Where's DFACS when you need them?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The height of lunacy:

"But while wire services and network television were quick to highlight Olson's stockpile of several hundred boxes of Hamburger Helper, loads of pasta soup and toothpaste, they failed to mention what may be the biggest aspect of the Olson story, taking in an 11-day-old infant and mother they didn't previously know. The newborn was advertised for adoption on the Internet by the grandparents who were gravely concerned for its future. "The grandparents of the baby wanted to see him go to a family that was prepared for Y2K," Olson told the reporter, Peter Maller. The Olsons ultimately took in both the child, Michael Lee Berks, and mother, Jennifer Berks, at least temporarily to ride out the rollover. "

Why were the GRANDPARENTS advertising the child for adoption on the web? What is this, baby E-Bay? It sounds like the child and his mother were fortunate, but I want to know A) What right did the GRANDPARENTS have to make that advertisement and B) What sort of oversight will there be on this adoption? (Just so you know, most states have an oversight requirement to ensure that children aren't being sold or given to criminals).

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

Horrified,

Take your complaint to the DCFS agency nearest you..I don't think very many people here are qualified to come up with the answer you're looking for.

You're spinning your wheels here...

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


As soon as I can find out what state those people are in, I will phone DFACS myself.

Children are not possessions to be passed out to the highest bidder. I can't believe that people think this was at all appropriate.

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.


Wisconsin.

-- (Wis@con.sin), January 03, 2000.

FWIW...I believe the good intentioned grandmother was concerned for the well being of both mother & daughter. Both mom and baby were helped out by same family.

Loosen up your underwear...it was no big deal.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


Loosen up your underwear...it was no big deal.

Offering up a newborn child to strangers on the internet is no big deal??

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.



Duh,

Maybe I should have been clearer...."Both mom and baby were helped out by same family."

The "no big deal" is in regards to the fact that mom & baby were taken care of by someone who would have been able to meet their needs.

Like I said, "Loosen up your underwear."

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


Why don't you wait until the archives are available and go read the who scenario. You might get your knickers out of a knot then. You are going off the deep end here with no information. Had you been following this forum all along you would know the whole story. Baby and mother are safe and doing well. Go find some kid that REALLY needs your help. God knows there are enuff of them out there. Taz

-- Taz (Tassi123@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

I can't believe you think this is no big deal. This is a human life we're talking about, not some abstract concept.

Just because the grandparents were well intentioned doesn't make the child theirs to give away. And just because the Olson's happen to be nice people doesn't mean they are fit parents. It also doesn't mean that all people who respond to Internet ads for children are nice people.

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.


Horrified,

Just my personal opinion, but I think a concerned grandmother would do a much better job of this than a overworked and underpaid social worker. After having experienced DCFS types in action....well, it's a no-brainer. I'm with the grandmother.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


Why don't you wait until the archives are available and go read the who scenario.

No need to wait, you can get it here.

Just my personal opinion, but I think a concerned grandmother would do a much better job of this than a overworked and underpaid social worker. After having experienced DCFS types in action....well, it's a no-brainer. I'm with the grandmother.

The "concerned grandmother" attempted to give the child away to strangers on the internet, and act that appears to be illegal as well as potentially dangerous to the child. How is this a "much better job?"

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.



Sorry to burst your collective "horrified" bubble, but any adoption would have had the standard background check and attorney involvement. Regardless of the method used to initiate the adoption procedure, the result would have been legal.

Or are you just "Horrified" that the method of getting the word out didn't live up to your "standard of decorum", or whatever other twisted criteria you may have. Hey, you want to adopt a baby? Put up or SHUT UP, jackass....

Oh, and if any "official" shows up here without a warrant, it's gonna get ugly, so FOR THE GOOD OF ALL, go tilt at some OTHER windmill. This is really NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Proper procedure WILL be adhered to. Maybe you just need more to occupy your time...? Try getting a JOB.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.


Duh,

When are you going to listen? IT IS MY OPINION. It is also my OPINION that the government should not be involved in this area. Government involvement usually muddles the situation...but now you're about to get me going into an entirely different subject...so I'll leave it at that.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


Oh, and here's another link that sheds a bit of light...

HOTLINK

"Horrified", I put you in the same category that I did with "Duh" (perhaps in a bit of haste with him/her, as it turns out).

