HEY THANKS BN from the protest
joyma...@yahoo.com
Lafayette park, thanks for trying to sabotage the protest pre and post
protest.
Thank you for being silly enough to think we can control the Press, or
all protesters and that we should censor people from saying what they
want to say to their own legislators.
I know people keep telling me I shouldn't treat you like you are
relevant anymore, but I am kind like that.
Thanks for all your help, we went and met the state legislators and
they were very kind and receptive to us.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF YOU ANYWHERE
but I come back on the net and see you wanting to take credit and
criticize. We want to know what you have done.
You didn't do Oregon, we already heard that story, Maine is still
pissed at you for what you sabatouers did there.
Besides making enemies what do you do?
We want to know?
Is that 8K you spent last year just Marley's personal travel fund?
What on earth did you do with it.
And guess what?
We did it anyway, we were successful despite your best attempts to
draw us down.
the real Addie Pray
Yep, they did a hell of a job. The best Monday morning quarterbacking
I've ever seen.
joyma...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh P.S.
You will be so happy to know Foucault never once came up, not even
Chomsky, I was able to talk to the legislators without couching
everything in a lifted-pinky paradigm of intellectual masturbation and
outright silliness.
Such a relief, because Marley, you did warn me that that would be
required, but I guess you were mistaken about that too.
Robibnikoff
"the real Addie Pray" <melani...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16a67ff8-fa7a-4c79...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Um, WTF?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
joyma...@yahoo.com
> "the real Addie Pray" <melanie.re...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:16a67ff8-fa7a-4c79...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is pretty clear,
BN pulled out all stops to try to stop the protest, I guess that is
what they use your money for, fighting adoptee rights demonstrations.
Since they didn't stop the protest, they are doing their best to paint
it in a bad light, while they did WHAT? oh yeah that is right
NOTHING but HARM AGAIN
kippah...@hotmail.com
joyma...@yahoo.com
> I'm very pleased the protest went well :-)
yes, it went fabulously well, way better than expected, we met tons of
legislators, not only at the convention, got tons of coverage.
Our cab driver on the way back to the airport knew who we were!
Despite, despite Bastard Nation's best attempts to make it never
happen because when their last minute pull-out didn't take us down,
good try, we really missed all your help, *cough cough* we were able
to control the graphics, which were professionally done, because we
are a bunch of professionals, despite bastard nation treating us like
schoolgirls who aren't old enough to menstruate.
And then Sabina Whiny Love Child is foaming at the mouth to bash the
protest ASAP and Marley *Oooh ooopsies I didn't notice* links her
blog.
Oh and WHY did they bash the protest?
Because the reporter got a quote from the NCFA! That is what
reporters do, it is different than advertising we don't control the
content. What they don't know is that the state legsilators are being
interviewed on tape today about open records.
Oh and some guy made a sign they didn't like, well that wasn't part of
the protest, we have no control over that guy and it is his right to
express himself.
BN spent 8k last year and donated 100.00 to the protest, that is it,
they couldn't get the money together, or they had more important
things besides talking to state legislators to do with the funds--
What is more important? Good question.
There has never been a good answer.
the real Addie Pray
What's more important?
Why appearances, of course.
You know the old declare yourself the end all and be all, then avoid
having to prove it by doing absolutely nothing. It's a favorite of
bloated corporations and activist groups past their prime.
joyma...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You know what is weird too, they forgot to tell their BN Best list
members about their witdrawal from the protest, well that is what a
member told me anyway, the first place they posted their withdrawal,
drumroll please...
The AAAFC to the "small but vocal minority", yes the small vocal
minority that actually does something.
I really would like to see BN's general ledger, at least a P & L, I
can't figure what they would be spending the money on, except to send
Marley to conferences to Preach to the Choir, God knows it wasn't
updating their website, improving their graphic that looks like it was
done by a very talented grade 6 student, we have graphics software now
you know.
The Brain Trust of the BN offered us what?
Their idea of branding, the DAR, use another groups well known
acronym, typical of their PR savvy, I mean that is genius in its
backwardness.
Showing up in their black and yellow sperm and bastard shirts, looking
like the fringe element because after all state legislators really
want to be seen with people who present themselves way out of the
mainstream culture, except they couldn't get it together to actually
DO that, such a pity.
$100.00 woooo hooooooo
The advice that I should be up on my French Communist Philosophers
before I go, because um why, I think that was just supposed to scare
me.
The advice to get a worthless 1500.00 permit to meet in a public
park, which somehow we did, and paid for the booth inside.1500.00 we
could have used on marketing.
A boatload of insults, false insinuations that we took agency money,
we didn't take agency money.
Their great slogan, "It's a civil rights issue" which is too abstract
for these kind of politics
With friends like these...
And foaming at the mouth to bash us when we got back because the press
is the press and some guy made a sign they didn't like, which is their
right.
The heart and soul of this protest was a young woman in her 20's with
two very small children, and yet she pulled it off. She was amazing,
and you can make fun of her for calling it healing, but it was, and
Whiny Love Child and Marley, you are in no place to snub healing, but
sorely in need of it.
She WAS amazing, she is very pretty and friendly, and people wanted to
talk to her, she got our message out, not a word of congratulations
for her from BN, but a bash.
I want all you members to know, when you send your membership fees
into BN, in part they are going to fight against adoptee activism,
because if we don't present ourselves like foul-mouthed freaks they
don't support us and actively work against us.
I want you to know that you can pull up their 990 to, that you should
ask to see their financial statements to see what they are doing with
your funds and make sure you support it.
I was willing to let this go, as I think it is good to have alliances,
but when I saw the stunt you pulled to try to tear Kali down I can't
go along with this anymore.
People deserve to know the truth, you all set yourselves up like the
great Oz, but you pull back the curtain and there is nothing.
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh and thanks AGAIN
for the ADVICE to spend our money IN NO when we were in NO
I mean for God's sake, what is wrong with you people? Do you think
people will be travelling out of NO to spend money?
We spent plenty of money in NO and did not need your direction yet
again.
BN pulling out was the best thing that could have ever happened to our
protest and for that, I want to thank you, there were a lot of jokes
about how had you all been there we would have been subjected to your
patronizing ways, insufferable teach ins and told what angle to carry
our signs,
oh but right you weren't there on account of it was toooooooooo hard.
Kathy
> "the real Addie Pray" <melanie.re...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:16a67ff8-fa7a-4c79...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, does anyone have the decoder ring? What is the joyful one going on
about now? And why is her melt-down important to anyone here?
Kathy
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am going on about BN's epic fail.
Weren't you one of the one's who told me to listen to BN?
Not surprised this is over your head then.
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I should make a correction I have only read their 2006 990, not
2007. In which they spent over 60% of their gross on insurance?
Weird.
I doubt they have file 2007 yet maybe they are counting that 11.00 of
other income, perhaps it came from one of those penny fundraisers and
takes a long time to count.
and Sabina, we didn't ban you so we could talk behind your back and
not let BN members know what we think of their behavior.
I am not afraid of you by the farthest stretch of the imagination.
How can you call this behind your back?
This is more like in your face.
The only reason I posted this here is because I am not a member of
your BEST list, where your tear down the protest pogrom was centered.
What you all pulled was so unacceptable, and that you thought you
could use our forum to smear the reputations of our members.
And now you are finding comfort by a filk written by a lunatic that
calls me a social worker and baby stealer.
That sounds about right for BN.
Lilmtncbn
>
> The only reason I posted this here is because I am not a member of
> your BEST list, where your tear down the protest pogrom was centered.
>
> What you all pulled was so unacceptable, and that you thought you
> could use our forum to smear the reputations of our members.
>
> And now you are finding comfort by a filk written by a lunatic that
> calls me a social worker and baby stealer.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh I dunno. I'm a member and I read the BEST list. I still have no
idea WTF you're talking about.
joyma...@yahoo.com
I am talking about BN's best efforts to smear the protest and those
involved in it. After pulling out of their part of the funding 6
weeks before the protest.
I am talking about Marley's dear "theory girl" blasting the protest on
the basis of an article by a reporter, and Marley linking it.
I am talking about the suggestion that we focused on reunion and
emotional aspects.
I would have never posted any of this had Sabina not blasted us, AFTER
screwing us with the planning.
I know things happen, but the leadership of BN has acted so
maliciously toward us, the outrage is to be expected.
These people who just screwed us majorly, are so taken with their
position, they think they are even allowed to rename our protest.
Sheesh.
We are not even allowed to protest according to BN, they aren't going
to do it, and they want to make sure we can't either.
I have every reason to be pissed.
I am, and I am not alone.
joyma...@yahoo.com
p.s. I know who you are , and you know exactly what I am talking
about.
You know who I am too.
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh also, Marley's favorite "theory girl" posted this link
http://www.pagan.com/Filks/JoysOurAdmin/
An entire website meant to shame me for being a Social worker and baby
stealer, I guess the author doesn't understand that middle-aged
adoptees are not so in demand.
Cutting through the bullshit once again?
So those of you that have seen me post before, can be comforted by the
fact that the director of Bastard Nation learns a lot from a woman who
links a website claiming I am a social worker, a barren bitch, who
allows Social workers to patrol for adult adoptees, because who
doesn't want to adopt a middle-aged woman?
That is what you have put your faith in.
Meanwhile, I just dumped 1200.00 to speak to state legsilators. That
is over a quarter of BN's 06 gross receipts on my non-vacay to speak
to state legislators for records that I already have.
We followed all of BN's precepts to get shat on by them. When they
failed to show.
You don't know what the fuck I am talking about?
That is your fault.
I may be a bitch, I may be cruel, I may be hot-headed, but there is
not question about my command of the English language, I am well
published in articlles that have nothing to do with adoption.
There is no question about my politcal savvy, I have accomplished a
lot.
I am not unclear.
If you can't understand me, that is a lack of desire on your part.
And yes, I am smart enough to say that. No matter what you assail me
with I have had too much success in real life to be affected by it.
Enjoy the assine filk, have never had the time or inclination to make
one myself, I have things to do.
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh p.s, why we banned the originator of the filk that BN so admires,
was, she said all adoptees should be shot in the head,
Marley Greiner
unprofessional notice the owner of the webpage, a regular poster to AAACF,
received from AACF one day when she tried to log in:
"Sorry guest, you are banned from using this forum. You aer a vile
poisonous person and you seriously need to seek soe counseling for your
anger."
The other material on the page is irrelevant.
