jump to navigation

The Power of Words by Dick Sutphen; submitted by Ruth Pace February 18, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Dreams, Inconsistent Angel Things, Lessons in Life.
Tags: ,
comments closed

THE POWER OF WORDS

by Dick Sutphen

Funny how a few words can change your life. I am writing this in a restaurant, a couple hours before conducting a workshop. Looking at the menu, I contemplate the cheeseburger, a chicken pasta plate and broiled fish with fresh vegetables.

Words ring through my mind: “Every time you decide what to eat, you are choosing life or death.”

The cheeseburger is hormones and red meat. Pasta is white flour. Fish and veggies win.

Because I am eating alone and have nothing better to do, I start to think about other words that have changed my life.

Whenever you are upset with anyone else, you are seeking approval or control. (You desired the other person to approve of your actions, or you were trying to control their actions or reactions. When you didn’t get what you wanted, you got upset. Your expectations were in conflict with what is.)

Everything you say, with the exception of some statements of fact, and some legitimate questions, is an attempt to make yourself more important or to obtain sympathy.

It is your resistance to what is that causes your suffering.

Argue for your limitations and they shall be yours. (Richard Bach)

Where do your words not match your deeds?

Your body believes everything you say, so watch your words. (Patti Conklin)

When you act with intention you create karma.

Wisdom erases karma.

There is nothing that cannot be healed by love.

One of the prices of freedom is to give up boredom.

Thoughts are things and they create.

Your suffering is also the source of your awakening.

Don’t get to be right and lose the game.

Blame is an expression of self-pity.

Wake Up!

http://www.dicksutphen.com/

Cat KIDNAPS pups February 16, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Dreams, Inconsistent Angel Things, Lessons in Life.
Tags: , , , , , ,
comments closed

“What’s going to happen to these pups when they open their eyes and think their mother is a cat? Will it lead to a dysfunctional adult doghood?”
Joan Wheeler and other Angry Adoptees – get over yourselves!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BmU49XG7w&feature=player_embedded

I know what needs to be done now. The cat should made to suffer for her crime of nursing a bunch of unwanted discarded pups. She saved their lives, but that doesn’t matter – she adopted, nay, KIDNAPPED them. She must be made to suffer.

and the birth mother – the dog who turned her back on these poor pups – she is a bitch.

and any older pups she may have whelped in earlier years should also be made to suffer – for their crime of having had suckled from their birth mother’s mammary gland. No, it matters not that they had nothing to do with the cat – they are the birth siblings of the pups – and they are just as guilty as the cat and the birth mother bitch.

As Dr. Smith was quite fond of saying: “The pain, oh the pain.” Robot: “Will Robinson, put him out of his pain.” – Next time cat, leave them to starve. They will be dead, but they will be happy.

Who writes Joan Wheeler’s reviews on Amazon.com? February 15, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
comments closed
by Gert McQueen, February 15, 2011
 – with additional commentary by Ruth Pace
 
I find the following ‘review’, on Amazon, interesting in that it does not actually go into much detail as to what actually is in the book. Moreover I find it a bit interesting because of the words that are used. It reads more like Joan has written this review, as she recycles her own words and story-line, with a few of Rene Hoksbergen’s words thrown in for good measure. (Ruth’s note: Does she have his permission to do this? Why doesn’t he write his own review for Amazon.com? Why is Joan plagiarizing him?)
 
 **** 
A Compelling Account of Adoption & Reunion, February 5, 2011
By 
 
This review is from: Forbidden Family (Paperback)

Joan Wheeler has written a compelling, moving, and often harrowing account detailing her life experiences as an adoptee who at age 18 was contacted by a sister whose existence was unknown to Joan. The subsequent reunion with her birth family was emotion-charged and turbulent with profound effects on Joan and her adoptive family, as well as Joan’s children later on. The book also recounts Joan Wheeler’s activism for adoptees’ rights and her efforts and suggestions to reform the adoption system in order to spare others the frustration and suffering she has endured.

**** 
 
Here are recycled words that have been seen in other places written by Joan Wheeler and/or Rene Hoksbergen:
 
“compelling, moving, harrowing account, age 18 contacted by sister, unknown to Joan, reunion, was emotion-charged and turbulent with profound effects on Joan and her adoptive family, as well as Joan’s children later on, activism for adoptee’s rights, efforts and suggestions to reform, in order to spare others the frustration and suffering she has endured”
 
Gosh, that’s pretty much the entire review!
 
