. and left it at that.. Why the drama?

Godalmighty - it is YOU who sees the drama. You want her in her box (closet)
buried in the ground as if her life meant nothing to anyone, as if her
earlier secrecy defined who she was. It didn't. She had a good and fulfilled
life. She did *good* things for people. She had other children, grown to
adulthood. She had grandchildren. She intended seeing her eldest son again.
She herself regretted that her sister had chosen not to give her the
original letters. How do I know this/ Because she told me so. She died
before she could do all the things she intended doing. It often happens.

Helen
Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:jbcrqvsumutqrc4s9fqusc1efhe4e74fo6@4ax.com... On 08 Nov 2003 19:50:57 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:>What should he have done? Made a>public declaration and a big scene? Or just not have gone?He did it how he wanted to do it.Where did it say that was how he wanted to do it? He did what he wanted to do.. As anyone does.. He decided how he would attend the funeral and then attended the funeral. What is complicated about that? If you ask me, that was howhe was forced to do it. Right.. and who did the forcing? And by doing it that way, did he not honor the bmom'swishes? How can you be so blind? So is he a hero now?

No he is not any more a hero than he was before the funeral. He was just a
good and decent man, considerate and respectful - a credit to her.


<snip>
IMO she made this woman look bad.Look bad to whom? To you? Cause you were the only one who saw it that
way. Well maybe someone else saw it.. I can live in hope.

Don't hold your breath.

Helen
Jackie

"kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:boll44$1flc7m$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:Gogrb.5128$bD.18542@news.indigo.ie... "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bojqhk$1fc3dq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:L17rb.5034$bD.18186@news.indigo.ie... > > The birth mom didn't have the opportunity to make her own choices. When the > sister received the letters from the son, addressed to the bmom, she chose > not to give the birth mother the opportunity to decide for herself what she > wanted to do. > > Imagine controlling what a 60+ woman should receive in the post!
Would YOU > like it? Well to tie this into another thread :) it's not much different , imo, than the bmother withholding information about either the bfather or the circumstances of the relinquishment (ie. rape) because she has taken
it upon herself to "protect" another adult. Only this time the adult in question is a sister and not a son/daughter. In the other case, it was early days in reuinion for disclosure by one principal to the other of something of a disturbing nature. (That one's birth father was a rapist and near-murderer - not something you toss out with an oh-by-the-way) Of course you don't! In this case, it was an intoductory letter from a fifty year old birth
son to his 69 year old birth mother, sent on trust to her vigorous, single sister, to be passed on in a discreet manner, accompanied by some caring support from said sister. Didn't you say there was more than one letter that wasn't passed on?

There was the first one, accompanied by an introductory letter, asking the
sister if she would pass the letter on to his birth mother. (He didn't call
her that, he called her by her first name.) He was patient, waiting for a
response that never came (like Robyn) and eventually he wrote another one,
mentioning the first, and the possibility that she hadn't actually received
it. STILL silence. So he didn't know whether his birth mother had got the
letters, either.

Some more time passed, and he got in touch with me. I contacted the sister,
and she said that she got the letters, and no, she hadn't passed them on. No
real reason. Just felt that too much time had passed, and no good would come
of it, etc. *Not her call*, I say.

So *I* wrote to the birth mother - at the behest of the son, and she phoned
ME - and the rest is history.


But whether it was one or fifty the actual circumstances aren't what I was referring to, rather one party withholding information from another in an attempt to"protect" the other. Regardless of the motivation behind such a move it can seem very controlling on the receiving end. You seem to grasp that in this situation but seem unable to even entertain the notion that
the same *might* (please notice the emphasis :) be true in the other
situation.

Yes it would seem very controlling, and could be, definitely, very annoying
for some - but it depends on a lot of things.

If we consider that the two principal people in a (good reunion) have
usually had different life experiences and attitudes, the ebb and flow of
their discussions may touch on aspects and then back off, and they may come
back to it - months later, or even longer. I think it usually goes in spurts
of wanting to know certain things - or even *not* wanting to know. In this
case the paternity issue was barely touched on, then, but has probably been
talked about since.

They have stayed in each other's homes, and talk at length on the phone, and
are very open and relaxed with each other. I know the mother very well. She
would find it very difficult to lie-by-omission. She is very much a wysiwyg
person, but not in a crass way. Whatever she would tell, it would be the
truth, and imparted in a respectful way.

