On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:17:04 -0700 (MST), badaii@webtv.net (Windforest)
wrote:
Top Post : Sorry Gr not really trying to annoy you . Helen is notparanoid. She is spot on! Jackie has done this in the past. It is one ofthe reasons I am so angry with her. She has taken what people havewritten here to people in their RL This is a safe place for me andothers to share about our adoption experience. For another poster totake what I say to a relative in RL without my knowledge is despicable.I know you do not like to google and I understand. But maybe just thisonce you should. I understood exactly what Helen meant and so dideveryone else. Except you. Then again you will just excuse it away.Windforest--------------------------------------------------------------

No, I actually don't believe it. Jackie would never meet with anyone
with whom she had no relationship. If she met with someone's nmom,
it's because she developed a relationship with that nmom.

GR

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 11/2/03 2:46 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <jm79qvc5d4q87dc06duj5cdkcbg5bm0b3s@4ax.com>On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:17:04 -0700 (MST), badaii@webtv.net (Windforest)wrote:Top Post : Sorry Gr not really trying to annoy you . Helen is notparanoid. She is spot on! Jackie has done this in the past. It is one ofthe reasons I am so angry with her. She has taken what people havewritten here to people in their RL This is a safe place for me andothers to share about our adoption experience. For another poster totake what I say to a relative in RL without my knowledge is despicable.I know you do not like to google and I understand. But maybe just thisonce you should. I understood exactly what Helen meant and so dideveryone else. Except you. Then again you will just excuse it away.Windforest--------------------------------------------------------------No, I actually don't believe it. Jackie would never meet with anyonewith whom she had no relationship. If she met with someone's nmom,it's because she developed a relationship with that nmom.GR

Sure. Whatever you say.

"GR" <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jm79qvc5d4q87dc06duj5cdkcbg5bm0b3s@4ax.com... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:17:04 -0700 (MST), badaii@webtv.net (Windforest) wrote:Top Post : Sorry Gr not really trying to annoy you . Helen is notparanoid. She is spot on! Jackie has done this in the past. It is one ofthe reasons I am so angry with her. She has taken what people havewritten here to people in their RL This is a safe place for me andothers to share about our adoption experience. For another poster totake what I say to a relative in RL without my knowledge is despicable.I know you do not like to google and I understand. But maybe just thisonce you should. I understood exactly what Helen meant and so dideveryone else. Except you. Then again you will just excuse it away.Windforest-------------------------------------------------------------- No, I actually don't believe it. Jackie would never meet with anyone with whom she had no relationship. If she met with someone's nmom, it's because she developed a relationship with that nmom. GR

So what justification is there for her repeating for the ng private
conversations she had with said poster's nmom?

Kathy 1

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031102045226.05551.00000111@mb-m26.aol.com...Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 11/2/03 2:46 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <jm79qvc5d4q87dc06duj5cdkcbg5bm0b3s@4ax.com>On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:17:04 -0700 (MST), badaii@webtv.net (Windforest)wrote:Top Post : Sorry Gr not really trying to annoy you . Helen is notparanoid. She is spot on! Jackie has done this in the past. It is one ofthe reasons I am so angry with her. She has taken what people havewritten here to people in their RL This is a safe place for me andothers to share about our adoption experience. For another poster totake what I say to a relative in RL without my knowledge is despicable.I know you do not like to google and I understand. But maybe just thisonce you should. I understood exactly what Helen meant and so dideveryone else. Except you. Then again you will just excuse it away.Windforest--------------------------------------------------------------No, I actually don't believe it. Jackie would never meet with anyonewith whom she had no relationship. If she met with someone's nmom,it's because she developed a relationship with that nmom.GR Sure. Whatever you say.

Yeah. Definitely.