The name of the reviewer is a reference to what the Cheshire Cat said to Alice ‘We’re all mad here’.
 
Now everyone that knows Joan knows that she frequently is “all mad here” meaning she is all (always) angry here. Joan wants the whole damn world to know that she is ‘all mad here’. She is proud of her anger. She has referred to herself as an angry adoptee.
 Now, All Mad Here doesn’t have a profile nor any other reviews, so why is it necessary for this reviewer to have such a hidden name and city? Why the need to hid? If you like the book then you really shouldn’t have any problem with letting the world know that you like and support the book and the author. But, if you are a coward and just want to be sneaky and cute, fine, hide behind something but you are not doing the book nor author any real favors. People see behind that mask! Anyone who can not put their real name behind a review and stand for what they have to say, have just shown us that they NEVER read the book or just did Joan a favor, or is Joan herself.
 
Now, Queen City is a reference to Buffalo NY. This is another clue that points to some friend of Joan’s or Joan herself. Does she really think she is pulling the wool over her blood sisters’ eyes? Doesn’t she know that we know what ‘Queen City’ means!
 
Queen City came about because in its heyday, Buffalo was the second largest city in New York State. The largest being The Big Apple – New York City of course. Buffalo New York has several ‘nicknames’: The City of Good Neighbors, The Queen City, The City of No Illusions, The Nickel City, Queen City of the Lakes, City of Light.
 
So why the need to be cute and clever here? Why not just come out and say Buffalo and be done with it? Not, Joan, she likes to play games and twist things around. Its just a reflection of her twisted mind.
 
 So, will the real All Mad Here stand up? Better still, is there any person out there that has DEEPLY READ the book and will stand up and  give a review for it? Hey, there’s lots of material on this blog that you can reference in your review…go for it…will someone write a REAL review of this lousy book!
 
Ruth’s note: Actually, there were 2 real book reviews. One was written by another adoptee who fairly gushed over the book, which is to be expected from another Angry Adoptee. These people are so full of anger over their rotten adoptions they can’t see beyond their anger and just blindly condemn any act of adoption. Therefore, Joan is a heroine to them, because Joan’s book is nothing but an over-dramatization of Joan’s tortured life. The Angry Adoptee who wrote the review, Heather, is another person who didn’t Deep Read the book. Since Heather is against adoption, to her, Joan’s book is the best thing since sliced bread in thechronicles of anti-adoption. There is no need to Deep Read the book. Because to the Angry Adoptees, anything written against adoption is held to be Gospel Truth. If they were to approach the book with an open mind and Deep Read the book, they would catch the contradictions and inconsistencies contained in this book.  I think that at this point, they don’t want to admit that they were duped by Joan, for fear of appearing foolish. Again, they can’t see past their Anger to realize that if they admit to themselves that they have been led around like sheep, real growth would occur. But they, like Joan, are afraid of growth. They have their Anger, and don’t want to let go of it. 
 
The other true book review was written by myself. I used my own name. I didn’t put down my city. I had put down “inside a letter box.” Which is a reference to John Lennon’s line in “Across the Universe.” I can’t remember why I did that, it was done over a year ago. And I don’t remember exactly what I wrote, outside of the truthful following: that this book is nothing but a vehicle for Joan to exact her revenge on anyone in her life who ever angered her. Most of the book is just one putdown after another of people who had nothing to do with her adoption.
 
And I reiterated my father’s words to me about the book: IT BELONGS IN THE TRASH!
AND THAT’S THE TRUTH!

In her book of lies, called Forbidden Family, Joan Wheeler’s statements about my father, are false! February 14, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

by Gert McQueen, February 14, 2011

Having just recently died on January 11, 2011 my father’s life needs to be reclaimed and remembered for what it was, an honorable life. Joan Wheeler’s versions of my father’s life, that she needed to create, to substantiate her inner reality and make it into her ‘truth’ which she published, is not a truthful portrayal of my father.

Joan’s truth is NOT the truth.

Joan Wheeler has gone to great lengths to present a ‘life’ history of my father, her birth father, and this life history is not based on any facts of his life but presented solely for the ‘convenience’ of Joan’s ‘story-telling’. Joan’s story has an agenda to it, and as such, her presentations of key individuals are geared for that agenda. Joan’s book is long, way too long and because of its length, as well as being disjointed and perverse, can greatly confuse the average reader.