Because of the outrage committed on her as a young woman, she would be
careful not to suggest that the daughter was in any way a part of the
violent act, to be blamed for being born, I suppose. For the sake of the new
reunion it seemed inappropriate to tell her then, but I doubt that applies
now.

<snip>
How was the mother eventually located ? (sorry I've forgotten)

I knew her first name, and her husband's profession. I had a rough idea what
town they lived in. I checked out the 'golden pages' and narrowed things
down. I made a few phone calls, ostensibly about something else, and finally
got his name. (I never mentioned her) I narrowed things down even further
until I was 100% certain I had the right person, and then I wrote to her.
Nobody else would have known what the letter was about, except herself. She
twigged it and phoned me within an hour of receiving it.

<snip>
>
This isn't directed at you Helen :) but why is it that people can't
see the connection between this and keeping secrets from the adoptee. Just different sides of the same coin. I don't think that secrets *should* be kept from anyone I seem to recall that you *did* think it was perfectly acceptable to keep the secret of the rape.

Yes, I thought she handled it very well. As it was the early stages of
reunion, neither one really knew the other. There were heightened emotions,
plenty of tears, etc. They had to learn each other's strengths and move from
there.
, but it is up to the two adult individuals to arrive at telling things during the course of their reunion and the building of their relationship. That really goes without saying :)

That's what I was getting at. The two people themselves really choreograph
the steps taken in their conversations.
It is NOT up to a third party to dictate what should be told, and at what speed things should be discussed. Of course not but one should be aware that if they wait too long someone else may beat them to the punch and that might cause even *more* problems. IIRC that is what happened with Gary and his birthson.

It was never going to happen in this instance. Different countries and less
than a handful knew. Few of them even, knew about the reunion.
(y mother is 83 and I am still learning things from her about her young life that I never knew.) Really that is apple and oranges-unless of course one of those things is that your father was different from the man you thought fathered you ;)

No, but I never thought to ask. My husband was convinced (in his teens) that
he had been adopted. :-)

<snip>
What consoles me is this woman would have refuted Jackie's take on
things. Really? I thought *all* bmothers "in secrecy" were *exactly* the same in every way shape and form and only a select few bmothers "see" that ;)

Sorry. :-(

Of course all adoptive parents are just out to get as many children as they
can - whatever their ages. Oh yes, they also have no imagination, no empathy
or compassion for either adopted people or their natural parents who wish to
find each other.

HOW could I have forgotten?

Helen
Kathy 1

In article <26drqvch2fc19thaeastggie1jd9m8a0pu@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On 08 Nov 2003 19:51:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:Helen wrote.>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.>>>He>>>> >> was>>>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.snipped the post.I am positive this one situation is not the only one where an adoptee has goneto a parents funeral incognito. Hardly damning to post about a case here.Do you not see condemnation in Helen's words?

Nope
I do.

Well, duh. You see something negative in virtually every post.

Why couldn't Helen have said... The woman died a few months ago.. andleft it at that..Why the drama?

First of all, Helen is not required to do what you want - No one is.

Second of all, YOU are the only person here obsessed with what you see is
"drama".

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:Gogrb.5128$bD.18542@news.indigo.ie... "kat" <katlat24@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bojqhk$1fc3dq$1@ID-203097.news.uni-berlin.de... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:L17rb.5034$bD.18186@news.indigo.ie... The birth mom didn't have the opportunity to make her own choices.
When the sister received the letters from the son, addressed to the bmom, she chose not to give the birth mother the opportunity to decide for herself
what she wanted to do. Imagine controlling what a 60+ woman should receive in the post! Would YOU like it? Well to tie this into another thread :) it's not much different , imo, than the bmother withholding information about either the bfather or the circumstances of the relinquishment (ie. rape) because she has taken it upon herself to "protect" another adult. Only this time the adult in
question is a sister and not a son/daughter. In the other case, it was early days in reuinion for disclosure by one principal to the other of something of a disturbing nature. (That one's birth father was a rapist and near-murderer - not something you toss out with an oh-by-the-way)

Of course you don't!
In this case, it was an intoductory letter from a fifty year old birth son to his 69 year old birth mother, sent on trust to her vigorous, single sister, to be passed on in a discreet manner, accompanied by some caring support from said sister.