AAAFC claims to "support" adopttes." If the banned poster is as disturbed as
AAAFC claims, AAAFC certainly didn't help her with that message.
Marley
<joyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18399aef-b0d7-4da0...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Marley Greiner
<joyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f3ecc717-d375-4b6b...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Where has BN ever said that we admire the poster or her page?. BLC does not
speak for nor represent Bastard Nation. She is a member with her own
experieces and opinions. Please show us one piece of evidence where BLC
speaks for us. Do all the members of AAAFC speak for you? Do you speak for
them?
If the poster who was banned said what you say she said (and I won't
question that) do you actually think posting an automatic notice to her her
that she is a "vile poisonous person" is appropriate? Would you have said
that to her face? The internet makes lots of people brave.
Marley
Kathy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I still have no idea why you brought your problem to a public
newsgroup. Couldn't you have saved the bandwidth and took it up
privately with those who are obviously a pain in your ass? This
newsgroup is not associated with BN.
Kathy
Marley Greiner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy" <Meag...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.adoption
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: HEY THANKS BN from the protest
On Jul 26, 8:48 pm, joymadse...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 26, 5:32 pm, Kathy <Meagan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kathy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am going on about BN's epic fail.
>
> Weren't you one of the one's who told me to listen to BN?
>
> Not surprised this is over your head then.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I still have no idea why you brought your problem to a public
newsgroup. Couldn't you have saved the bandwidth and took it up
privately with those who are obviously a pain in your ass? This
newsgroup is not associated with BN.
Kathy
Who knows, Kathy? Last Friday night or early Saturday AAAFC removed the
discussions on how Bastard Nation supposedly tried to sabotage the protest.
These discussions contained a ugly attack on blogger Baby Love Child--not
speaking for BN--whose only crime has been to use primary sources to
document and publish the NuDar narrative and to place it in an historical
context--and to be a friend of mine.
AAAFC administrators removed their negative discussions from the forum,
saying the forum needed to get back to its supposed real agenda "adoptee
support."
It was "too distracting" according to them, to continue with the trashfest
that they themselves started. With the thread removed and with only her blog
as a
platform, I guess Joy thinks she needs to spread her word around to
alt.adoption, whose minions could care less about the whole thing.
Honestly, I don't now what Joy's deal is. She has stirred the pot since
June, and mucked around things she has no direct knowledge of. She has
stated on her blog that she is ashamed of being adopted
http://joy21.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/so-does-this-mean-you-are-out-issy-asks/
and that she hates activism.
http://joy21.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/power-and-pedestals/ I have no idea
why she is such a popular person or considered an expert in some adoption
circles.
BN pulled our organizational co-sponsorship for the event after the lead
organizer, Ron Morgan, called for a suspension of the 2008 event, and to
plan, instead, for a mass 2009 action. The 2008 event, as Joy should know,
was envisioned as a mass action which obviously was not going to happen
when only a few
hotel rooms were filled with 6 weeks to go. There were huge organizational
weakness (some totally out of anyone's control), which we hoped would be
repaired for next year. including better communication, event
incorporation or the appointment of a fiscal agent by the itself . We
determined that for BN to continue with organizational funding and support
would have been entirely cost ineffective and ineffective to do what we had
planned: a one-day teach-in with professionally printed and bound teaching
materials, a stage with speakers and entertainment, promotional materials,
etc , which we were working on--although the event organizers had not
communicated with us for weeks, despite emails to them. Several times we
requested a bill for our share of the convention space and did not receive
it. Just a couple days before the pull-out the bill was emailed to us.
After the pull-out we attempted to pay our pledged share of the event and
our offer was rejected by the new organizer.
We made it quite clear in June why BN pulled out of the event--and it was
not an easy decision. Moreover I made many personal statements on The
Daily
Bastardette to clarify. We received quite a bit of support from friends,
seasoned activists, and organizations who understood what we did and why. A
very small number objected. At no point did BN ever wish any ill will on the
reconstructed event or its organizers. We did not discourage our members
from attending, though we did remind them to cancel their rooms at our
hotel if they decided not to attend. In fact, we wished them the best.
Some BNers attended and came back with very positive reports which were
posted on our BEST list. No one criticized them in the least.
I want to make it clear that very very good and dedicated people attended
the NOLA protest and I'm glad they went. I don't even question the
dedication of those who are now
kicking things around. What I do questing is their motives.
The protest by the accounts of the organizers was successful. Yet they
continue to claim we sabotaged them or tried to sabotage them.--or that they
"beat" us, and that they are now going to "bring you down." They have
made scurrilous claims about BN and me personally. They hae conflated the
BLC blog of a BN member with Bastard Nation and its executive committee,
when there is absolutely no relation between the two. They claim that via
the Daily Bastardette I routed people over to the BLC blog to read her
critique of the event. Well, I did route them over there, but it was a
recommendation to read recent blogs on Enna Torres, Guatemalan baby
selling, the Andrea Curry-Demus case, and an earlier blog, which I actually
quoted, about New Orleans and what to expect when there. You can read my
entry here:
http://bastardette.blogspot.com/2008/07/just-quick-note-since-mid-june-baby.html
I did not know at that time that BLC's critique was forth coming If I
wanted to point it out to people I would have. I'm not hiding anything or
sneaking around. Here is the BLC entry Joy and a couple others are so upset
about:
http://www.babylovechild.org/2008/07/21/adoptee-rights-demonstration-day-for-adoptee-rights-some-history-and-gershoms-storm/#comment-232
I don't understand why a small group of people, attached to the internet
forum AAAFC and involved in the protest that just took place can't relax
and enjoy their accomplishments. Bastard Nation certainly doesn't begrudge
them their achievement. Why would we?
Marley
Marley Greiner
<joyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:db9237c0-a1fd-4b96...@x29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 3:13 am, joymadse...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:40 am, Lilmtncbn <lilmtn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only reason I posted this here is because I am not a member of
> > > your BEST list, where your tear down the protest pogrom was centered.
We have never "torn town" the protest or organized an "protest porgrom" or
BEST or anywhere else. Please document. I'd watch teminology, too.
Pograom is highly inappropriate.
>
> > > What you all pulled was so unacceptable, and that you thought you
> > > could use our forum to smear the reputations of our members.
>
> > > And now you are finding comfort by a filk written by a lunatic that
> > > calls me a social worker and baby stealer.
I already replied to taht part.
>
> > > That sounds about right for BN.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Oh I dunno. I'm a member and I read the BEST list. I still have no
> > idea WTF you're talking about.
>
> I am talking about BN's best efforts to smear the protest and those
> involved in it. After pulling out of their part of the funding 6
> weeks before the protest.
Please document. What best efforts? Where? We did not pull funding. Your
new organizer refused our check.
>
> I am talking about Marley's dear "theory girl" blasting the protest on
> the basis of an article by a reporter, and Marley linking it.
She does not speak for BN. She is a member with a right to her own opinion.
BLC has no relationn to the ExeCom.
>
> I am talking about the suggestion that we focused on reunion and
> emotional aspects.
>
> I would have never posted any of this had Sabina not blasted us, AFTER
> screwing us with the planning.
How did she screw you?
>
> I know things happen, but the leadership of BN has acted so
> maliciously toward us, the outrage is to be expected.
Please document
>
> These people who just screwed us majorly, are so taken with their
> position, they think they are even allowed to rename our protest.
> Sheesh.
BLC was si;ly writing about the roots of the protest. You can call it
anything you want to, it appeared it was being "created" outside of its
historical context.
>
> We are not even allowed to protest according to BN, they aren't going
> to do it, and they want to make sure we can't either.
Please document.
>
> I have every reason to be pissed.
>
> I am, and I am not alone.
p.s. I know who you are , and you know exactly what I am talking about.
What is that supposed to mean. We all know who LilMtnCabin is. She's been
here for over 10 years.
You know who I am too.
An art school graduate.
Marley
Marley Greiner
Marley
"Marley Greiner" <maddog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:633jk.137133$102.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
joyma...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 27, 9:13�am, Attila the Mom <cbnnthw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > p.s. I know who you are , and you know exactly what I am talking
> > > about.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I've posted under for the last 9 years. �I'm not sure what you're
> > getting at.
>
> Meaning, if you're trying to "out" me, there's been no attempt at
> hiding on my part.
No, I am not trying to "out" you whatever that means, I meant I know
that you have a long time and serious relationship with BN.
I meant you could not be a disinterested party
Marley Greiner
<joyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ecd61afc-8437-4eb8...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for your brill suggestion to buy the 1500.00 permit in
> Lafayette park, thanks for trying to sabotage the protest pre and post
> protest.
That was not our suggestion. The MASS ACTION plan included a stage,
equipment
speakers and entertainment at the park. That was decided by somebody else,
not BN. We had nothing to do with it You need a permit for that.
> Thank you for being silly enough to think we can control the Press, or
> all protesters and that we should censor people from saying what they
> want to say to their own legislators.
Nobody said you can control the press. The press says what it wants to say
I do, though, question your own people posting a picture with a woundy sign
on the T-P page.. You can't control what your participants want to say
either, of course, but you don't have to publicize off-topic actions that
dilute your message rights, --a message which as far as I know you did
promote.
>
> I know people keep telling me I shouldn't treat you like you are
> relevant anymore, but I am kind like that.
>
> Thanks for all your help, we went and met the state legislators and
> they were very kind and receptive to us.
Of course, they were. Generally, leggies aren't rude to people in public
places. They have other ways to get you.
>
> I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF YOU ANYWHERE
Really. There were BNers there and you know it. They reported the event on
BEST. Nobody criticized them. We were happy to hear that it went well.
>
> but I come back on the net and see you wanting to take credit and
> criticize. We want to know what you have done.
We have not tried to take credit for anything. Please document.
>
> You didn't do Oregon, we already heard that story, Maine is still
> pissed at you for what you sabatouers did there.
Now that is a lie and anyone here will attest to it. If you don't want to
believe it then read Adoption Politics, Bastard Nation and Ballot
Initiative 58 by E. Wayne Carp, the Press of the University of Kansas. Or
get a copy of the video documentary Measurable Rights. I suppose Professor
Carp and
Paul Fournier are lying, too. Perhaps the entire documentary was staged.
>
> Besides making enemies what do you do?
We get bills passsed. What do you but write mis and dis-information here and
on your blog?
>
> We want to know?
>
> Is that 8K you spent last year just Marley's personal travel fund?