It is not an easy task to show where the agenda is, how it is perverse and how the lies are incorporated because the author, Joan Wheeler, is a manipulator. She is counting on the average reader to be so overwhelmed with her bullshit that they won’t see the inconsistencies and the lack of proper protocol in her so called professional social work assessments. She is able to blind a reader with her bullshit, but anyone who really knows her and the people she presents are quite capable of seeing past the bullshit. So I hope that I am able to point these inconsistencies out without confusing the reader anymore than necessary. I hope that the reader of my assessment of Joan Wheeler’s work understands that I have indeed read, deeply, this entire book of lies. I could write a book on this disgusting book of lies called Forbidden Family.

In my study of the lies of Joan’s statements, as they relate to the falsehoods about my father, I have pointed out in several other posts, that may or may not have gotten on the blog yet, many inaccuracies but here I am going to address only certain issues within Chapter 38, pgs 482-566. We must remember that Joan Wheeler says she is a social worker and that this chapter, called ‘A Social Work Assessment’, is her attempt to show that she can put together a ‘social work assessment’, sort of like doing a research paper. In my mind she failed! It is a piece of junk!

According to Joan, the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’, that is Joan’s adoption, are very very important to Joan’s agenda! That is the whole purpose for Joan’s lies…for if she can present her bullshit and pass it off as the truth, than she has her research paper and her agenda. But, as her bullshit is exposed, for the lies that they are, Joan’s story is worthless! And she is worthless!

Joan’s assessment is limited and self-serving because it is only presented as proof for her agenda. Joan offers for the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’, her self, natural mother, natural father, stepmother (who btw has absolutely NOTHING to do with Joan’s adoption and is technically NOT Joan’s stepmother but is only Joan’s natural father’s currently wife/widow), adoptive father and adoptive mother. I repeat: Joan’s own title here contains these words ‘main people in my adoption’. My father’s current wife/widow had absolutely NOTHING to do with Joan’s adoption. And by omission, Joan does NOT have any histories of her siblings, who were most definitely and most importantly part of the family dynamics related to her separation and adoption out of our family.

One of the main reasons (the agenda) that Joan includes MY stepmother is because it is part of Joan’s agenda…that my father had more economic advantages than her adoptive parent (mother), later in life, which has nothing to do with the premise of this assessment in the first place, that being that of the ‘main people in my adoption’. You cannot shift the basis of an assessment at whim! The assessment is either about the adoption or the economic situations in later years not both simultaneously.

Joan’s assessment, also as part of her agenda, attempts to reconcile, in her mind, the differences, that prevented an ‘open adoption’ and at the same time the similarities that could have made possible that ‘open adoption’. The problem is that Joan has not presented the assessments in any coherent manner and does not take into account the facts that two separate family backgrounds were NOT similar in the first place and in the second place any attempt to make them similar makes the ‘assessment’ null and voided! Another problem with this assessment is that it is full of extensive use of Joan’s own editorial comments. A social work assessment, by nature is to be unbiased; it is to present facts free of and from any personal editorial comment. Therefore this whole assessment is null and voided! She failed! This work is junk!

But to make sure of its importance, Joan instructs the reader, on pg 482, that ‘this assessment is complicated to read, but necessary to understand.’ Why is that statement necessary, because, Joan is TELLING the readers, don’t worry, just read it and take my word for it all, it is most important…in other words…just listen to my bullshit and don’t worry that I’m just a talking head without a brain! This whole business of her assessment CAN NOT be understood because it is totally biased for one purpose only…to prove that Joan is CORRECT, when in fact she is totally INCORRENT. This assessment is not the work of a social worker presenting facts. Instead it is a self-serving indictment AGAINST all who ALLOWED her to be adopted.

***

Joan’s has greatly dishonored my father by not telling the truth of his life. She not only lies about his life but also is very ‘selective’ in what aspects of his life are important to her agenda.