Didn't you say there was more than one letter that wasn't passed on? But
whether it was one or fifty the actual circumstances aren't what I was
referring to, rather one party withholding information from another in an
attempt to"protect" the other. Regardless of the motivation behind such a
move it can seem very controlling on the receiving end. You seem to grasp
that in this situation but seem unable to even entertain the notion that the
same *might* (please notice the emphasis :) be true in the other situation.
When you were searching for your son, how would you have liked it if letters you had writen to him 'care of' someone - his adoptive parents, say - had been retained by them? I reckon you would have been bursting with that famous, much-loved anger of yours. > > > > > >> > >I thought I read that she did too. > >Once, I think, but I can't remember for sure. > > She met him and gave him his information.. That is the impression I > got from Helen's words. He already *knew* "his information". He knew who both parents were. He knew their homeplaces. He knew that his birth father was dead. He knew that he had siblings on that side. He knew his birth mother's name, her dead husband's profession but not his name (therefore not her married
name), but he only had a rough idea where she lived. ' How did he come to know who the sister was? Because she used to call occasionally to the home where he grew up. It wasn't too far from the birth family's homeplace. Everyone knew, but everyone let on that they didn't.

How was the mother eventually located ? (sorry I've forgotten)

I got the information about his birth mother. His first meeting was
not to "get his information", because he already had all of that. > > She did not want to tell her children.. Prior to meeting him, yes. So what? > > >> Helen had to tell us about this man going to the funeral
incognito. > >> Why did she have to say this? > >> Why did she have to make a judgment call on the woman who has
just > >> died.. Why can't the woman be allowed to rest in peace. > >> > >> >> > >I fail to see how it's a judgment call. > >The guy apparently DID go to the funeral incognito, and discussing his > >mother on alt.a isn't in any way going to disturb her rest. > >She's history (Eeek! Well, the stuff of *social* history, anyway) > > > >It's an interesting story, and relevent to topics under discussion, so > >why shouldn't Helen tell us about it? > > Because there is a built in prejudice against the birth mom in the > story.. IMO The only prejudices being displayed are your own. > > Another birth mom may read this and say.. Wooo I better not do that! > IMO that was Helen's agenda.. What must she not do? *Die*? Is this a *nanny* newsgroup? Have we to edit every post in case its content causes someone, somewhere to to say
"Wooo I better not do that"? Why is it that you are constantly pathologising women who have relinquished, as though they have no intellect, no powers of discernment? You are trying to 'fix things' for them by keeping them in the dark, in the same way that people tried to 'fix things' for them in the past by removing their babies from them. In their young adulthood someone else assumed the right to make choices that impacted on their lives. Now in their late adulthood you are contriving to do the same thing. This isn't directed at you Helen :) but why is it that people can't see the connection between this and keeping secrets from the adoptee. Just different sides of the same coin. I don't think that secrets *should* be kept from anyone


I seem to recall that you *did* think it was perfectly acceptable to keep
the secret of the rape.

, but it is up to the two adult individuals to arrive at telling things during the course of
their reunion and the building of their relationship.


That really goes without saying :)


It is NOT up to a third party to dictate what should be told, and at what speed things should be discussed.

Of course not but one should be aware that if they wait too long someone
else may beat them to the punch and that might cause even *more* problems.
IIRC that is what happened with Gary and his birthson.

(y mother is 83 and I am still learning things from her about her young
life that I never knew.)

Really that is apple and oranges-unless of course one of those things is
that your father was different from the man you thought fathered you ;)
Think of this: this guy asked me to locate his birth mother. I did so. He asked me to make contact with her on his behalf. I did so, by letter. She phoned me. He phoned me and emailed me. They made arrangements
(through me) to meet somewhere midway between where they all lived. They didn't
want to meet anyone they knew. (They wanted to remain incognito. <eg>) Her sister accompanied her, and he went alone. I had nothing to do with it. I did not drag anyone, kicking and screaming, to have a reunion. The son wanted it, the mother *chose to go*. She
made *choices*, Jackie. Does that stick in your gullet? It doesn't jive with what Jackies *thinks* her choice was i.e secrecy in any and all matters. What consoles me is this woman would have refuted Jackie's take on things.