You are the WORST kind of creature that I can imagine; someone who DESTROYS LIVES while thinking all the time that "I did the right thing; it's all for the best".

Get some professional help, while you still can. You are ONE SICK PUPPY.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.


Sorry to burst your collective "horrified" bubble, but any adoption would have had the standard background check and attorney involvement. Regardless of the method used to initiate the adoption procedure, the result would have been legal.

But that wouldn't be possible to accomplish in the 9 days that they had before the rollover. They wanted a GI family to adopt him "ASAP."

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.


When are you going to listen? IT IS MY OPINION.

I understand that, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Still, the fact remains that the grandmother acted in a manner that was potentially illegal and possibly dangerous to the child. I was simply asking how, in your opinion, this could be a "better job" than the government would do.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.



I am a regular on this forum. I live in Wisconsin. My wife and I have adopted 2 children (one from US, one from India). We are well familiar with Wisconsin adoption laws. They are about the strictest in the nation. I can assure you that Wisconsin will not allow anything to happen which is not in the best interests of the child.

Now, as I understand it, the child and the birth mother is living with the Olson family. That means the child is legally in the care of the birth mother. No adoption has taken place yet. Before an adoption can take place, there needs to be a home study of the adoptive parents. Before a child can be placed in a home on a conditional basis prior to formalizing the adoption, the home has to be licensed as a legal foster care home. Wisconsin also requires frequent visits with social workers at various steps in the process.

Please do not complain to the state of Wisconsin. Think about it. While this child is with the birth mother, she is the one making all the decisions. At this point, if you want to complain to anyone, complain to her.

And yes, do relax a bit.

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), January 03, 2000.


"Duh", you live up to your handle.

WHY DO YOU THINK WE GOT INVOLVED? And WHY DIDN'T YOU, along with the REST of you "goodie-goodies"?

Bottom line: you people are ALL TALK, but when it comes right down to it, YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED!

Your type of person makes me SICK. God is watching you. How will you fare, when it's YOUR turn to be judged?

Hmmmm?

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.


WHY DO YOU THINK WE GOT INVOLVED? And WHY DIDN'T YOU, along with the REST of you "goodie-goodies"?

Dennis, you seem to continue to feel that people are attacking you. They are not. Thus, your extreme defensive attitude makes no sense.

You did the RIGHT THING, Dennis. Nobody is arguing that. Those of us here DID get involved the best that we could with suggestions, all of which involved legal means to take care of the child. This included keeping the child for the time being. This was rejected by the couple and they continued to express their urgency to get the baby adopted.

If you hadn't come along, Dennis, the baby could have been in serious trouble, along with the mother and the grandparents.

Bottom line: you people are ALL TALK, but when it comes right down to it, YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED!

The fact that we were unable to assist as you did does not make our advice any less important or useful, or make the couples actions any less dangerous for the child.

Your type of person makes me SICK. God is watching you. How will you fare, when it's YOUR turn to be judged?

Again, I hope you're not treating your new guests like this. It would also be very damaging to a troubled 15 year old girl and her newborn infant.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.


Duh,

It seems that in your History of the World, the government has always been around to make the "wise" choice in these delicate matters. Only since FDR. I suppose that the 7000 year history of maternal wisdom counts for nothing in your book. In your jaded view, "Government Knows Best".

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


Again, I hope you're not treating your new guests like this. It would also be very damaging to a troubled 15 year old girl and her newborn infant.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE that! You can't attack the issue directly, so you make oblique references to "what we're doing to that poor family". What typical, bleeding heart "do as we say, not as we do" liberal spew. (And I'M a lifelong Democrat! Jeez....)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!

We are a very close knit and loving Christian family. However, I have NO USE for little troll-like creatures such as you. Either STEP UP TO THE PLATE, or SHUT THE HELL UP!

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.


In addition to having been an adopted child, I have three adopted children of my own. They were adopted legally in an open adoption setting from their birthmother. So much for "putting up or shutting up".

Now, regarding my "sense of decorum" in relation to the adoption process: the last time I looked, it was illegal to attempt to give away someone else's child. In other words, if I think you're an unfit parent, I can't just give custody of your child to someone else. Not only is that illegal, it is morally wrong. If you think that's a decorum issue, then you need a lot of mental help in addition to the legal aid you are going to need.

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.