Examples of how Joan’s truth is not the truth, and how she has an agenda to promote, is in her constant telling the reader, in the book and elsewhere, that her adoptive mother and her natural father are ‘dying’ or ‘had a turn for the worst’ or had this or that illness and hospitalization. Actually, the truth is that Joan has a great deal of illnesses herself, and has a great fear of death. She has a great sense for the melodrama; her constant refrain is that some parent is on their deathbed. On pg 478, in one of her rants against the government she says that ‘the government better hurry up, my father is dying.’ The book was not published until November of 2009 so at the time that she writes this statement ‘father is dying’, he wasn’t in any immediate state of dying. He was dying then, as we all are, one day at a time. But Joan’s need for the melodrama makes it sound as if death was imminent. And it continues on…pg 553 with a date of 2008 in the text, Joan tells us, that she told a nurse, who was wheeling her adoptive mother back into her room, that ‘my father was dying, too’!

And Joan’s gives us the very reasons why she speaks with such melodrama, because it results in her gaining some kind of sympathy, ‘the nurse compassionately called out, both parents at once!’ Joan has to tell the readers that she didn’t fully explain the situation to the nurse, that those ‘both parents’ were not married to each other nor that she ‘had a third parent who was aging, too’…namely the wife of the natural father. This is how Joan manipulates people…via clever use of words and phrases.

Again, on pg 556, with a date of April 2009, she states, ‘both of my parents were dying’ and again on pg 560, ‘both of my remaining parents are near death’ and even greater melodramatics ‘my natural father will die believing I rejected him’. And as usual, Joan does not give the whole story and omits her own misdeeds and wrongful words. No, long before Dad actually died, January 2011, he knew that Joan was a mentally disturbed person who wrote a book of lies and he finally had reached his limit with her and he rejected her.

***

Through out the ages, individual persons make memorable lives for themselves, their families and for future generations to remember. The only thing that remains after death is your refrain (reputation). My father, like so many of his generation, was a ‘self-made’ man. This quality is certainly not limited to my father or his generation, but I am speaking here of my father.

My father’s obituary, which he wrote himself, ought to have ‘some’ elements of truth in it, after all who would know about a person’s life but the person himself! So we shall start with some basics. Some of the italics are directly from the obituary.

My father was an Army veteran of World War II. In the army he was a technician fourth grade within a Fighter Squadron, stateside from 1943 to 1946.

I worked as a civilian employee at a Veterans Administration Hospital and at an US Army base for over 22 years and know just a little about what troops go through during and after service. My father’s military service is no small thing; it means that he had ‘training’ and was ‘supporting’ the troops before, during and after their training and fighting, during a major world war!

But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions my father’s military history, in this assessment or anywhere else in the book!

My father earned a GED and studied drafting for a year in technical school.

I am not aware of what conditions existed in my father’s life that prevented him from finishing high school or when he received a GED but ‘earned a GED’ implies that ‘work’ was done and indeed had to be done to get a General Education Degree. My father married in 1946 and started a family in 1947 and he worked to support the growing family. In 1952/53, alone, my father was raising a family, working full time in a bike repair store and going to technical school part time to learn drafting…that is no easy task.

But Joan NEVER mentions any of this in the book!

My father worked as a junior engineer for Buffalo’s Department of Public Works from 1953 to 1988, that’s 35 years! And of course, he had a good retirement. He earned it!

My father was a civil servant; he worked within a major city department. His job depended on the knowledge and skills that he had to perform a certain job. There were years where my father worked two jobs to support his family! In the course of my working life I too was a civil servant within the federal government and know a little of how demanding it is to obtain and keep a job for that long. I too have a good retirement. I earned it too! Many people earn good retirements and my father deserved his pension.

But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions this! Joan only tells about her own lack of employment and her own low-income status. She too could have had a long-term employment with a good retirement, if only she ever went to work in the first place!

My father had many interests including painting, playing chess and reading.

My father taught my brother and I the game of chess. Who taught my father? He taught himself as he taught himself how to paint! Whenever I visited him we played. I played 5 games of chess with my Dad in 2009 and again in 2010 and he never allowed me to win; I had to win a game by skill! I know something about painting as I paint myself and it is not an easy thing to accomplish, it takes patience to read and study techniques and time to master the techniques. One of my father’s paintings, a replica of a Greek icon of Jesus, is in residence at the Greek Orthodox Church in Buffalo N. Y.