Please docoument what you are blathering about? BN does not pay any of my
expenses. Oh that's right, you're a forensic accountant, according to recent
a posting on Bastardette.
> What on earth did you do with it.
I have no idea what I did with it because I never had it. Please document.
>
> And guess what?
>
> We did it anyway, we were successful despite your best attempts to
> draw us down.
Funny how we we wished you all well. Why don't you calm down and enjoy your
achievement and your happy memories? Why do you feel the need to kick shit
up?
Marley
>
>
joyma...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <joymadse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marley, you know damn well why I felt the need to kick shit up, as
does everyone involved in the protest. People came to me about what
you all were doing. I was busy with the protest.
There was ONE woman from BN at the protest, ONE, and she was very
nice. There were other people, still techinically members but who
were vocal about refusing to renew their membership after it was up
due to the way BN handled the protest. That was before the Sabina/
Marley slam.
You can tell my your "theory girl" Sabina Baby Mad Child has no
official capacity at BN, maybe true, but as your BFF lots of
unofficial influence. That would be like me saying Addie has no
official influence on my involvement in the protest. She doesn't but
she has a lot of influence over my opinion. If I didn't share her
opinion I wouldn't have posted a comment on this
http://addiepray.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/a-day-for-adoptee-fights/
If I didn't share her opinion I would have told her to cut it out. So
don't think you can play ingenue with me.
Oh and you complain we are "unprofessional" on the AAAFC website?
Ummmmmmm, DUH.
We make it very clear in our Mission statement that we don't do
crazy. That we are not professional, that we offer friendship alone,
not professional counseling for the nutters.
I don't know what BN spends their money on, your travel was just a
guess.
Because I have no idea WTF BN does, if they do ANYTHING it is a well-
guarded secret.
You don't pass "bills" your relationship to Oregon, I am going on
info. that other people have given me, I have been told that one of
your members did the lion share of the work, as an individual not an
organization.
I have talke directly to Cathy, as you well know, who was instrumental
in getting ME passed. She is still angry at BN for their involvment.
I have talked to adoptee rights activists in other states who say they
want to work on a bill and want BN to stay far away as you all have a
reputation for doing more harm than good.
I talked to lots of people who wanted to come to the protest after BN
pulled out.
Yes, I do forensic accounting, and I don't have but very minimal info.
to go on from a 990, although some. What did you think I pay my bills
with my drawrings? I send a kid to college that way?
No, that would not be true.
I just wanted to know what you spent the money on, because your
website looks like an antique, your marketing skillz stalled in about
1990, and other than you going to conferences I don't hear anything
from BN.
You can play confused ingenue with me all you want Marley, but you
know exactly what you did. So do we. No one on my side of the fence
is buying it.
What do I do besides blather on my blog?
I left my family, my lover, my business, I bought a plane ticket, I
flew across the country, I worked on the cards to hand to people, I
talked to people.
I have written an argument to present to the ACLU and other
organizations because I want to lobby our naysayers before bills get
into committee.
I admin a large and very active adoptee forum.
I am writing our articles of association.
And my babbling blog? If there is an adoptee blog with a higher
ranking, I don't know about it, so I would be in your internets
spreading awareness.
And I am not even an activist.
joyma...@yahoo.com
Because the slam was posted publically to a right in the Nest with BN
blog, that Marley linked, and she is the executive chair of that org.
that we are moderated from responding on.
This group is associated with BN, credited with being their
birthplace.
I wanted my outrage to reach the ears of its intended audience.
It did.
Any more questions?
Kathy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I dont think anyone cares about "your" outrage to tell you the
truth. You're only hurting yourself.
Kathy
Lilmtncbn
Oh, I get what you mean now. LOL Yes, I do have a long relationship
with them. I thought I was going to find a horse's head in my bed or
something (just kidding).
joyma...@yahoo.com
You might be surprised Kathy,
by hurting myself, does this mean you aren't going to give me all that
help I have come to rely so heavily on?
lollers
I guess I am willing to soldier on without you.
jim
Kathy is right. Not many here will care about your outrage, Joy.
Many who care about restoring OBC's to their rightful owners are
incensed, however.
It may be coincidence, but the timing of BN's withdrawal couldn't have
been worse, almost as though it were orchestrated to inflict the most
disruption. Many in attendence were BN members and ALL voiced
displeasure about the withdrawal.
The protest happened anyway; it was small, but highly effective for
it's size. The booth was effective. We made real contact. We got
our point across. I spoke with several reps who were UNAWARE that
OBC's were sealed in THEIR states and who agreed this was an injustice
that deserved immediate attention(!).
This is the kind of contact needed.
Face it, we have no large, well-organized lobbying groups to help us
here. BN walked away from an excellent opportunity to interact with
lawmakers in an informal setting - inexcusable given our current
setting. They will do nothing to help us.
The people who pulled this all together may have been inexperienced,
but they are smart, and PASSIONATE about restoring OBC's to adult
adoptees. THEY represent the type of people who will succeed.
jimm
joyma...@yahoo.com
p.s. I don't get the quotation marks around your. Do "you"?
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I would never do anything like that to anyone, I know you are
kidding, but yes, I get angry, but I would never harm anyone or
threaten to harm anyone.
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh and re: the whole you can't talk to legislators because you don't
know Foucault b.s. that you tossed at me, when you erroneously assumed
I didn't know him, he is not exactly a big secret.
You might undertand a bit more of how this happened by brushing up on
Jacques Derrida.
Adopte...@gmail.com
>
> Please document. What best efforts? Where? We did not pull funding. Your
> new organizer refused our check.
>
>
Thats BS marley and you know it. You NEVER sent a check. NEVER.
Adopte...@gmail.com
>
> The people who pulled this all together may have been inexperienced,
> but they are smart, and PASSIONATE about restoring OBC's to adult
> adoptees. THEY represent the type of people who will succeed.
>
> jimm
(((Thank you Jimm))))
kippah...@hotmail.com
>
> Many who care about restoring OBC's to their rightful owners are
> incensed, however.
>
> It may be coincidence, but the timing of BN's withdrawal couldn't have
> been worse, almost as though it were orchestrated to inflict the most
> disruption. Many in attendence were BN members and ALL voiced
> displeasure about the withdrawal.
> The protest happened anyway; it was small, but highly effective for
> it's size. The booth was effective. We made real contact. We got
> our point across. I spoke with several reps who were UNAWARE that
> OBC's were sealed in THEIR states and who agreed this was an injustice
> that deserved immediate attention(!).
> This is the kind of contact needed.
>
> Face it, we have no large, well-organized lobbying groups to help us
> here. BN walked away from an excellent opportunity to interact with
> lawmakers in an informal setting - inexcusable given our current
> setting. They will do nothing to help us.
>
> The people who pulled this all together may have been inexperienced,
> but they are smart, and PASSIONATE about restoring OBC's to adult
> adoptees. THEY represent the type of people who will succeed.
My opinion also.
And that BLC's blog post on the eve of the protest was calculated to
add insult to injury.
Marley Greiner
<Adopte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a016662-7d46-44a1...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
You told us not to send a check. Would you really like me to post your last
email to me?
If your event was as successful as you say it was why are you so angry?
Marley
joyma...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <AdopteeRig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Did you really think that you could attack us, and there wouldn't be a
response?
I can tell you one thing, I may not have as much experience as you do
blathering about adoption, but I know if I ran an organization with
gross receipts of 4K and expenditures of twice that, I would not spend
60% of my gross in insurance, what are you insuring, bankruptcy? It
is an ideal return for someone filing for divorce, but not for one
looking to prosper.
I wouldn't have gone on attack to a new crop of enthusiastic new crop
of adoptees, I would not take the heavy plum of our forum, that was
handed to you, the mishandling was amazing, stunning, absolutely.
Marley Greiner
<joyma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de7fc795-ad48-499a...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 28, 6:42 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> <AdopteeRig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3a016662-7d46-44a1...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> Please document. What best efforts? Where? We did not pull funding.
> >> Your
> >> new organizer refused our check.
>
> >> Marley
>
> > Thats BS marley and you know it. You NEVER sent a check. NEVER.
>
> You told us not to send a check. Would you really like me to post your
> last
> email to me?
>
> If your event was as successful as you say it was why are you so angry?
>
> Marley
Did you really think that you could attack us, and there wouldn't be a
response?
Document where I or BN has attacked you?
I can tell you one thing, I may not have as much experience as you do
blathering about adoption, but I know if I ran an organization with
gross receipts of 4K and expenditures of twice that, I would not spend
60% of my gross in insurance, what are you insuring, bankruptcy? It
is an ideal return for someone filing for divorce, but not for one
looking to prosper.
It's called Board Insurance. It's something most non-profits have. Many
potential board members won't even come on a board unless there is board
insurance. Otherwise, they can be sued as an individual. I'm sure your
local United Way would be happy to explain it to you.
I wouldn't have gone on attack to a new crop of enthusiastic new crop
of adoptees, I would not take the heavy plum of our forum, that was
handed to you, the mishandling was amazing, stunning, absolutely.
I have no attacked you. Please document?
Marley
joyma...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <joymadse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
2600.00 for D and O insurance? Where is your exposure? Are you
taking BN members rock climbing? I can't even remember hearing about
an event of late and you can buy insurance per event at around $300.00
It makes no fiscal sense to spend on overhead like that with receipts
like that.
You keep telling me to document BN's attack.
Marley, if you don't understand how as BN's exec. director, linking a
blog that was highly critical of the protest, the organizers of the
protest, meant to stir up business from the past to coincide with the
protest, and commenting that you are good friends with the author,
"learn something from her every day" she is your "theory girl."
Then I cannot help you.
If that was not malicious and truly just a social gaffe, you are not
qualified for the position you are in.
Marley
Obviously, you have no idea what board insurance is. Like I said,
call the United Way..
>
> It makes no fiscal sense to spend on overhead like that with receipts
> like that.
>
> You keep telling me to document BN's attack.
>
> Marley, if you don't understand how as BN's exec. director, linking a
> blog that was highly critical of the protest, the organizers of the
> protest, meant to stir up business from the past to coincide with the
> protest, and commenting that you are good friends with the author,
> "learn something from her every day" she is your "theory girl."
>
> Then I cannot help you.
>
> If that was not malicious and truly just a social gaffe, you are not
> qualified for the position you are in.