It seems that in your History of the World, the government has always been around to make the "wise" choice in these delicate matters. Only since FDR. I suppose that the 7000 year history of maternal wisdom counts for nothing in your book. In your jaded view, "Government Knows Best".

No, in my view, Government knows better than a woman who will offer her newborn grandson to complete strangers on the internet.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE that! You can't attack the issue directly, so you make oblique references to "what we're doing to that poor family". What typical, bleeding heart "do as we say, not as we do" liberal spew. (And I'M a lifelong Democrat! Jeez....)

Dennis, as I have already said countless times, you did the RIGHT THING by taking in the child. Have you not read any of this???? I don't know why you still insist on being so defensive.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!

And I don't understand the evil, Milne-like laugh here either. Do you think this is funny? Perhaps you do, but then, why would you be so defensive?

We are a very close knit and loving Christian family. However, I have NO USE for little troll-like creatures such as you. Either STEP UP TO THE PLATE, or SHUT THE HELL UP!

Again, you are not reading. We had made suggestions which we feel were in the best interests of the child, the mother, and the grandparents. Clearly, they were not of the caliber that you were able to provide. Does this mean that our suggestions were worthless? If so, then I disagree. Everyone helps in their own way, Dennis, and although you clearly saved this child and his family from great harm, I see no reason why you should get so defensive about it.

-- (duh@duh.duh), January 03, 2000.


I must agree with Duh on this one. A woman who would PUT SOMEONE ELSES CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION ON THE INTERNET is little better than the people who left their disabled son at the hospital with a note and his blanket.

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadopteed@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.

>>I must agree with Duh on this one. A woman who would PUT SOMEONE ELSES CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION ON THE INTERNET is little better than the people who left their disabled son at the hospital with a note and his blanket.<<

well, apparently not...seems the idea worked pretty well if it got a terrific family like the Olson's to help. kudos to all involved...

-- eubie (crisis@pregnancy.com), January 03, 2000.


Horrified,

Apples and oranges! Now you're equating this situation with a blatant example of neglect and child endangerment. That argument is BS, and you know it. Very, very few parents who find themselves in the position of having to put their children up for adoption are like the heartless monsters you're talking about. Get real!!

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


That's the thing. She DIDN'T put her child up for adoption, and neither did her parents. The child's GRANDPARENTS made a posting soliciting an adoption on a computer bulletin board. This situation was NOTHING like a legal adoption.

-- Absolutely Horrified (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.

Uh, folks? Lay off the "monster" labels, OK?

Here's a little bit of reading: Abandoned Boy Case Stuns Advocates

...Caring for a disabled child is a "lifelong responsibility," said Stephen Sheridan, executive director of the United Cerebral Palsy Association of Philadelphia and Vicinity.

"It doesn't go away. It's early in the morning until late at night every day of the week, every week of the year. If you do that morning and night every day of your life, it could be awfully draining," he said. ..

It is to laugh. Working 60-hour weeks for a few months could be said to be "awfully draining". Caring for a disabled child 7/24 makes that look like a vacation.

All of you parroting the "shocked" media party line on this story:

Ever cared for a severely (or even partially) disabled child, knowing that it could go one for years, even decades? Ever done the 24-hour watch, catching sleep in shifts? Spent a week or so in NICU with your child "tubed up" and looking like something out of a science-fiction flick? Ever carried that around with you AND tried to stay productive at work AND tried to keep your other kids from feeling like orphans AND tried to keep your marriage from coming apart at the seams from the stress?

If not, please just keep your opinions to yourself, or at least do a bit more research. You have no clue what happens to one's soul and mind during this ordeal. None.

My child is now a teen and is doing quite well, but my wife and I were changed forever. We were strengthened, for the most part, even though my wife has never quite recovered her health. Other couples with whom we became acquainted did not fare anywhere near as well. Caring for a disabled child can be a very destructive experience (and frankly the so-called support services used up almost as much energy as they provided us.)

Please be very careful where you paste those labels.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), January 03, 2000.


One of our adopted children has CP. I can relate.

However, I find it very difficult to have sympathy for the couple who abandoned their son since A) the husband is a CEO and B) the wife doesn't work outside the home and never has and C) they can more than afford round the clock nursing.

-- Absolutely Horrified (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.


DeeEmBee,

The "monsters" in question are those parents who simply dump the child, disabled or not. I hope that makes it a little clearer.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 03, 2000.