Reading, I have many memories, since I was little, of seeing my father reading, late at night. He had a large library and we shared the thrills of reading many of the same authors! Some of the last gifts I received from him were two of his great books on painting and a complete set of Sherlock Holmes, leather bound! In the last two years of his life I shipped many books to him that he did not have and he enjoyed reading them all!

All of my siblings, not Joan for she was not raised as a sibling and was not privy to what was part of everyday life with my father, are avid readers. It is well known that when one reads and reads and reads, one becomes quite well rounded in all areas of life, for reading begets worldliness!

But, it matters not what interests my father had per se. Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions anything about them!

My father also did some world traveling in his retirement; particularly France, Greece and England, and he studied languages. My father was a worldly man. He studied and involved himself in other cultures. He was a self-styled and self-made man.

But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions this! She probably is not a wide reader for her book shows the lack of well roundedness and worldliness!

My father was very active in his church.

Joan doesn’t even know that Dad was Greek Orthodox! She maintains that he was Roman Catholic, which she insults at every opportunity. Joan never gets anything correct. 

On pg 294 she states that she confided, about her marriage problems, to her father, stepmother and adoptive mother and said that all three were Roman Catholic! She also states that the advice that all three gave her were based on ‘Jesus would help’ which she quickly pointed out, to the readers, that ‘they ignored that I wasn’t a Christian.’ The point being, that no matter what anyone said to Joan, if she disagreed, she would not tell you pointedly but instead kept it to herself as a another reason why everyone is out to get her.

Dad had left the Roman Church in the late 70s when the Roman church would not recognize his marriage to a ‘divorced’ woman, his wife. She was always of the Greek Orthodox tradition and Dad turned to the Greek Church. That is the church that both of them were very active in.

As I’ve pointed out here, Joan’s truth is just NOT the truth.

***

Now let’s get to her assessment and it’s falsehoods and compare them with the truth. Italics here indicate quotes from the book pages 487 – 495.

While I am not qualified to speak about Joan’s adoptive parents as to any accuracy in the assessments, it does seem to me that there is a certain amount of selective bias, by Joan, in what she presents and how she presents it. She must be true to her agenda and if you don’t understand that you will not understand the assessment.

Each person has different segments that she assigns, at her whim. This assessment does not follow proper scientific procedures. Just taking two aspects of this assessment here, Level of Education and Economic Class, she tells us…

For herself:

Level of Education: Two Bachelor Degrees: Art, and Social Work.

She has nothing about what and how many languages for herself but has it for the others. What no high school education? Degrees without the work history to go with them are meaningless. This is presented to show that she is ‘educated’ and therefore has the authority to present this bullshit. Also, what is the purpose of telling us her current educational background or anything else about herself? It has nothing to do with her adoption! This is just a way to keep her agenda going…to show the world that adoption messed up her life! I would ask…who paid for that education that she has? But of course, it was the adoptive parents!

 Economic Class: Born into poverty, raised in working class, when married took care of children while husband worked low pay jobs or was unemployed, divorce transferred back to poverty, trapped in low income temporary jobs, chronic illness in mid-life, disable, limited low income.

This is purely a self-serving assessment! She was NOT born into poverty, her father had a job, and her adoptive father had a job! Raised in working class is neither special nor unusual; it is here purely to establish her own personal assessment. What does her ‘life’ conditions have to do with her adoption? Nothing! She is presenting an agenda…she wants the world to know about her horrible life conditions. This assessment is supposed to be about the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’ NOT the adoptee! What Joan has written here and everything else on this segment of her assessment DOES NOT belong here, for Joan cannot assess herself as one of the ‘main people in my adoption’. Again, this only proves the inconsistencies and wrong-headedness that she has with all persons she is ‘assessing’ and the hidden reasons (agenda) behind it. I will be addressing this further as we go here but for now it is very interesting to note that Joan has painted a picture of herself that is self-limiting with the purpose of proving that adoption DID THIS to her, the adoptee. She has gotten ahead of herself here in an assessment by showing her agenda…this is another proof of the junk science of this ‘social work assessment’.

For my mother:

Level of Education: High school; English only language

Economic Class: Poor, working class, stay at home mother dependent on husband 1950s.