One more time, Joy: I have not attacked you. I linked the blog so
readers could read a political analysis of Enna Torres, Guat
scandals, the Yakolev/Harrision case and Andrea Curry-Demus. People
certainly won't find an analysis of those events and people on your
blog. Make of it what you will I did not link to the critique of
your event. If you think I did, then you must believe we have some
kind of blogger network in which we tell each other what we are
writing about so we can stick it to people. I have not attacked you
at any time. I don't care about you. I don't care what you do.
Think what you want. If you'd been around AdoptionLand for any length
of time you'd know that this petty argument you've started is old hat
here. Let's see: search wars, Crackangeleo, orgies on nude beaches,
burning stickmen, Neal whose name must not be spoken, yard and
basement bitches (for you old timers). But you'd also know then that
BN had everything to do with Oregon. Such girrlry girl goings-on
Marley
joyma...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know how to tell you this Marley, but the United Way has many
employees, a big payroll,and lots of exposure. The biggest risk for D
and O ins. is employee based.
I worked for a long established non-profit with a couple of million in
receipts that dealt with children, we didn't carry that much D and O.
It is not comparable to BN. 60% of their gross does not go to
insurance.
I believe you when you say, you all get in lots of fights on this
board. I believe you have been getting in fights for years on this
board.
But this is getting boring.
I am sure you all will have another stunning critique for us next
year, I can't wait.
Marley
The United Way,Joy, can explain to you why non-profits carry board
insurance. Not why they do. Or many an incorporation lawyer.
>
> I worked for a long established non-profit with a couple of million in
> receipts that dealt with children, we didn't carry that much D and O.
How could you possible know what coverfage BN has? or your
non=profit?
>
> It is not comparable to BN. 60% of their gross does not go to
> insurance.
>
> I believe you when you say, you all get in lots of fights on this
> board. I believe you have been getting in fights for years on this
> board.
I'm not saying I got I fights. There are many fights on alt.adoption
Some have lasted for months. It's where people with balls hang out.
Nobody here hides behind a "moderator" or has to worry about getting
a nastrygrame from a "moderator" telling her or him they are crazy or
a liar or loser or whatever du jour name comes to mind. This is a
free speech zone.
>
> But this is getting boring.
>
> I am sure you all will have another stunning critique for us next
> year, I can't wait.
I have no stunning critique for you. You'll have to look elsewhere.
Mne ochen skychnaya.
Marley
joyma...@yahoo.com
One of my best friends is Russian.
I am sorry,
I will leave you alone now.
Jackie
>No, I would never do anything like that to anyone, I know you are
>kidding, but yes, I get angry, but I would never harm anyone or
>threaten to harm anyone.
I know different Joy..
Jackie
joyma...@yahoo.com
I mean physically Jackie..
And you know no secrets about me Jackal, you don't even know me at
all..
Nor are you capable of knowing me..
Jackie
wrote:
>My opinion also.
>And that BLC's blog post on the eve of the protest was calculated to
>add insult to injury.
What about the fact that an adoption agency was collecting funds for
this protest..
see..
>Abrazo revised fundraising dates, Abrazo related personnel were at the ARD, and Gershom’s comment on such
>
>
>To again quote the BN statement:
>
>Moreover, we are concerned with participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR’s name.
>
>and
>
>These funds went and continue to go directly to the agency, raising huge ethical issues for Bastard Nation and the equal access movement. Records and identity access is about our rights and has no connection with the marketing schemes of adoption agencies. BN has a long-standing, hard-line policy of accepting no support from the adoption industry. Bastard Nation specifically, and the adoptee rights movement in general, cannot and should not be co-opted or used by the adoption industry to promote its own agenda. We disavow all industry involvement in our work. Any entanglement with the adoption industry endangers the integrity and credibility of the adoptee rights movement.
Kippa I am stunned that you think this okay..
Jackie
joyma...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:40:04 -0700 (PDT), kippaherr...@hotmail.com
Oh 2-dot were you upset that I told Marley I would leave her alone
now?
Is that why you are trying to stir it up again?
You know it took a certain amount of investment from me to discuss
with BN/Marley, I will not discuss this with anyone publicly again.
You simply don't rate, and I am not surprised that you are trying to
prolong this.
Tyical..
Jackie
>On Jul 29, 2:54 pm, Jackie <jackiejda...@w3connex.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:40:04 -0700 (PDT), kippaherr...@hotmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >My opinion also.
>> >And that BLC's blog post on the eve of the protest was calculated to
>> >add insult to injury.
>>
>> What about the fact that an adoption agency was collecting funds for
>> this protest..
>>
>> http://www.babylovechild.org/
>>
>> see..
>>
>> >Abrazo revised fundraising dates, Abrazo related personnel were at the ARD, and Gershom’s comment on such
>>
>> >To again quote the BN statement:
>>
>> >Moreover, we are concerned with participation of Abrazo Adoption Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR’s name.
>>
>> >and
>>
>> >These funds went and continue to go directly to the agency, raising huge ethical issues for Bastard Nation and the equal access movement. Records and identity access is about our rights and has no connection with the marketing schemes of adoption agencies. BN has a long-standing, hard-line policy of accepting no support from the adoption industry. Bastard Nation specifically, and the adoptee rights movement in general, cannot and should not be co-opted or used by the adoption industry to promote its own agenda. We disavow all industry involvement in our work. Any entanglement with the adoption industry endangers the integrity and credibility of the adoptee rights movement.
>>
>> Kippa I am stunned that you think this okay..
>>
>> Jackie
>
>Oh 2-dot were you upset that I told Marley I would leave her alone
>now?
She asked you to back up your words....
You did not do this..
Why?
For instance..
On Jul 27, 3:13 am, joymadse...@yahoo.com wrote:
You wrote..
> I am talking about BN's best efforts to smear the protest and those
> involved in it. After pulling out of their part of the funding 6
> weeks before the protest.
Marley wrote..
Please document. What best efforts? Where? We did not pull funding.
Your new organizer refused our check.
(end of quoting Marley)
Marley asked you to document your information.. Why won't you do this?
Is the reason you want to drop this because you can not document your
information?
>Is that why you are trying to stir it up again?
Joy you have insulted two very special people.. (and others)
Soooo.. I would like to ask you..
Why did you/do you go along with this agency soliciting funds and not
telling about this secret fund.. Not until they were found out..
I thought you and your friends were against secrets and lies..
Were actually protesting it..
Adoption agency.......... secrecy......... money..
What is wrong with this picture?
Stand back and really really think about it Joy..
>You know it took a certain amount of investment from me to discuss
>with BN/Marley, I will not discuss this with anyone publicly again.
Oh please.. Joy..
You are in your glory..
>You simply don't rate, and I am not surprised that you are trying to
>prolong this.
I want to know why you think its okay for an adoption agency to
secretly solicit funds for your cause.. IMO this is a very serious
situation.. and if you and your friends are going to continue on your
path then you and your friends can not be trusted.. IMO as always..
Jackie
Jackie
>
>
>Jackie wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:08:50 -0700 (PDT), joyma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >No, I would never do anything like that to anyone, I know you are
>> >kidding, but yes, I get angry, but I would never harm anyone or
>> >threaten to harm anyone.
>>
>> I know different Joy..
>>
>>
>> Jackie
>
>
>I mean physically Jackie..
You lie Joy.. I know you lie..
>And you know no secrets about me Jackal, you don't even know me at
>all..
>
>Nor are you capable of knowing me..
Awe.. go on the attack.. all you can do..
Make something up.. thats your way..
Jackie
kippah...@hotmail.com
>
> Kippa I am stunned that you think this okay..
>
Shows how much you know.
Eff off, Jackie.
Jackie
wrote:
She comes on here and says words makes accusations and does not back
her words up.. You have been here for a while and you know that this
is unacceptable..
I guess everyone wants this dropped.. and forgotten.. but you know her
words will not be forgotten.. That is what she does.. isn't it.. Makes
accusations and then runs and hides.. and says .. "Ohhh bo hoooo"...
I hope everyone that reads aa.. understands this.. and understands
where you are coming from in all of this..
Someone wrote..somewhere..
And it just goes to show, there's no accounting for taste, or the
friends we choose to keep.
Jackie
kippah...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT), kippaherr...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 29, 5:54 pm, Jackie <jackiejda...@w3connex.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Kippa I am stunned that you think this okay..
>
> >Shows how much you know.
> >Eff off, Jackie.
>
> She comes on here and says words makes accusations and does not back
> her words up.. You have been here for a while and you know that this
> is unacceptable..
>
> I guess everyone wants this dropped.. and forgotten.. but you know her
> words will not be forgotten..
Not if you have your way, they won't.
> That is what she does.. isn't it.. Makes
> accusations and then runs and hides.. and says .. "Ohhh bo hoooo"...
Holy-moley, look who's talking!
Like they say in Aix-en-Provence, people in chateaux shouldn't through
tomateaux.
> I hope everyone that reads aa.. understands this.. and understands
> where you are coming from in all of this..
>
> Someone wrote..somewhere..
Some kind of a somebody somewhere would.
I suppose it's inevitable.
> And it just goes to show, there's no accounting for taste, or the
> friends we choose to keep.
>
Yes Jackie. Indeed.
I pride myself on my taste, and feel privileged to have the friends I
do :-)
For your info. I'm on record as saying that I think accepting money
from agencies is a no-no. With your snooping skills you should be able
to verify that.
I've made my opinion known to a number of people, including BLC
(though she chose not to post my comment), as well as to the person
who was the original Abrazo connection.
However, my feeling is that the issue could - and should - have been
dealt with very differently.
But again, that's JMO.
theadop...@gmail.com
BN wrote to the organizers of the protest that they were pulling out
because of low particpant registration and for financial reasons. They
did not mention anything about Abrazo in their resignation to the
organizers. That was saved for the public announcement. The Abrazo
issue was cleared up within two days. I called the owner and told her
to cease her fundrasing campaign and let her know that we would not be
receiving any donations from Abrazo. Issues come up when planning a
house party for god's sake, forget about a national event. This
community is small, what are the chances that an agency will slide in
somehow to promote its business? I wasn't surprised. Anyone who's been
at this gig for years shouldn't have been surprised, either.
Marley would have known that by including the Abrazo issue and making
it appear that the ARD organizers were co-opting with the adoption
industry, would cause controversy in our community. Was it necessary
for her to include the Abrazo issue in the announcement? Nope, not in
my opinion, and The Adoption Show was also a sponsor, with a hard
stance on not promoting adoption in any form. If I'd thought there was
cause to worry, I'd have pulled the show's support long before BN did.