Helen

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 09:46:37 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:17:04 -0700 (MST), badaii@webtv.net (Windforest)wrote:Top Post : Sorry Gr not really trying to annoy you . Helen is notparanoid. She is spot on! Jackie has done this in the past. It is one ofthe reasons I am so angry with her. She has taken what people havewritten here to people in their RL This is a safe place for me andothers to share about our adoption experience. For another poster totake what I say to a relative in RL without my knowledge is despicable.I know you do not like to google and I understand. But maybe just thisonce you should. I understood exactly what Helen meant and so dideveryone else. Except you. Then again you will just excuse it away.Windforest--------------------------------------------------------------No, I actually don't believe it. Jackie would never meet with anyonewith whom she had no relationship. If she met with someone's nmom,it's because she developed a relationship with that nmom.

I never met a nmom that is connected to this place..
Other than at a BN convention in SF.

I guess this is gossip in its finest hour..

Jackie..

>Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: GR gragain@earthlink.netDate: 11/2/2003No, I actually don't believe it. Jackie would never meet with anyonewith whom she had no relationship. If she met with someone's nmom,it's because she developed a relationship with that nmom.GR

As you probably already know, because of the word "meet" that was posted to
clarify things, it was myself who exchanged e-mail addresses between Jackie and
my birth/new mom because I'm just not a good closet/secretive type person and
was finding it more and more difficult to cope with that type of situation. I
was hoping that my birthmom could find some sort of peace in the understanding
that I knew Jackie could give her.

My opinion is that more problems were created when in worry, panic, and lack of
sleep, I needed medical info and insight and was having problems getting it.
When I finally did get a response from my birthfamily I felt they thought that
I was exclusively blaming their family for the problem when I was really
grasping at straws to everyone to try and assist doctors in figuring out if
this medical emergency was something genetic.

My mistake in judgement was in thinking that my birthfamilies response would be
kind, warm, helpful, caring, understanding, and fuzzy like the rest of our
families had been. Instead, besides being ticked that I suspected there might
be something genetic in their family, subjects from here on AA were mentioned
by my birthsister (sibling contact, blaming birthmothers). So now in addition
to the medical crisis my family was having, I found myself having to explain
my position on these issues. My birthsister has not had contacted me since.

When there is no history and secrecy limits contact you really don't get the
opportunity to know one another. Also, both sides have to be willing to make
the effort. The bottom line to me is that my birthmom wanted a one way contact
social relationship of sorts, and I couldn't handle that. Understandly, that
is their mother and I feel that my siblings are doing what they need to do to
support her.

The reason I post this is to help others in the same boat as I was in, maybe
learn or gain insight from what I have been through. Definitely not to expose
my birthfamily.

Kathy J

On 03 Nov 2003 01:01:56 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote:
So now in additionto the medical crisis my family was having, I found myself having to explainmy position on these issues. My birthsister has not had contacted me since.


Now I understand what happened..

Your birth mom asked me outright how I knew you.. I hoped it (showing
her aa) would open dialog.. And I could not would not tell her a
story..



Jackie

"Jackie" <jdajda@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:984dqvoktagv40fqtntm6gvo26ehea4299@4ax.com... On 03 Nov 2003 01:01:56 GMT, tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote: So now in additionto the medical crisis my family was having, I found myself having to
explainmy position on these issues. My birthsister has not had contacted me
since. Now I understand what happened.. Your birth mom asked me outright how I knew you.. I hoped it (showing her aa) would open dialog..


Well you know what they say about the road to hell and all. . . .

And I could not would not tell her a story..

You couldn't have been truthful but vague? Something along the lines of
"We correspond on an adoption group on the Internet" Goodness knows there
are lots of them.

Kathy 1

Well I told her before I gave her your e-mail address but she maybe she just
needed to hear it from you herself and that's understandable. Like I said in
another post, I had mentioned Usenet to her before.

I think she was so nervous that a lot of stuff went over her head and the same
for me. In reading over old notes from my search once in awhile, I find myself
saying, I don't remember that. That's why one meeting is not always enough, in
my opinion. Kathy J
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Subject: Re: Just for the recordFrom: Jackie jdajda@newsguy.comDate: 11/3/2003Your birth mom asked me outright how I knew you.. I hoped it (showingher aa) would open dialog.. And I could not would not tell her astory..