Nothing unusual here except the insistence of Joan to portray parents as ‘poor’, as in inferior to some ‘other’ standard, known only to Joan. Joan really has no conception of what constitutes ‘poor’. My mother’s family was NOT poor. There were long-held jobs within the railroad industry. I well remember large over-flowing dinner tables of food and people! Nothing that I have heard or seen, via pictures, show that my mother’s family was ‘poor’. During the time and culture that my parents lived, it was the ‘norm’, not the exception, for a wife and mother to stay at home raising the children. ‘Dependent on husband’ is another agenda phrase of Joan’s and has nothing to do with the true condition of my parents’ home life or circumstances.

For my father:

Level of Education: High school, night school, English primary language

She doesn’t say, in this assessment, what he went to night school for. It was for drafting. I would think it important to show the ‘upward mobility’ factor, even if that phrase was not in vogue at the time.  If there is a reason to have language as a factor in this assessment it escapes me.

Economic Class: Poor, advanced to working class 1950s advanced to middle-middle class in 1970s, his present wife worked, two-income household.

Again, this ‘assessment’ is tainted by the agenda of Joan Wheeler, who insists that her father was ‘poor’. As I stated above for my mother, my father’s family was NOT poor. My father’s father worked on the railroad, his mother was a cleaning lady (Ruth’s note, she also worked at Dixie’s Hats, designing hats) and there was an uncle who lived with his parents who contributed to the income. My siblings and I lived with my father’s parents when we were young or were taken care of by them, when my mother was ill. I remember many large over-flowing dinner tables of food and people! Nothing that I have heard or seen, via pictures, show that my father’s family was ‘poor’. My father’s own status, after the war, was again NOT poor! Anything related to his economic class after 1956 is not and should not be a factor in this or any other assessment, for after 1956, he was no longer Joan’s father and his life circumstances are irrelevant!

My father’s remarriages, after the death of my mother, which was the reason why Joan, as an infant, was placed out of the family via adoption, have absolutely nothing to do with Joan’s adoption. The mentions of my father’s marriages are only presented to further Joan’s agenda…one, that her natural father had more resources in later life than her adoptive mother and two, that Joan’s siblings had various forms of ‘trauma’ that Joan believes supports her agenda that adoption is harmful. If you do not understand Joan’s agenda you shall never understand her assessments. 

I am NOT presenting my father’s wives here because they have nothing to do with Joan’s adoption and should never have been mentioned in the first place in the book. I shall, in future posts, talk about what was said about these people by Joan and why they never should have been mentioned.

For adoptive father:

Level of Education: Less than 8th grade, night school later in life

So here we again see the mention of ‘night school’ but nothing about what was taken. As stated before I know nothing about the Wheelers but I do know, from pg 465, that this man worked for Dunlop Tires as an electrician.

Economic Class: Poor, working class 1940s-1980. Two-income household 1940s to 1956, one-income household after 1956

So for someone with only an 8th grade education and night school he had obviously learned a trade to support his family, therefore he was NOT poor! The inclusion of this statement, ‘Two-income household 1940s to 1956, one-income household after 1956’ is totally inappropriate for this assessment! It has no bearing on Joan’s adoption, but is only here to further Joan’s agenda…to prove that the adoptive family’s income went down when they adopted, therefore putting them in a lower income bracket from the natural family.

 For adoptive mother:

Level of Education: High school, Polish spoken at the orphanage, English taught but not spoken. Learned to speak English after age 16 when orphanage life ended and she moved back home with her father.

This is a good point to look at the language ‘assessment’ by itself:

self…no language mentioned

natural mother…English only

natural father…English primary language 

adoptive father…no language mentioned

adoptive mother… contains an extensive explanation…Polish spoken at the orphanage, English taught but not spoken. Learned to speak English after age 16 when orphanage life ended and she moved back home with her father.

Why is the parameter of ‘English’ not followed for all and why the variations of the parameter? Why the need for an extensive explanation when something like, perhaps, Polish primary language English secondary, would be more in keeping with the set parameters. Does Joan have a prejudice against Polish as a language and an ethnic group? She certainly says so in many places in the book! What is the purpose behind all this, what is the agenda, what is Joan Wheeler attempting to prove, assign and justify? Could it be some hidden prejudice against her adoptive mother? I believe that is the case, here and elsewhere. Joan Wheeler feels that it is her adoptive mother who is the central figure in all that has happened to her via her adoption. But that is only my opinion.

Returning to the adoptive mother’s ‘assessment’.