Really? I thought *all* bmothers "in secrecy" were *exactly* the same in
every way shape and form and only a select few bmothers "see" that ;)


Kathy 1

In article <_4drb.27339$cJ5.4337@www.newsranger.com>, Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com> writes:
Of course, there's always the fantasy of being the mystery woman in blackwiththe big hat and a veil who puts a single red rose on the coffin and walksaway;)RobynResident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster#1557

Maybe I should plan that for my bfathers funeral. Except, isn't white the
color for pure love, like a child to a parent. So it should be a white
rose.....hmmmmmm

KL

In article <26drqvch2fc19thaeastggie1jd9m8a0pu@4ax.com>, Jackie
<jdajda@newsguy.com> writes:
On 08 Nov 2003 19:51:04 GMT, klbjornme@aol.comjunkhell (KL) wrote:Helen wrote.>>>> >> > Btw. The woman died a few months' ago, without seeing her sonagain.>>>He>>>> >> was>>>> >> > at her funeral, incognito.snipped the post.I am positive this one situation is not the only one where an adoptee hasgoneto a parents funeral incognito. Hardly damning to post about a case here.Do you not see condemnation in Helen's words?I do.Why couldn't Helen have said... The woman died a few months ago.. andleft it at that..Why the drama?Jackie

You mean "the old leave things unsaid.. That path leads to a great big hole
IYO." or is that only when it applies to you???

KL

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:37:44 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>
wrote:
Why couldn't Helen have said... The woman died a few months ago.. and left it at that.. Why the drama?Godalmighty - it is YOU who sees the drama. You want her in her box (closet)buried in the ground as if her life meant nothing to anyone, as if herearlier secrecy defined who she was.

NO Helen that is not what I want..
It didn't. She had a good and fulfilledlife. She did *good* things for people. She had other children, grown toadulthood. She had grandchildren. She intended seeing her eldest son again.She herself regretted that her sister had chosen not to give her theoriginal letters. How do I know this/ Because she told me so. She diedbefore she could do all the things she intended doing. It often happens.

You weave a web Helen.. But your message is the same..


Jackie

On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon)
wrote:
It doesn't jive at all.Ah, the contradictions, the never-ending contradictions of Jackie ;-)I sometimes think she gets a kick out of disagreeing just for it's ownsake. An excercise in defiance that confirms her reality. Like achild.

Put down number one.
It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, atleast in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at whichthey relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not?

Put down number two..

I don't exclude myself),especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young,but emotionally immature as well.

Do you intend to write a book? Be an author?
If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) sayin the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certainaspects of their development, IMO

You speak about this in a very detached manner Rh..

Makes me wonder..
Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meetan adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child.

Folks we have a label for this woman.. Can we say Hallelujah!!!!!

Can we say that from now on we think of this woman as an adult-child?

One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough.And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their childabuses similar to the ones they endured.


Well lets all go and knock on their doors and tell them the truth..

Tell them that they had better hurry up.. Folks are waiting..

Jackie

In article <nuetqvorge89k8dgk0f9mop0vk73vctgkp@4ax.com>, Jackie says...On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:37:44 -0000, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net>wrote: Why couldn't Helen have said... The woman died a few months ago.. and left it at that.. Why the drama?Godalmighty - it is YOU who sees the drama. You want her in her box (closet)buried in the ground as if her life meant nothing to anyone, as if herearlier secrecy defined who she was.NO Helen that is not what I want..It didn't. She had a good and fulfilledlife. She did *good* things for people. She had other children, grown toadulthood. She had grandchildren. She intended seeing her eldest son again.She herself regretted that her sister had chosen not to give her theoriginal letters. How do I know this/ Because she told me so. She diedbefore she could do all the things she intended doing. It often happens.You weave a web Helen.. But your message is the same..

And so far you're the only here who sees it as a negative one.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<v5ftqvsm134ud4lr5b115j975umbvo77od@4ax.com>... On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:It doesn't jive at all.Ah, the contradictions, the never-ending contradictions of Jackie ;-)I sometimes think she gets a kick out of disagreeing just for it's ownsake. An excercise in defiance that confirms her reality. Like achild. Put down number one.



Take it as you wish.
Whatever.


It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, atleast in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at whichthey relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? Put down number two.. I don't exclude myself),especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young,but emotionally immature as well.



Jackie, you may have noticed (I'm sure you did, given the way you
organised your response to draw attention away from the intended
meaning) that I said that I didn't exclude myself.
I'm suprised you didn't snip that bit entirely, instead of just
'dropping' it, presumably in the hope that it would be overlooked.


Do you intend to write a book? Be an author?