It served no purpose other than project a negative image of the
protest and on the remaining sponsors and organisers. No one was co-
opting with the industry. At best it was a handful of miscommuniations
between a few people. Oh, shock . . . miscommunication when
organizing a national event. And it's not like we were all attending
weekly face-to-face meetings in a boardroom - it was online. More risk
of miscommuncation.
If Marley had waited a bit longer after finding out about Abrazo (we
all discovered the Abrazo issue at the same time) she would have
watched the issue be resolved. The whole situation was really
disappointing. And what's so silly is that all this was done in one
night. There was no discussion, only accusations. Instead of working
things out, like most teams do, or should do, BN left.
Michelle
Jackie
wrote:
>BN wrote to the organizers of the protest that they were pulling out
>because of low particpant registration and for financial reasons. They
>did not mention anything about Abrazo in their resignation to the
>organizers.
>That was saved for the public announcement. The Abrazo
>issue was cleared up within two days. I called the owner and told her
>to cease her fundrasing campaign and let her know that we would not be
>receiving any donations from Abrazo.
I got my information from this BN announcement..
June 1st...
http://bnprotest.blogspot.com/2008/06/announcement-bastard-nation-withdraws.html
Sunday, June 1, 2008
ANNOUNCEMENT! BASTARD NATION WITHDRAWS FROM A DAY FOR ADOPTEE RIGHTS
Moreover, we are concerned with participation of Abrazo Adoption
Agency in San Antonio, Texas. Unknown to DAR and BN until just a few
days ago, Abrazo has been raising funds for the event in DAR's name.
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/85456?recruiter_id=15092383
These funds went and continue to go directly to the agency, raising
huge ethical issues for Bastard Nation and the equal access movement.
Records and identity access is about our rights and has no connection
with the marketing schemes of adoption agencies. BN has a
long-standing, hard-line policy of accepting no support from the
adoption industry. Bastard Nation specifically, and the adoptee rights
movement in general, cannot and should not be co-opted or used by the
adoption industry to promote its own agenda. We disavow all industry
involvement in our work. Any entanglement with the adoption industry
endangers the integrity and credibility of the adoptee rights
movement.
> Issues come up when planning a
>house party for god's sake, forget about a national event. This
>community is small, what are the chances that an agency will slide in
>somehow to promote its business? I wasn't surprised. Anyone who's been
>at this gig for years shouldn't have been surprised, either.
see heading..
*UPDATED* Abrazo revised fundraising dates, Abrazo related personnel
were at the ARD, and Gershom’s comment on such
(snipped some)
the Abrazo fundraising in relation to the ARD event began in February
‘08, not May 9th, as the Facebook fundraising history page had led me
to originally believe.
Which means that between February and May 29th Abrazo was fundraising
off our event and we had no knowledge of it whatsoever. When we did
discover it, by way of Amy, I explored the Abrazo webpage, I could
find no link from off the Abrazo webpage into their facebook
fundraising.
End of quoting..
I have real hard time believing that this fundraising incident is a
simple as you state here in your post to aa..
And I also have a hard time believing you when you say..
"The Abrazo issue was cleared up within two days." (see above)
>Marley would have known that by including the Abrazo issue and making
>it appear that the ARD organizers were co-opting with the adoption
>industry, would cause controversy in our community.
So what you are saying here is what Marley did was deliberate on terms
of the timing of the announcement..
I am sorry I do not believe this..
I have been reading Marley for a very long time..
Marley is not a devious woman...Not in my thinking..
> Was it necessary
>for her to include the Abrazo issue in the announcement? Nope, not in
>my opinion, and The Adoption Show was also a sponsor, with a hard
>stance on not promoting adoption in any form.
In my opinion it was necessary..
Take contact veto's..
Others have written that they are okay as they open the door.. Marley
and others have said no.. no one gets left behind.. no contact
veto's..
I had a hard time with this when I first got involved here but now I
do understand.. Contact veto's are not right.. Contact veto's allow
government involvement..
My point..
Here we have an adoption agency collecting money from Feb. to the end
of May in the name of the protest that was planned..
Why would she not tell everyone?
My goodness.. this must not be a secret.. this must be brought out in
the open so others know that this kind of thing will not be
tolerated..
How many years are we expected to deal with all this secret keeping..
when will it end..
> If I'd thought there was
>cause to worry, I'd have pulled the show's support long before BN did.
So you did know about this before Ron and Marley and others found
out..
Please clarify..
>It served no purpose other than project a negative image of the
>protest and on the remaining sponsors and organisers.
You and your organization have a negative image now..
Or you do in my thinking..
IMO you are not to be trusted..
If bad behaviour is found by BN they will announce it in any way they
can.. I can trust them to do this..
If you do not know me I am a birthmom and I am involved in trying to
help the women/men that have suffered from the effects of adoption..
OA hurts.. (some women and men as always)
I read a newsletter from this particular adoption agency (link
below).... At the bottom of that newsletter is an announcement on the
good and bad and he ugly..
It made me sick to read this..
http://abrazo.org/affinity.pdf
ANNUAL UPDATES
Those who adopt through Abrazo do
vow at time of placement to provide the
agency each year with an annual update
and photos, that can be shared with their
birthfamilies upon request. Abrazo’s
entrustment contracts require these mailings
by or before 12/15 every year, yet an
embarrassing number are still overdue,
some for years. If you’re one of our adoptive
families and your name is not listed on our
Honor Roll (www.abrazo.org/forum/index.
php?showtopic=2168 ) or if you placed
through Abrazo and did not receive an
update over the holidays, it means Abrazo
is still waiting on this mailing to get here.
Please understand how important these
updates are, to us and to the birthfamilies
we serve! Annual updates enable adoption
agencies to keep up with the progress
of the children we’ve placed; they assure
birthfamilies that their sacrifice was not in
vain, and they provide a lasting record of
compliance and commitment to the adoptees
who will one day return to Abrazo to
see their files for themselves. That’s a little
annual mailing with the power to do a
world of good, for just pennies in mailing
costs… so please don’t forget!
Please don't forget?
Sacrifice?
No words..
> No one was co-
>opting with the industry. At best it was a handful of miscommuniations
>between a few people.
The bottom line is that an agency was collecting money and had not
contacted the organizers.. (or some of them) to tell them that they
were doing this..
Again..
Agencies.. money.. and secrets..
If you knew about this (please clarify)....then why didn't you tell BN
about the collecting?
I know that BN and Marley would not tolerate something like this and I
am not involved in your protest this year..
I was there in San francisco tho.. and will never forget Marley and
the others in the lobby of the hotel getting signs ready.. did my
heart good to see them..
> Oh, shock . . . miscommunication when
>organizing a national event. And it's not like we were all attending
>weekly face-to-face meetings in a boardroom - it was online. More risk
>of miscommuncation.
When someone collects money for a cause they contact the organizers to
tell them they are collecting money.. Abrazo did not do this..
This is wrong.. and I do not see anyway around this..
>If Marley had waited a bit longer after finding out about Abrazo (we
>all discovered the Abrazo issue at the same time) she would have
>watched the issue be resolved.
So you did not find out till June 1st ???????
If this is so.. why weren't you angry/upset with that adoption agency
and the fact it was collecting money without your knowledge ?????
Makes you suspect in my eyes..
> The whole situation was really
>disappointing. And what's so silly is that all this was done in one
>night. There was no discussion, only accusations. Instead of working
>things out, like most teams do, or should do, BN left.
Marley never ever.. compromises her beliefs.. in my thinking..
I have discussed many issues with her and all I can say is I admire
her beyond words..
I am sickened by what Joy has been posting in this thread (hence my
involvement now)..
Jackie
Kathy
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT), kippaherr...@hotmail.com
Could you sink any lower?
Kathy
Jackie
wrote:
>For your info. I'm on record as saying that I think accepting money
>from agencies is a no-no. With your snooping skills you should be able
>to verify that.
>I've made my opinion known to a number of people, including BLC
>(though she chose not to post my comment), as well as to the person
>who was the original Abrazo connection.
>However, my feeling is that the issue could - and should - have been
>dealt with very differently.
>But again, that's JMO.
see below...
The man wrote..
"but the timing of BN's withdrawal couldn't have been worse, almost
as though it were orchestrated to inflict the most disruption."
Your opinion also?
>And that BLC's blog post on the eve of the protest was calculated to
>add insult to injury.
An agency was collecting money and did not tell the organizers..
Don't you think that we.. the great unwashed.. have the right to know
this?
I am grateful to BLC.. I thank her for taking the time and making the
effort to make sure all the facts were out there..
Jackie
joyma...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:39:17 -0700 (PDT), kippaherr...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Big deal we didn't take the money.
I think you as the great unwashed should stop worrying, and go wash
yourself.
I love it when you try to be literate, it is really irrestible.
kippah...@hotmail.com
>
> The man wrote..
> "but the timing of BN's withdrawal couldn't have been worse, almost
> as though it were orchestrated to inflict the most disruption."
>
> Your opinion also?
If I'd thought that, I'd have made it clear.
Anyway, can't you read, Jackie? Give the guy a break. He wrote
"*almost* as though", meaning that it looked that way.
But then you never did have an ear for nuance.
> >And that BLC's blog post on the eve of the protest was calculated
to add insult to injury.
That, I do think.
And even if I'm wrong in believing that, it was certainly *beyond*
thoughtless.
> An agency was collecting money and did not tell the organizers..
Huh? Nobody's disputing that the agency was out of order.
> Don't you think that we.. the great unwashed.. have the right to know
> this?
What makes you so sure they wouldn't have been told? Oh, that's right.
Because it suits you to think they wouldn't.
Of course, they'd have been informed. Except the news wouldn't have
been presented in manner so hurtful to hardworking and sincere
individuals who didn't deserve to be excoriated as they were.
> I am grateful to BLC..
Yeah, I bet.
> I thank her for taking the time and making the
> effort to make sure all the facts were out there..
Ha! Like you assumed *as a fact* that I supported agency involvement?
The facts are as Michelle has presented them.
Jackie
wrote:
>Ha! Like you assumed *as a fact* that I supported agency involvement?
>The facts are as Michelle has presented them.
What I don't understand is who knew the agency was raising money for
the protest.. I read somewhere that Amy had a link on her blog to the
money site.. but it has been removed and I can not find it..
Secrets again..
http://amyadoptee.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html
see..