Horrified -

And your difficulty in having sympathy for them makes them "monsters", or does it simply make them people whose actions you do not quite understand? CEOs stress out (sometimes fatally) all the time. Stay-at-home moms who reportedly have visiting nurses steal from them aren't exactly kicking back, it seems.

TM -

Please read the article. They did not "dump" Steven; they placed him in the one place where he was guaranteed quality care. He was not left on an ice floe to die - he was surrounded by medical professionals.

Their actions were desperate and very unwise, but they are not monsters.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), January 03, 2000.


The bottom line, IMO:

The grandparents were operating under extreme stress, as they felt that the rollover would bring severe, IMMEDIATE problems to the U.S. Their "bug-out" home, obtained literally in the last three - four weeks of 1999, had no power or running water, and was heated with an inadequate woodstove.

They felt that their daughter and her newborn needed a better environment than they could provide. They did NOT want to turn them over to the Gestapo, er, um, the State (zieg heil!)

They had NO FAMILY in the region. They wanted the best for their newborn grandson. Did they make the right decision? Who knows? That's not for you (or me) to judge. I stepped in to make sure that the new little family was properly cared for, and the baby, if placed out for adoption, would have it done properly and legally.

We ALL make mistakes in high-stress situations. These folks felt that it was LITERALLY a life-and-death situation, and wanted the baby to have the best possible chance at survival.

Do I agree that they did the right thing? PERSONALLY, I feel that the "adoption" post was made in undue haste. Perhaps something worded to the effect of "emergency, temporary care for newborn" would have been more appropriate.

But I am SURE that some of you "people" would STILL wish to have them dragged off and executed. For you INTOLERANT BIGOTS, my primary thought is....

May you burn in Hell...

As Jesus said, "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone...."

Nuf said. I strongly suggest that the more intolerant and judgemental among you contact your clergy, or some other mental health professional at the EARLIEST opportunity. I think you may well be OBSESSING on side-issues to an UNHEALTHY degree.

"What if...."; "They should've...."; "It's not right..."; "Arrest them..."

You people need some SERIOUS therapy. God help you.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.


St. Dennis the model Christian said-

"But I am SURE that some of you "people" would STILL wish to have them dragged off and executed. For you INTOLERANT BIGOTS, my primary thought is....

May you burn in Hell...

As Jesus said, "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone...."

Nuf said. I strongly suggest that the more intolerant and judgemental among you contact your clergy, or some other mental health professional at the EARLIEST opportunity. I think you may well be OBSESSING on side-issues to an UNHEALTHY degree.

"What if...."; "They should've...."; "It's not right..."; "Arrest them..."

You people need some SERIOUS therapy. God help you.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000. "

I think it's interesting that nobody said anything about having the grandparents executed or even arrested, except for you. I think that speaks volumes about why soliciting strangers to take care of your child over an on-line forum is a bad idea.

If the family really equated adoption agencies with "the gestapo", why did they initially try to have a traditional adoption?

If you really equate adoption agencies with "the gestapo", then why do you keep saying that an adoption will be done "legally and properly" at some future point?

I must say, I'm impressed with the juxtaposition of hyperbole in your post. First you call everyone who disagrees with you "INTOLERANT BIGOTS" [sic], then you say, "May you burn in Hell,", then you try to cover yourself in the name of Christ and you say, "As Jesus said, "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone...." " I guess casting the second stone gets a big thumbs up from JC, right? Of course, you also said, "Did they make the right decision? Who knows? That's not for you (or me) to judge." So your message is, "no one on this board can judge this situation, but I alone am capable of reading your mind, deciding whether you have a hidden agenda and what that might be, and deciding who should burn in Hell for all eternity based on their response to one issue," That pretty much sums it up, right?

So much for a good, Christian home.

"I strongly suggest that the more intolerant and judgemental among you contact your clergy, or some other mental health professional at the EARLIEST opportunity. I think you may well be OBSESSING on side- issues to an UNHEALTHY degree. "

Gee, Dennis, if you think expressing concern for the well-being of a child is a side issue, I'd hate to see what you consider a central issue.

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.


This is NOT a good thing! The mother and grandparents of this poor child should be locked up for child endangerment. What kind of a moron would give SOMEONE ELSE'S child to complete strangers based on whether or not those strangers had MREs and colloidal silver?