I am actually struggling to make some kind of (flawed and pedantic for
sure, but nonetheless serious) attempt to understand a state of mind
that applies to more people than just ourselves.
You just gave me the lead in.



If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) sayin the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certainaspects of their development, IMO You speak about this in a very detached manner Rh..




In this instance, yes. Of course.
Whether I'm being dispassionate or not depends on what I am trying to
say.


Makes me wonder..



Ah, the breathy unfinished sentence, drifting . . .
Words fail . . . . the merest insinuating whisper on the breeze . . .


Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meetan adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child. Folks we have a label for this woman.. Can we say Hallelujah!!!!! Can we say that from now on we think of this woman as an adult-child?


If you want.
On the other hand, you could simply disagree with my feeble hypothesis
and demolish it. Can't see it would be too difficult.
The invitation's there, and you're capable, IMO.


One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough.And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their childabuses similar to the ones they endured. Well lets all go and knock on their doors and tell them the truth.. Tell them that they had better hurry up.. Folks are waiting..




Jeez.



Rh.


Jackie

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<v5ftqvsm134ud4lr5b115j975umbvo77od@4ax.com>... On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:
<SNIP>

It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, atleast in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at whichthey relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not?


Rh,
The above happens to be a very true observation. And contrary to what
Jackie feels is a "putdown," it isn't, it's just fact. Though I would
not use the word "retarded" because it isn't necessarily a derogatory
condition.

Whether adoptee or birthmother, anything unresolved is stunting and
often there is no resolution until reunion and we can grow into and
integrate our identities.

If an adoptee is disallowed grief in their childhood, they bring that
child to the reunion. If a birthmother has been in that "closet" or
had no vent for her pain, she brings that teen girl to the reunion.
Essentially there are four people present. That which has no voice and
has stayed "stuck" in us, has been unable to grow with our other
aspects.

And it is a double whammy for those of us who are both adoptee and
birthmother. It takes a lot of personal work to integrate both
perspectives into one and that can be evidenced by contradiction and
inability to have one stable view.

I think you have a tremendous capacity for insight and I enjoy reading
everything you have to say. It is evident that you have taken time to
read and to educate yourself on the many issues involved in adoption.

SoulWhisper


<SNIP>

in article v5ftqvsm134ud4lr5b115j975umbvo77od@4ax.com, Jackie at
jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 9/11/03 10:23 pm:
On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: It doesn't jive at all. Ah, the contradictions, the never-ending contradictions of Jackie ;-) I sometimes think she gets a kick out of disagreeing just for it's own sake. An excercise in defiance that confirms her reality. Like a child. Put down number one. It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, at least in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at which they relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? Put down number two.. I don't exclude myself), especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young, but emotionally immature as well. Do you intend to write a book? Be an author? If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) say in the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certain aspects of their development, IMO You speak about this in a very detached manner Rh.. Makes me wonder.. Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meet an adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child. Folks we have a label for this woman.. Can we say Hallelujah!!!!! Can we say that from now on we think of this woman as an adult-child? One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough. And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their child abuses similar to the ones they endured. Well lets all go and knock on their doors and tell them the truth.. Tell them that they had better hurry up.. Folks are waiting.. Jackie


I was getting a little bored with my reading list for this morning, so I've
just broken of from reading the, Arranging Adoptions * Guidance for the
Adoption Agency Regulations and the draft, Suitability of Adopters
Regulations (England), to read a fascinating article on self trepanation as
a cure for the effects of excessive marijuana use. Now that I've also read
the post above, I'm left wondering whether or not Jackie might have access
to a power drill.