>THE DISTORTION
snipped some
> I mentioned that there were folks raising money to come to the event. I along with the others were against this idea. Ron requested a link. I provided it for him. I found out that night what was being done. I did call Elizabeth at the agency to advise that there were issues with this.
snipped some
>Some other facts that many have failed to keep in mind. Ron was supposed to keep in contact with Abrazo and he didn't.
This sounds like she did know and there was that link and she assumed
that Ron knew about it..
I noticed you comment on that particular blog.. Kippa.. right after
the woman from the agency..
first from the woman at the agency..
> Elizabeth Jurenovich said...
>Amy, we are so sorry that you and others were wrongly implicated in Abrazo's well-intentioned (albeit misguided) efforts to raise funds to help support the Protest.
>
>Please be assured that every dime raised was returned to each donor, with a full explanation of why Abrazo was unable to forward it to Protest organizers as intended.
>
>Abrazo did encourage all donors to subsequently mail contributions directly to the adoptee rights protest (or other groups), but we have no way of knowing whether any did so, given the ill will aroused by Bastard Nation's attack.
>
>Thank you, Amy, for being among those who recognize the need for us to all work together. Truly, the crusade for open records is far too important to be compromised by such petty infighting and territorialism.
When was this agency included in the 'working together' scenario?
>12:17 AM
>
>
> Kippa said...
>I'm so sorry about the way that you and those who worked to hard to pull this demonstration (A big YAY for you all!) off got hit with such a shit storm. You didn't deserve it, any of you.
>
>Although I'm personally not a supporter of accepting money from agencies, mainly because no matter how well-intentioned and honorable said agencies may be, it opens up to the possibility of accusations of conflict of interest, I don't think that's really what going on with BN.
>I just don't understand their acrimony at all. It's perfectly clear to me that you acted in good faith and out of a genuine desire to help. As you have helped the cause of open records in so many ways.
So did Amy know about the money? If I remember correctly there was a
link on her blog to the page that collected the money.. this in June
but it was erased..
Curioser and Curioser..
>It *could* have been dealt with tactfully, discreetly and reasonably, between all parties, IMO. But no. Instead was seized upon and made into something it wasn't. Like you say, distorted. Out of all recognition.
If Amy had put a link to the money collecting agency then I honestly
wonder whether things were distorted..
>And that there was a second wave of attack REALLY tees me off (understatement).
>
>I'm with Elizabeth in thanking you for recognizing the need for us all to work together. Sure, there are always going to be some problems, but with goodwill they can be worked out.
>And that's because of people like yourself :-)
>
>10:20 AM
>
You do like that fence don't you Kippa.. be careful you may fall off
one day..
Jackie
Jackie
wrote:
>> And it just goes to show, there's no accounting for taste, or the
>> friends we choose to keep.
>>
>> Jackie
>
>Could you sink any lower?
>
>Kathy
So do you belong to that private walking wounded adoptee site that Joy
runs?
What's your nic over there Kathy? So many changing nic's I can't
keep up..
Jackie
Jackie
>Big deal we didn't take the money.
But I bet you were going to take it..
Why would Amy adoptee put a link on her site (removed now folks) if
you did not intend to keep it..
>I think you as the great unwashed should stop worrying, and go wash
>yourself.
Not with you in charge Joy.. You are one scary lady..
I want records open and IMO people like you are going to do more harm
than good.. .. And I do agree with the path BN has taken all these
years.. hard work and one state at a time..
>I love it when you try to be literate, it is really irrestible.
Typical from you Joy.. bankrupt as usual..
Jackie
kippah...@hotmail.com
> When was this agency included in the 'working together' scenario?
How could it have been when most people were unaware of it until a few
days before the protest?
> So did Amy know about the money..
> If I remember correctly there was a link on her blog to the page that collected the money.. this in June but it was erased..
C'mon, Jackie, it HAD to be erased because the money was not going to
be accepted.
It could hardly have been left up.
No more fundraising - no more link to fundraising page. Duh.
> Curioser and Curioser..
No, nothing curious about that. No magic mushrooms.
No conspiracy. Just common sense.
> If Amy had put a link to the money collecting agency then I honestly wonder whether things were distorted..
Why attach that particular adverb to the word 'wonder'? Makes me
wonder about the nature of your wondering.
Anyway, Amy just HADN'T GOT IT, OK? She hadn't sussed on.
> You do like that fence don't you Kippa.. be careful you may fall off one day..
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that, Jackie, but whatev. It
sounds like something that would give you a whole bunch of jollies.
You seem hell-bent on twisting l'affaire Abrazo into some kind of
conspiracy. Sorry. No grassy knoll there, I am quite sure.
I don't believe for a moment it was a part of the original reason for
the withdrawal. Maybe it helped *confirm* it, but it wasn't the
primary cause.
The withdrawal had already been decided upon *BEFORE* the Abrazo news
broke.
The Acme Anvil hit the asphalt shortly *AFTER* that decision had
already been made.
Abrazo came as a gift from heaven, sent down to draw attention away
from the fact that BN had, for whatever reasons, copped out.
Hallelujah!
In my opinion, if BN felt that they'd made an error of judgement in
joining forces in the first place (which, as far as I know, they may
have felt), they compounded that error when they withdrew their
support. Particularly given the when and how of it.
And *especially* the way in which the Abrazo issue has now become the
main focus, emphasized *way* over the original reasons for withdrawal.
Once again, do I think it would have been proper for the organization
to accept money from adoption agencies?
Of course not. No way.
Contrary to your inference of a few days ago that I supported agency
financial involvement, my post to Amy unequivocally confirms that I do
not and never did.
I shall take that as a gracious admission that you were wrong.
Now, to clear up a further point. Do I think it the person who was the
original connection with Abrazzo made a serious error of judgment ?
Do I think Amy screwed up ? Absolutely damn right I do.
But, unlike yourself (apparently), I recognize it as a mistake and
that no harm was intended. She meant only well, and for that reason
alone doesn't deserve to be flayed on an ongoing basis as she has
been. Especially as in all other respects she has been a committed and
effective proponent of adoptee rights.
Oh, and am I to suppose you believe that BLC's blog entry of the eve
of the protest *wasn't* deliberately timed to stir the pot and cause
as much humiliation and damage as possible after things had quietened
down and there was still some hope, if not for reconciliation, at
least that the harm wouldn't be compounded? Not bloody likely. It
would be another giant step for idiotkind if you did. You know as well
as I do that the timing of the posting speaks, not just to setting the
record straight (if it even does that, which I doubt), but to revenge.
Kathy
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Kathy <Meagan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> And it just goes to show, there's no accounting for taste, or the
> >> friends we choose to keep.
>
> >> Jackie
>
> >Could you sink any lower?
>
> >Kathy
>
> So do you belong to that private walking wounded adoptee site that Joy
> runs?
>
> What's your nic over there Kathy? So many changing nic's I can't
> keep up..
>
> Jackie
I really should not dignify your stupidity further but please do allow
me one favor and try to understand what I am going to say.
I am a member of BN and read the Best-List, but have no association
with Joy at all. I think even Joy, your enemy, would vouch for that.
My question for you, Jackie. Why can't you understand English? Why
do you read into things that are not there?
Why do use the adoptee protest day as your excuse to go after your
enemies; Joy and Kippa?
Furthermore, who do you think you are fooling here?
Kathy
Kathy
Like I said earlier in so many words. Jackie has used this situation,
(the adoptee day protest), attempting to further her own personal
vendetta toward her enemies.
Beyond sick and twisted, but so-sooooo Jackie.
Kathy
kippah...@hotmail.com
>
> Like I said earlier in so many words. Jackie has used this situation,
> (the adoptee day protest), attempting to further her own personal
> vendetta toward her enemies.
Yup. Schmetta vendetta.
Some people need enmity like it's part of the basics of life.
> so-sooooo Jackie.
Word :-)
joyma...@yahoo.com
Ummm, Jackie, why would I be in charge of washing you? I would like to
think that is something you would do for yourself.
As for the rest, I am glad you have something to think about.
I mean it is slightly weird for you to be still gnawing on something
you have not even second hand knowledge of, that has nothing to do
with you.
As my little sister likes to say, "hating me, won't make you pretty"
but at least it gives you something to do.
Still though, washing is good, try it.
Jackie
wrote:
>On Aug 3, 7:25 pm, Jackie <jackiejda...@w3connex.ca> wrote:
>
>> When was this agency included in the 'working together' scenario?
>
>How could it have been when most people were unaware of it until a few
>days before the protest?
I have read that the agency started collecting money in February.
>> So did Amy know about the money..
>> If I remember correctly there was a link on her blog to the page that collected the money.. this in June but it was erased..
>C'mon, Jackie, it HAD to be erased because the money was not going to
>be accepted.
>It could hardly have been left up.
>No more fundraising - no more link to fundraising page. Duh.
Amy knew that the agency was collecting money for the demonstration..
She must have known about it in February..
Who else knew about this collection of money?
Was Amy the only one.. or did the organizers also know.. Was Amy an
organizer?
Or have the organizers...now that the truth is out.. (not Marley or
Ron or BN) thrown Amy under the bus..
Have they actually said that no one knew about it but Amy?
Who knew about it?
Who would say to an agency (that was promising OA and I do not think
they had any laws to back up the promise) that money collecting was
okay?
I do not think BN would have..
>> Curioser and Curioser..
>
>No, nothing curious about that. No magic mushrooms.
>No conspiracy. Just common sense.
You do not get it then.. I do not think that Amy was the only one
that knew about the money..
And I think this is very important information because if Joy and her
crowd are going to start raising money for further demonstrations..
one must realize that these folks don't tell the truth..
This is a public place and I believe that it needs to be put out for
others to read.. not left in secret in Joy's place..
>> If Amy had put a link to the money collecting agency then I honestly wonder whether things were distorted..
>
>Why attach that particular adverb to the word 'wonder'? Makes me
>wonder about the nature of your wondering.
>Anyway, Amy just HADN'T GOT IT, OK? She hadn't sussed on.
Ah.. so you are saying that Amy in her naivety.. did not tell anyone
about the money being collected..
I ask then.. Why didn't the agency (when it cooked up this scheme)
contact the organizers of this demonstration?
If an agency is collecting money in the name of a cause.. they tell
the people involved in the cause.. It just makes sense..
>> You do like that fence don't you Kippa.. be careful you may fall off one day..