-- Adult Adoptee (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000.

---------------

Now, what were you saying about "nobody calling for imprisonment"?

And no, it is *I* who equate ANY State Childrens' "services" with the Gestapo. That's what they are. Too many families' lives have been sacrificed on the altar of that horrid bureaucracy. This family is made up of HUMAN BEINGS, and you have NO RIGHT to insert yourselves into their private lives and destroy them.

I don't care about how you "feel you have the right", because you have "been involved" due to the original post. The problem has been solved. The family is getting the care they need. I did NOT post any new threads on this. YOU PEOPLE DID. Christian or not, I can only take SO MUCH hypocritical self-righteousness from the "peanut gallery".

You have NO LIVES of your own, so you INSIST upon inserting yourselves into others'. If it destroys families, well, that's just "too bad", because YOU were "right". You know, if the mother had had an abortion, we wouldn't even be HAVING this little flame war. Perhaps you should stuff THAT factoid into your TINY little brains.

People like you are a prime reason that young mothers-to-be ABORT their children; at least they only have to listen to vile spew like yours while at the abortion clinic. After that, you leave them alone.

I find people like you to be the most vile form of life on the planet. You CLAIM to be SO concerned, yet when someone actively assists a young family like that, it's somehow "not enough". Everyone involved needs to be jailed for some "crime" against the child. So, the baby gets to go to foster-care, and be traumatized by the Gestapo, so you self-righteous sons of bitches can feel good about yourselves.

Please pardon my language, but you can, collectively, BITE MY BUTT.

Now, PISS OFF, and leave this young family ALONE. Go rescue a puppy from the pound, or spend a day volunteering at a homeless shelter. Get a life.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 03, 2000.


Dennis the reasonable said:

"And no, it is *I* who equate ANY State Childrens' "services" with the Gestapo. That's what they are. Too many families' lives have been sacrificed on the altar of that horrid bureaucracy. This family is made up of HUMAN BEINGS, and you have NO RIGHT to insert yourselves into their private lives and destroy them. "

So, legal adoption with third party oversight is bad, but soliciting strangers to take your grandchild is good? I can see it now, "It was necessary to destroy the family in order to save them,"

Just so you know, legal adoption builds families, it doesn't destroy them.

"I don't care about how you "feel you have the right", because you have "been involved" due to the original post."

Those aren't my words, they're yours.

"The problem has been solved. The family is getting the care they need. I did NOT post any new threads on this. YOU PEOPLE DID. Christian or not, I can only take SO MUCH hypocritical self- righteousness from the "peanut gallery"."

Are the grandparents still planning on giving the child to strangers they solicit on the internet, sight unseen? Then things are NOT okay. If you think that is a sign of a stable family who's being taken care of, then you are the one who needs help.

"You have NO LIVES of your own, so you INSIST upon inserting yourselves into others'."

You're just mad because I'm right.

"If it destroys families, well, that's just "too bad", because YOU were "right"."

Explain how giving someone else's child to strangers on the internet would preserve a family?

"You know, if the mother had had an abortion, we wouldn't even be HAVING this little flame war. Perhaps you should stuff THAT factoid into your TINY little brains."

I'm glad the mother didn't have an abortion. I'm also glad that she recognizes that she can't care for her child. I am not glad that her parents think it's okay to advertise the child on the web.

"People like you are a prime reason that young mothers-to-be ABORT their children; at least they only have to listen to vile spew like yours while at the abortion clinic. After that, you leave them alone."

Yeah, right Dennis. If grandparents could only give their grandchildren to complete strangers without a background check or any kind of oversight whatsoever, then no one would have an abortion. Sure.

"I find people like you to be the most vile form of life on the planet."

Funny, I find people who treat children like animals to be the vilest form of life on the planet. I'm sorry you seem to think so highly of them.

"You CLAIM to be SO concerned, yet when someone actively assists a young family like that, it's somehow "not enough"."

It's not YOU, Dennis. It's the grandparents, who tried to give their grandchild away as though it were a puppy.

"Everyone involved needs to be jailed for some "crime" against the child."

So child abandonment isn't a crime?

"So, the baby gets to go to foster-care, and be traumatized by the Gestapo, so you self-righteous sons of bitches can feel good about yourselves."