Robin

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0311092149.92a495d@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<v5ftqvsm134ud4lr5b115j975umbvo77od@4ax.com>... On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:It doesn't jive at all.Ah, the contradictions, the never-ending contradictions of Jackie ;-)I sometimes think she gets a kick out of disagreeing just for it's ownsake. An excercise in defiance that confirms her reality. Like achild. Put down number one. Take it as you wish. Whatever.It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, atleast in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at whichthey relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? Put down number two.. I don't exclude myself),especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young,but emotionally immature as well. Jackie, you may have noticed (I'm sure you did, given the way you organised your response to draw attention away from the intended meaning) that I said that I didn't exclude myself. I'm suprised you didn't snip that bit entirely, instead of just 'dropping' it, presumably in the hope that it would be overlooked. Do you intend to write a book? Be an author? I am actually struggling to make some kind of (flawed and pedantic for sure, but nonetheless serious) attempt to understand a state of mind that applies to more people than just ourselves. You just gave me the lead in.If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) sayin the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certainaspects of their development, IMO You speak about this in a very detached manner Rh.. In this instance, yes. Of course. Whether I'm being dispassionate or not depends on what I am trying to say. Makes me wonder.. Ah, the breathy unfinished sentence, drifting . . . Words fail . . . . the merest insinuating whisper on the breeze . . .Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meetan adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child. Folks we have a label for this woman.. Can we say Hallelujah!!!!! Can we say that from now on we think of this woman as an adult-child? If you want. On the other hand, you could simply disagree with my feeble hypothesis and demolish it. Can't see it would be too difficult. The invitation's there, and you're capable, IMO.One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough.And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their childabuses similar to the ones they endured. Well lets all go and knock on their doors and tell them the truth.. Tell them that they had better hurry up.. Folks are waiting.. Jeez. Rh. Jackie


Rh said to Jackie:
"given the way you organised your response to draw attention away from the intended meaning) that I said that I didn't exclude myself. I'm suprised you didn't snip that bit entirely, instead of just 'dropping' it, presumably in the hope that it would be overlooked"


Rh,

I have noticed the above as well. It seems that she picks a point that
she can twist to suit her "agenda" and snips the rest. Not that the
style itself is faulty but it's only when she disagrees and *appears*
to wish to manipulate others to see only her view and diminish the
person she reacts to.

I thought AA and NA and "The Big Book" taught people to "Live and let
live"? That trying to control others and manipulation was a no, no?
Since I am not a member and have never worked a 12 step program, and I
rather enjoy my resentments taking me out for a drink, I am probably
sadly mistaken.

SoulWhisper

Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<v5ftqvsm134ud4lr5b115j975umbvo77od@4ax.com>... On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote:It doesn't jive at all.Ah, the contradictions, the never-ending contradictions of Jackie ;-)I sometimes think she gets a kick out of disagreeing just for it's ownsake. An excercise in defiance that confirms her reality. Like achild. Put down number one.It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, atleast in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at whichthey relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? Put down number two.. I don't exclude myself),especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young,but emotionally immature as well. Do you intend to write a book? Be an author?If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) sayin the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certainaspects of their development, IMO You speak about this in a very detached manner Rh.. Makes me wonder..Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meetan adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child. Folks we have a label for this woman.. Can we say Hallelujah!!!!! Can we say that from now on we think of this woman as an adult-child?One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough.And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their childabuses similar to the ones they endured. Well lets all go and knock on their doors and tell them the truth.. Tell them that they had better hurry up.. Folks are waiting.. Jackie

Agreed on all points. What is being discribed is dissociative disorder
or splitting, caused by acute shock, loss, or trauma. It takes takes
time to process once that which caused the trauma is finally faced.
Hardly retardation.

http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/NMH02-0140/default.asp
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3484.htm
http://www.sidran.org/didbr.html

Di

soulwhisper7@aol.com (soulwhisper) wrote in message news:<c403a139.0311100354.28b515f4@posting.google.com>... Jackie <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<v5ftqvsm134ud4lr5b115j975umbvo77od@4ax.com>... On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: <SNIP>It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, atleast in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at whichthey relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? Rh, The above happens to be a very true observation. And contrary to what Jackie feels is a "putdown," it isn't, it's just fact. Though I would not use the word "retarded" because it isn't necessarily a derogatory condition.



I wasn't meaning to be derogatory.
It was meant semi-seriously - I made a point of saying I didn't
exclude myself! But Jackie (how shall we say?) rearranged my words.


Whether adoptee or birthmother, anything unresolved is stunting and often there is no resolution until reunion and we can grow into and integrate our identities. If an adoptee is disallowed grief in their childhood, they bring that child to the reunion. If a birthmother has been in that "closet" or had no vent for her pain, she brings that teen girl to the reunion. Essentially there are four people present. That which has no voice and has stayed "stuck" in us, has been unable to grow with our other aspects.

Four people. An excellent recipe for emotional confusion.
I appreciate your making that point. It gives me useful insight into a
conversation I'm having elsewhere, around the whole issue of
'stuckness' and powerlessness.
Two people, each wanting to protect and comfort the other, yet at the
same time looking to the other to solve their own pain (and sometimes
one or both wanting to run away from it altogether) has to make for a
highly charged situation. I agree with Jackie that either party moving
too fast could destroy everything, but on the other hand no movement
at all is just passing the buck, IMO.