>
>I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that, Jackie, but whatev. It
>sounds like something that would give you a whole bunch of jollies.
Were you one of the ones that organized this 'stuff' in Joys forum?
I see your posts over there sucking up to them..
Well only what a non member can see..
>You seem hell-bent on twisting l'affaire Abrazo into some kind of
>conspiracy. Sorry. No grassy knoll there, I am quite sure.
Someone is lying..
Someone besides Amy had to know about that money collection..
>I don't believe for a moment it was a part of the original reason for
>the withdrawal. Maybe it helped *confirm* it, but it wasn't the
>primary cause.
I am addressing the issue of a group of people letting an adoption
agency collect money for them.. and not saying a thing until it came
out in the open and Marley/Ron/BN made that announcement..
>The withdrawal had already been decided upon *BEFORE* the Abrazo news
>broke.
Not the issue I am exploring.. I want to know who knew about the
agency collecting money.. Who has told a lie about it..
>The Acme Anvil hit the asphalt shortly *AFTER* that decision had
>already been made.
You have your head planted firmly in the sand.. I see..
>Abrazo came as a gift from heaven, sent down to draw attention away
>from the fact that BN had, for whatever reasons, copped out.
>Hallelujah!
So you are saying that BN did a cowardly act by blaming the agency
collecting money without their knowledge.. and used it to bow out..
I do not think that happened Kippa..
I do not think Marley and BN and Ron would do such a thing..
They were very clear to me.. in what they were doing..
IMO you are defending what Joy wrote at the beginning of this thread..
when she slammed Marley and BN..
>In my opinion, if BN felt that they'd made an error of judgement in
>joining forces in the first place (which, as far as I know, they may
>have felt), they compounded that error when they withdrew their
>support.
I read on one of the blogs that BN thought that the organizers were
not doing very much.. Had not organized very much..
> Particularly given the when and how of it.
>And *especially* the way in which the Abrazo issue has now become the
>main focus, emphasized *way* over the original reasons for withdrawal.
Who knew about the money being raised? Who is lying about whether
they knew or not.. Can we trust these folks in the future?
Did the organizers that hang out on Joys forum know?
I believe that Ron and Marley did not..
>Once again, do I think it would have been proper for the organization
>to accept money from adoption agencies?
>Of course not. No way.
But someone besides Amy knew about it and did not say a thing..
I bet it was someone in the group that organized it over on Joy's
place.
>Contrary to your inference of a few days ago that I supported agency
>financial involvement, my post to Amy unequivocally confirms that I do
>not and never did.
>I shall take that as a gracious admission that you were wrong.
You can post on anyone's blog and say.. Ohhhh I don't agree.. anyone
can..
BN and Marley and Ron were slammed at the beginning of this thread and
I found it wrong.. just wrong..
And I will not just keep quiet.. they have worked too hard for too
many years..
>Now, to clear up a further point. Do I think it the person who was the
>original connection with Abrazzo made a serious error of judgment ?
>Do I think Amy screwed up ? Absolutely damn right I do.
Ah now you are throwing her under the bus..
I do not think she did not tell anyone.. She told someone..
>But, unlike yourself (apparently), I recognize it as a mistake and
>that no harm was intended.
Well Amy's reputation in the adoption reform movement is not very
good..
> She meant only well, and for that reason
>alone doesn't deserve to be flayed on an ongoing basis as she has
>been. Especially as in all other respects she has been a committed and
>effective proponent of adoptee rights.
Yes lets just forget about it.. shhhhh its a secret..
>Oh, and am I to suppose you believe that BLC's blog entry of the eve
>of the protest *wasn't* deliberately timed to stir the pot and cause
>as much humiliation and damage as possible after things had quietened
>down and there was still some hope, if not for reconciliation, at
>least that the harm wouldn't be compounded? Not bloody likely.
Now you are slamming BN.. blaming them for what happened..
That was why I was stunned Kippa..
Not for one second do I believe that what BN did was deliberate..
Not for one second do I believe they would resort to such tactics..
Marley and Ron are good people and they would never stoop so low..
>It
>would be another giant step for idiotkind if you did. You know as well
>as I do that the timing of the posting speaks, not just to setting the
>record straight (if it even does that, which I doubt), but to revenge.
Right... now lets go after BLC.. her blog.. perfect.. bait and
switch..
IMO the organizers over at Joy's place did not do their job
correctly.. they organized nothing.. they lied about who knew about
the agency collecting money..
Jackie
joyma...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:39:47 -0700 (PDT), kippaherr...@hotmail.com
Jackie
So you are disparaging Amy's reputation in the reform movement, as if
you are in the reform movement?
O.K.
So you are going on and on about half-truths and gossip?
O.K.
So what?
You weren't there, you know absolutely nothing about it, and for that
I thank you.
You want to suggest that the people involved were co-opting with the
adoption industry, people like myself who are so "pro-adoption" and
the adoption show people.
O.K.
Okay, okay, okay, I have websites dedicated to "exposing" me for a
barren-bitch, adoption social-worker, etc.
So what?
Join in, like I can control crazies?
It is part and parcel of putting yourself out there and being public,
and trying to change things.
You will get the vultures.
That is life.
So just for your benefit, Two-dot Jackal, I confess, I am in league
with adoption agencies, we are bugging your telephone, I am going to
put you out for adoption, I will make lots of money doing that, and
then I will get your new adoptive parents to pay me to care about your
opinion.
My real name isn't Joy, my real name is Bethany Christian Services,
you caught me, you clever Canadian, you have me trapped at last. I
want everyone to be adopted, I want everyone to be wished peace and
thanked for their thoughts.
Dagnabbit, it was sure to happen sooner or later, but you saw through
my ruse, you saw how I am an agent of adoption.
Good on you.
Damn! I am foiled, and all I can do is wish you peace and thank you
for your thoughts.
Namaste Bitch.
Lilmtncbn
Jackie, I've been staying out of this for the most part---because it
seems so pointless---but it's posts like this that add nothing but
misinformation to a situation that is already full of speculation by
people who weren't there, or who have only heard one side of something
and have taken it upon themselves to fill in the blanks. Sometimes
inaccurately. To keep from perpetuating what was an unfortunate
situation, I need to tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree.
I was in that last planning loop when this went down, on the BN side
of the table. There were about a dozen or so people in this last loop
from both DAR and BN. Amy was one of them. I was there because my
function on the BN side was to assemble and print the teaching
materials and hand-outs.
>
> Amy knew that the agency was collecting money for the demonstration..
> She must have known about it in February..
She probably did, because she's the one who set it up.
>
> Who else knew about this collection of money?
> Was Amy the only one.. or did the organizers also know.. Was Amy an
> organizer?
No she wasn't. The two organizers from DAR were Ron and Kali. There
is absolutely no evidence that either Ron or Kali were aware of
Abrazo's involvement until the day Ron suggested a suspension of the
event.
Not 15 minutes later, Amy responded to the loop with a post that
basically said, "But we can't suspend! I've lined up a sponsor and
they've been collecting money for us!"
In her zeal, Amy had taken on a few things on her own. As Kippa said
in an earlier post, "Amy just HADN'T GOT IT, OK? She hadn't sussed
on."
By the time I was de-listed from the planning loop a couple of days
later after BN withdrew, she still didn't seem to "get it".
>
> Or have the organizers...now that the truth is out.. (not Marley or
> Ron or BN) thrown Amy under the bus..
>
> Have they actually said that no one knew about it but Amy?
>
> Who knew about it?
>
> Who would say to an agency (that was promising OA and I do not think
> they had any laws to back up the promise) that money collecting was
> okay?
> I do not think BN would have..
No, they wouldn't. Neither would Ron or Kali.
But you have to understand that 7 weeks before the event when this all
happened, things were somewhat in a state of chaos with the final
planning and everybody running around trying to get the components in
place to make it successful. There was no oversight committee reading
each other's blogs to see what other particular members were up to.
This was a first event for many, and a lot of us were flying by the
seat of our pants.
>
> You do not get it then.. I do not think that Amy was the only one
> that knew about the money..
Jackie, you can think what you like. But there is absolutely no
evidence that the organizers---Ron or Kali---were aware of Abrazo's
involvement until that last day. None whatsoever. And as soon as
they found out, they terminated the Abrazo relationship.
> And I think this is very important information because if Joy and her
> crowd are going to start raising money for further demonstrations..
> one must realize that these folks don't tell the truth..
"Joy and her crowd" were not the original organizers of the DAR. They
didn't come on board as primary organizers until AFTER BN pulled out
and after the Abrazo thing came to light, so they had nothing to do
with it. You are treating this as if it's some great conspiracy and
it wasn't. There is no reason to believe that any member of DAR will
behave unethically in any future fundraising endeavors.
>
> This is a public place and I believe that it needs to be put out for
> others to read.. not left in secret in Joy's place..
>
That's all well and good, as long as the information is accurate.
>
> Ah.. so you are saying that Amy in her naivety.. did not tell anyone
> about the money being collected..
> I ask then.. Why didn't the agency (when it cooked up this scheme)
> contact the organizers of this demonstration?
My guess is that they probably thought Amy had the authority to speak
for the event. She most likely presented herself that way.
>
> If an agency is collecting money in the name of a cause.. they tell
> the people involved in the cause.. It just makes sense..
And like I said, they probably thought Amy was the "go to" person
because of their previous involvement with her. But I'm guessing. I
don't really know either.
>
> Someone is lying..
> Someone besides Amy had to know about that money collection..
Jackie, this is pure and utter speculation on your part without any
evidence to back it up. And instead of helping the cause of open
records (because I think most of us are trying to move on from the
unfortunate events), you may actually be hurting it. We're all going
to have to work together at some point, simply because there aren't
enough of us (those working to open records) around.
I know you're trying to be helpful, but continuing to stir the shit-
pot with what has basically become a non-issue (we all now know that
taking money from the industry is a bad bad thing), is starting to
smack more of a personal vendetta on your part---a chance to "stick
it" to "Joy and her crowd"---and less like an attempt to "get the
truth out there".
Not trying to shut you up, it's just my 2cents.
kippah...@hotmail.com
Marla has done an excellent job in clarifying things, but there remain
just one or two misconceptions that need to be tidied up for you.
> Were you one of the ones that organized this 'stuff' in Joys forum?
All I did was support the spirit of the protest and make a small
financial contribution towards it.
> I see your posts over there sucking up to them..
I left my posts extant so that they can speak for themselves, and
you're welcome to read into them whatever you like.