Hmmmm- foster care and legal adoption is more traumatizing than being left on a virtual doorstep or worse yet, auctioned off like a beef cow? You really have no perspective on this, do you?

-- Absolutely Horrified (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 04, 2000.


The funny thing "Horrified", is that YOU MAKE MY POINTS FOR ME! I suppose I should thank you. And in your previous post, you said:

I think it's interesting that nobody said anything about having the grandparents executed or even arrested, except for you.

I responded with:

This is NOT a good thing! The mother and grandparents of this poor child should be locked up for child endangerment. What kind of a moron would give SOMEONE ELSE'S child to complete strangers based on whether or not those strangers had MREs and colloidal silver?

-- Adult Adoptee (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 03, 2000. How CONVENIENT that you somehow FAIL TO RESPOND to that point, nor to many of the others I've raised. YOU saw the original thread, AND my response on this one, and left out any response.

You said: So, legal adoption with third party oversight is bad, but soliciting strangers to take your grandchild is good?

No, those are YOUR words. *I* said that "Childrens' Services" agengencies are like the Gestapo, and you can find MILLIONS of parents that agree completely. "Und exactly WHO vill be approvink of zis matter? Your papers are NOT in order! Vill you come vis us please?"

Unfortunately, everything government touches, it destroys. Since you are OBVIOUSLY a raving liberal (probably make Ted Kennedy look like Pat Robertson), to YOU, government is kind, all-knowing, and all- caring. What a SHAME you're so ingnorant of the real world.

Any "oversight" COULD be done by a private agency (but I guess not in the People's Republik of Wiskonsin), who would do just as good a job, but without the "official" intrusion into the lives of the families. I'll take a private organization over a government one ANY DAY, but that's just me.

Are the grandparents still planning on giving the child to strangers they solicit on the internet, sight unseen?

That was NEVER their intention. You've been reading too many pulp novels.

"You have NO LIVES of your own, so you INSIST upon inserting yourselves into others'."

You're just mad because I'm right.

"If it destroys families, well, that's just "too bad", because YOU were "right"."

Thank you for supporting my position so succinctly.

I'm glad the mother didn't have an abortion. I'm also glad that she recognizes that she can't care for her child. I am not glad that her parents think it's okay to advertise the child on the web.

Your opinions aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. What you're REALLY glad of is that you have someone's LIFE to ruin. I'm surprised that spittle isn't running out the side of your mouth at the prospect. And your last sentence is REALLY what this is about. YOU don't think it's proper DECORUM to use the net for an adoption. SCREW YOU, and your puritanical lilttle mind. Many internet adoption services are on the web now. Why don't you go harrass THEM for awhile?

"Everyone involved needs to be jailed for some "crime" against the child."

So child abandonment isn't a crime?

I thought you weren't calling for the IMPRISONMENT of anyone here. You said so above.

You are a hypocritical JACKASS. Now go save that puppy, and GET A JOB. The rest of us have LIVES to live.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 04, 2000.


"No, those are YOUR words. *I* said that "Childrens' Services" agengencies are like the Gestapo, and you can find MILLIONS of parents that agree completely. "Und exactly WHO vill be approvink of zis matter? Your papers are NOT in order! Vill you come vis us please?" "

Nazi accusations aside, you will find millions of parents AND children who's lives have been saved by Child Services. I

"Unfortunately, everything government touches, it destroys. Since you are OBVIOUSLY a raving liberal (probably make Ted Kennedy look like Pat Robertson), to YOU, government is kind, all-knowing, and all- caring. What a SHAME you're so ingnorant of the real world."

I like how you put up a straw man and then take it down. That's cute. I'm actually a registered, pro-life, NRA member Republican.

"Any "oversight" COULD be done by a private agency (but I guess not in the People's Republik of Wiskonsin), who would do just as good a job, but without the "official" intrusion into the lives of the families. I'll take a private organization over a government one ANY DAY, but that's just me. "

Actually, all adoptions require some government oversight before being finalized, even private adoptions. This is to ensure that children aren't being sold and that they aren't going to people who've been convicted of child molestation and similar crimes. I'm sure you think this is a bad thing, but come towards the light, Dennis. Anyway, this is a moot point since the family chose to eschew a private adoption in order to try to find someone on the Internet to take their grandchild.

"Are the grandparents still planning on giving the child to strangers they solicit on the internet, sight unseen?