And it is a double whammy for those of us who are both adoptee and birthmother. It takes a lot of personal work to integrate both perspectives into one and that can be evidenced by contradiction and inability to have one stable view.



I can imagine (inadequately, but nonetheless. . . )




Rh.


SoulWhisper

sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote in message news:<dafc70.0311082129.1474288c@posting.google.com>...


It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, at least in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at which they relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? I don't exclude myself), especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young, but emotionally immature as well. If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) say in the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certain aspects of their development, IMO Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meet an adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child. One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough. And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their child abuses similar to the ones they endured.

This is a very interesting point, Rhiannon. I have often noted that
many *adoptees* seem to be stuck in adolescence (at least when it
comes to issues surrounding adoption), and now that you mention it, I
have seen similar behavior in some birthmothers as well.

I would note that I am not trying to make a value judgement of these
bmoms and adoptees: as I said, these behaviors and attitudes seem to
be connected to *adoption* related issues, and have nothing to do with
their behavior in other areas.

patrice68@bigpond.com.au (Dian) wrote in message news:<c599139c.0311100659.645d20ce@posting.google.com>... Agreed on all points.\> >


That's hardly a suprise, coming from you, Di.
Both you and Jackie are past masters of the put down (your 'nail
polish' post comes to mind, where you actually altered text to tailor
meaning).


What is being discribed is dissociative disorder or splitting, caused by acute shock, loss, or trauma. It takes takes time to process once that which caused the trauma is finally faced.


Absolutely.
If you read my original post again you might note that I don't exclude
myself from this evaluation.
I share Lainie's perspective on this. It's not a value judgment, nor
was intended to be one.


Hardly retardation.



Word play, but seriously. As I've explained elsewhere.
Retard - to slow down, esp. by preventing or hindering advance,
completion or accomplishment; to impede.
Retardation - an act or instance of retarding.
It's an approriate word and I have used it in proper context.

http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/NMH02-0140/default.asp http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3484.htm http://www.sidran.org/didbr.html



Thanks. I'll check them out.
You do provide interesting links (and that not being facetious)



Rh.

Di

Robin <ive@lreadygotone.thanks> wrote in message news:<BBD532B2.27AFB%ive@lreadygotone.thanks>... in article v5ftqvsm134ud4lr5b115j975umbvo77od@4ax.com, Jackie at jdajda@newsguy.com wrote on 9/11/03 10:23 pm: On 8 Nov 2003 21:29:30 -0800, sarallewellyn@gosympatico.ca (Rhiannon) wrote: It doesn't jive at all. Ah, the contradictions, the never-ending contradictions of Jackie ;-) I sometimes think she gets a kick out of disagreeing just for it's own sake. An excercise in defiance that confirms her reality. Like a child. Put down number one. It seems to me that many, if not most, bmothers come to reunion, at least in some significant part, emotionally stuck at the age at which they relinquished (O.K. Retarded. Why not? Put down number two.. I don't exclude myself), especially if they were immature at the time. I don't mean just young, but emotionally immature as well. Do you intend to write a book? Be an author? If they hadn't yet individuated, and felt they had little (or no) say in the matter, it would be likely to have a dramatic effect on certain aspects of their development, IMO You speak about this in a very detached manner Rh.. Makes me wonder.. Things could be very tricky for the adopted person who hopes to meet an adult, but finds him/herself confronted with an adult-child. Folks we have a label for this woman.. Can we say Hallelujah!!!!! Can we say that from now on we think of this woman as an adult-child? One who can't or won't make progress quickly enough. And who can't or won't see that they're inflicting onto their child abuses similar to the ones they endured. Well lets all go and knock on their doors and tell them the truth.. Tell them that they had better hurry up.. Folks are waiting.. Jackie I was getting a little bored with my reading list for this morning, so I've just broken of from reading the, Arranging Adoptions * Guidance for the Adoption Agency Regulations and the draft, Suitability of Adopters Regulations (England), to read a fascinating article on self trepanation as a cure for the effects of excessive marijuana use. Now that I've also read the post above, I'm left wondering whether or not Jackie might have access to a power drill. Robin


Oh my God! LMAO!

SW