As is anyone else and to form their own opinions accordingly (if
they're that interested, which I doubt).
Just as people can read yours on adoption.com. and do the same. That's
how things should be.
> Well only what a non member can see..
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
> So you are saying that BN did a cowardly act by blaming the agency
> collecting money without their knowledge.. and used it to bow out..
No I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying that since they'd pretty much decided on "bowing out"
anyway, they were able to use it as an opportunity to further justify
their withdrawal.
Their prerogative, but I think it was unnecessary and unkind. JMO of
course. But one I'm entitled to express.
> >Contrary to your inference of a few days ago that I supported agency
> >financial involvement, my post to Amy unequivocally confirms that I do
> >not and never did.
> >I shall take that as a gracious admission that you were wrong.
>
> You can post on anyone's blog and say.. Ohhhh I don't agree.. anyone
> can..
Of course. And that's what I did.
Anything wrong with that?.
> >Now, to clear up a further point. Do I think it the person who was the
> >original connection with Abrazzo made a serious error of judgment ?
> >Do I think Amy screwed up ? Absolutely damn right I do.
>
> Ah now you are throwing her under the bus..
No.
BN already did that.
As you are perfectly aware, Amy already knows what I think about
accepting agency donations, because I told her.
I've also told her I know she acted in good faith. I wish her well.
She deserves it.
> Yes lets just forget about it.. shhhhh its a secret..
It was NOT a "secret". The organizers didn't know.
Read Marla's post.
> >Oh, and am I to suppose you believe that BLC's blog entry of the eve
> >of the protest *wasn't* deliberately timed to stir the pot and cause
> >as much humiliation and damage as possible after things had quietened
> >down and there was still some hope, if not for reconciliation, at
> >least that the harm wouldn't be compounded? Not bloody likely.
>
> Now you are slamming BN.. blaming them for what happened..
BLC has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be any sort of official
spokesperson for BN.
> Now you are slamming BN.. blaming them for what happened..
> That was why I was stunned Kippa..
Not what you originally said http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/6ff3bd7914bbcc7c
You wrote "What about the fact that an adoption agency was collecting
funds for this protest.. . . . . Kippa I am stunned that you think
this okay.."
> Not for one second do I believe that what BN did was deliberate..
> Not for one second do I believe they would resort to such tactics..
> Marley and Ron are good people and they would never stoop so low.
Of course they are good people. Tthey are very good people.
Disagreeing with someone about something doesn't mean that you don't
think they're good.
The withdrawal was considered and deliberate, and the milk from the
Abrazo cow was a bonus.
> >It would be another giant step for idiotkind if you did. You know as well
> >as I do that the timing of the posting speaks, not just to setting the
> >record straight (if it even does that, which I doubt), but to revenge.
O.K. So you don't think the timing was intentional.
That must be why BLC said that as far as she was concerned the day of
the protest was the anniversary of her blog.
Jackie
wrote:
>On Aug 8, 4:03?pm, Jackie <jackiejda...@w3connex.ca> wrote:
>
>
>Jackie, I've been staying out of this for the most part---because it
>seems so pointless---but it's posts like this that add nothing but
>misinformation to a situation that is already full of speculation by
>people who weren't there, or who have only heard one side of something
>and have taken it upon themselves to fill in the blanks. Sometimes
>inaccurately. To keep from perpetuating what was an unfortunate
>situation, I need to tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree.
Joy wrote on 7/24
:It is pretty clear,
:
:BN pulled out all stops to try to stop the protest, I guess that is
:what they use your money for, fighting adoptee rights demonstrations.
:
:Since they didn't stop the protest, they are doing their best to paint
:it in a bad light, while they did WHAT? oh yeah that is right
:NOTHING but HARM AGAIN
To the best of my knowledge she has not apologized for this..
IMO the begriming of this thread is a slam against BN.. Marley and
Ron..
On 7/27
Marley responded to Joy..
:> I know things happen, but the leadership of BN has acted so
:> maliciously toward us, the outrage is to be expected.
:
:Please document
Where is the documentation?
>I was in that last planning loop when this went down, on the BN side
>of the table. There were about a dozen or so people in this last loop
>from both DAR and BN. Amy was one of them. I was there because my
>function on the BN side was to assemble and print the teaching
>materials and hand-outs.
>> Amy knew that the agency was collecting money for the demonstration..
>> She must have known about it in February..
>
>She probably did, because she's the one who set it up.
I can not fathom someone not questioning this..
An agency that promises OA and can not fulfill their promise?
>> Who else knew about this collection of money?
>> Was Amy the only one.. or did the organizers also know.. Was Amy an
>> organizer?
>
>No she wasn't. The two organizers from DAR were Ron and Kali. There
>is absolutely no evidence that either Ron or Kali were aware of
>Abrazo's involvement until the day Ron suggested a suspension of the
>event.
But still Joy slams BN and no one challenges her other than Marley..
I do not want to let it be.. sweep it under the carpet..
But I will ...
>Not 15 minutes later, Amy responded to the loop with a post that
>basically said, "But we can't suspend! I've lined up a sponsor and
>they've been collecting money for us!"
>
>In her zeal, Amy had taken on a few things on her own. As Kippa said
>in an earlier post, "Amy just HADN'T GOT IT, OK? She hadn't sussed
>on."
>
>By the time I was de-listed from the planning loop a couple of days
>later after BN withdrew, she still didn't seem to "get it".
And Joy did not get it when she started this thread..
But hey.. Its still here.. and her slams against BN stand..
>> Or have the organizers...now that the truth is out.. (not Marley or
>> Ron or BN) thrown Amy under the bus..
>>
>> Have they actually said that no one knew about it but Amy?
>>
>> Who knew about it?
>>
>> Who would say to an agency (that was promising OA and I do not think
>> they had any laws to back up the promise) that money collecting was
>> okay?
>> I do not think BN would have..
>
>No, they wouldn't. Neither would Ron or Kali.
Exactly..
>But you have to understand that 7 weeks before the event when this all
>happened, things were somewhat in a state of chaos with the final
>planning and everybody running around trying to get the components in
>place to make it successful. There was no oversight committee reading
>each other's blogs to see what other particular members were up to.
>This was a first event for many, and a lot of us were flying by the
>seat of our pants.
Then what happened is poor organization.. poor communication..
But still Joy starts a thread here and writes..
Joy wrote 7/24
:Thanks for your brill suggestion to buy the 1500.00 permit in
:Lafayette park, thanks for trying to sabotage the protest pre and post
:protest.
:
:Thank you for being silly enough to think we can control the Press, or
:all protesters and that we should censor people from saying what they
:want to say to their own legislators.
:
:
:I know people keep telling me I shouldn't treat you like you are
:relevant anymore, but I am kind like that.
:
:Thanks for all your help, we went and met the state legislators and
:they were very kind and receptive to us.
:
:I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF YOU ANYWHERE
:
:but I come back on the net and see you wanting to take credit and
:criticize. We want to know what you have done.
:
:You didn't do Oregon, we already heard that story, Maine is still
:pissed at you for what you sabatouers did there.
:
:Besides making enemies what do you do?
:
:We want to know?
:
:Is that 8K you spent last year just Marley's personal travel fund?
:
:
:What on earth did you do with it.
:
:And guess what?
:
:We did it anyway, we were successful despite your best attempts to
:draw us down.
:
end of quote..
>> You do not get it then.. I do not think that Amy was the only one
>> that knew about the money..
>
>Jackie, you can think what you like. But there is absolutely no
>evidence that the organizers---Ron or Kali---were aware of Abrazo's
>involvement until that last day. None whatsoever. And as soon as
>they found out, they terminated the Abrazo relationship.
I know Ron but I do not know Kali..
But I do know you and I will take your word on this.
>> And I think this is very important information because if Joy and her
>> crowd are going to start raising money for further demonstrations..
>> one must realize that these folks don't tell the truth..
>
>"Joy and her crowd" were not the original organizers of the DAR. They
>didn't come on board as primary organizers until AFTER BN pulled out
>and after the Abrazo thing came to light, so they had nothing to do
>with it. You are treating this as if it's some great conspiracy and
>it wasn't. There is no reason to believe that any member of DAR will
>behave unethically in any future fundraising endeavors.
I hope not..
This open record movement is very important to me.. My son wants his
original birth certificate.. and if what Joy wrote at the top of this
thread stands.. then IMO we are in trouble..
I trust BN.. I want them and that organization to succeed in their
long terms goals..
>> This is a public place and I believe that it needs to be put out for
>> others to read.. not left in secret in Joy's place..
>>
>
>That's all well and good, as long as the information is accurate.
You did not challenge what Joy wrote at the beginning of this thread..
I am going to drop this so don't bother to reply..
>> Ah.. so you are saying that Amy in her naivety.. did not tell anyone
>> about the money being collected..
>> I ask then.. Why didn't the agency (when it cooked up this scheme)
>> contact the organizers of this demonstration?
>
>My guess is that they probably thought Amy had the authority to speak
>for the event. She most likely presented herself that way.
Interesting..
>> If an agency is collecting money in the name of a cause.. they tell
>> the people involved in the cause.. It just makes sense..
>
>And like I said, they probably thought Amy was the "go to" person
>because of their previous involvement with her. But I'm guessing. I
>don't really know either.
>
>>
>> Someone is lying..
>> Someone besides Amy had to know about that money collection..
>
>Jackie, this is pure and utter speculation on your part without any
>evidence to back it up. And instead of helping the cause of open
>records (because I think most of us are trying to move on from the
>unfortunate events), you may actually be hurting it. We're all going
>to have to work together at some point, simply because there aren't
>enough of us (those working to open records) around.
If you are saying everyone is going to work together then I am
assuming you are including Joy..
IMO she is after BN.. I see this from what she wrote at the beginning
of this thread..
If she is involved then I personally think we are lost..
The woman throws out insults and hopes they will stick..
Has done for a long time.. Its what she does..
And it makes me angry..
>I know you're trying to be helpful, but continuing to stir the shit-
>pot with what has basically become a non-issue (we all now know that
>taking money from the industry is a bad bad thing), is starting to
>smack more of a personal vendetta on your part---a chance to "stick
>it" to "Joy and her crowd"---and less like an attempt to "get the
>truth out there".
>
>Not trying to shut you up, it's just my 2cents.
Joy got her truth out there and the only one that challenged her was
Marley..
Makes me sick..
But I will drop it..
Jackie