That was NEVER their intention. You've been reading too many pulp novels."

Nope, I read their initial post. Here it is for you: " If anyone well-prepared for Y2K is looking for a healthy infant to adopt with GREAT speed, please contact PRIVATEONE@spinfinder.com very quickly. Below are the details: "

""If it destroys families, well, that's just "too bad", because YOU were "right"."

Thank you for supporting my position so succinctly. "

Now you're putting your words into my mouth. EWWWW! The actual quote was:

Dennis: "If it destroys families, well, that's just "too bad", because YOU were "right"."

Absolutely Horrified: Explain how giving someone else's child to strangers on the internet would preserve a family?

Curious that you've never tried to explain that, you've simply tried to twist my point.

"Your opinions aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. What you're REALLY glad of is that you have someone's LIFE to ruin."

Hmmmm- a safe, legal adoption to people who are known not to have any criminal backgrounds and who are capable of raising, supporting, and loving a child is a way to ruin someone's life? You've been skipping your Lithium again, haven't you?

"And your last sentence is REALLY what this is about. YOU don't think it's proper DECORUM to use the net for an adoption. SCREW YOU, and your puritanical lilttle mind. Many internet adoption services are on the web now. Why don't you go harrass THEM for awhile?"

Actually, I think using the web to promote adoption is a GOOD thing, as long as they are safe, legal adoptions where there are background checks and third-party oversight. This is worlds apart from the original intent of the grandmother, who said," If anyone well- prepared for Y2K is looking for a healthy infant to adopt with GREAT speed, please contact PRIVATEONE@spinfinder.com very quickly. Below are the details,"

"So child abandonment isn't a crime?

I thought you weren't calling for the IMPRISONMENT of anyone here. You said so above. "

Answer the question, Dennis. Is child abandonment a crime? Is it wrong to give a baby to strangers?

"You are a hypocritical JACKASS. Now go save that puppy, and GET A JOB. The rest of us have LIVES to live. "

Actually, aren't YOU the one who's without a job?



-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 04, 2000.


My FINAL response to your spew....

Yes, child abandonment IS a crime. That did NOT happen, did it? So, even though NO CRIME was committed, YOU still think someone should be punished for THINKING about doing something that YOU consider to be a crime. I'm sure the thought police will be here any minute. (Where's George Orwell?)

"If anyone well-prepared for Y2K is looking for a healthy infant to adopt with GREAT speed, please contact PRIVATEONE@spinfinder.com very quickly."

You know, I don't see an actual crime being attempted here. Perhaps some DA might want to weigh in on this one, but an ANNOUNCEMENT on the internet isn't evidence of a criminal act or intent. Again, you're reading too many pulp novels.

And BTW, I'm a computer consultant, and make in the low 6 figures per year. What do YOU do? I go back to work next week, as I'm on vacation for rollover, and as a BUSINESS OWNER, I can do what I damn well please. Perhaps you'd like to review my tax returns?

Now, feel free to rave on, but you'll be talking to yourself, since I'll no longer waste electrons on you. If you're SUPPOSEDLY a Republican ("conservative"?), scan and email me your voter registration card. Feel free to black out all but your name. MY email addy is real. What a shame YOU aren't up to the challenge. I *AM* a lifelong Democrat, just a conservative one, and I have the voter card to PROVE it.

Now, about that JOB..... You know, I'm sure there's a STATE unemployment office in your area.... After all, you LIKE "big government". Republican MY BUTT.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), January 04, 2000.


NOW who's UNEMPLOYED?!?

From http://www.michaelhyatt.com

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 07, 2000.


NOW who's UNEMPLOYED?!?

From http://www.michaelhyatt.comDennis Olson Member posted January 06, 2000 04:11 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- My client canceled my contract without notice. A buddy in the office emailed me Tuesday to say that everyone was talking about us, and how we made the FRONT PAGE of their local paper. Later that afternoon, my agent called to say that the client canceled the contract without warning. What a nice guy that manager was, hmmmm?

Well, now we're totally HOSED, and will soon have severe cashflow probs. (I was off 3 weeks for Christmas & rollover). So, we're already on the edge.

A great way to ring in the new year, huh?

Dennis

Your prayers would sure help here.... Thanks.

-- Absolutely Horrified! (adultadoptee@sickened.com), January 07, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