 Economic Class: Poor, advanced to working class 1940’s. As a condition to become an adoptive mother, she quit her full-time job as a commercial seamstress, became financially dependent upon her husband. One-income household beginning in 1956, reduced to fixed low income in elder years, 1982-2000s. (Ruth’s note – Joan fails to note that her adoptive parents lived in the inner city at the time of her adoption. In 1957, when the adoption was finalized, they had bought their own house in a northern suburb of Buffalo, and by the 1970’s owned 2 more properties for rental income.)

Ah…see the AGENDA! Joan wrote this assessment in 2009 just before publication of the book and after her attempts to get natural father to give her money to publish the book, fix her car and other things. Joan tells, all in the book and I shall get to it all, about how she sees that the natural father has more than the adoptive mother. Joan describes, in painful details, how the adoptive mother tells Joan that the natural father MUST give her money for book, car, food, etc. On pg 554/555 we read a rant by the adoptive mother about how she and her husband ‘did all the work…paid for the upkeep of his child…he gave you up…we took care of you…my advanced age…fixed income…’ And it goes on and on in greater delusions.

But actually the great agenda, that of the wide disparity of economic security between adoptive mother/daughter and the natural father began many many years before 2009. We see the beginnings come out in 1992 as Joan tells everyone, in the book, what (supposedly) her adoptive mother told her, pg 299/300, ‘…(Gert) didn’t apologize for calling you repeatedly and yelling at you before and after Dad died in 1982.’

That is a reference to the one letter that I wrote to Dorothy Wheeler telling her about the misdeeds that her daughter Joan did to my minor children and my family. I never knew that her adoptive father was ill and died for I had problems to fix after all the trouble that Joan did to my family. But these two women began to harbor ill towards the natural family and in particular my father once the adoptive father died.

Getting back to what Dorothy, the adoptive mother said to daughter Joan, in 1992…‘that’s what’s wrong with your sisters…they didn’t have a mother and look how they turned out…’ and ‘he lived without you for 18 years…look at the heartache we’ve gone through these past 18 years, damn it…what has he ever done for you…you that father of yours…’ Of course there’s much more of that kind of shit!

What major fact that is missing here in the minds of Joan and her adoptive mother is this fact of adoption; when someone adopts they take all responsibility for the one they are adopting. It is NOT something that changes later in life. The adoptive parents were responsible, from the moment they adopted, and they have no right to impose themselves on to the natural parent later in life. My father knew what his responsibilities were and he expected others, including the adoptive parent(s) to know theirs. My father was not responsible to pay for anything for Joan, as he was not responsible to pay for anything for myself or my other siblings when we became adults.

A condition at the time of adoption, where someone, the mother, had to quit her job to take full care of the infant was the same condition that the nature father was forced to give up said infant…there was no one in his family that was able to take full care of the infant! This is a point that Joan does not want to accept…she was adopted out because there was no ‘full time care-giver’ and when her adoptive parents adopted her, the mother HAD to quit work to become the ‘full time care-giver’, period, end of story, fact of life. 

I would have to state that this woman who became Joan’s adoptive mother, during her marriage, was NOT poor, her husband was an electrician at a major company and had a good salary and retirement. She was financially dependent on the husband in the same ways that my mother was to her husband as is the custom in our culture when SOMEONE has to stay with the children! And why would anyone adopt an infant and then leave that infant in someone else’s care!

My second husband and I adopted my own birth son, when he was 16. There was no need for a full-time caregiver and therefore I did not have to quit my job. But, I also no longer received ‘child-support’ from the natural father and my second husband TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the child he adopted! That is what happens economically with adoption.

The adoptive mother’s, Dorothy, income was reduced just as the millions of elders are! It is not anything unusual. When her husband died, in 1982, she had a pension from her husband’s pension, that’s the way it is done! If she didn’t work whose fault is that? Certainly not my father’s. If Dorothy didn’t like the outcome of the decisions that she and her husband made in 1956/57 that’s too bad! That is the way of life, live with the consequences of your actions and decisions. (Ruth’s note – and this goes for Joan herself, in the year 2011 – she never wanted to work – now that’s she too old to start a career, NOW she sees her mistakes – she IS poor, and forces her daughter to work 2 jobs to support them – I was in communication with her ex-husband last month and he corroborates this – he thinks it is “disgusting.”)

My father’s economic circumstances were never Dorothy Wheeler and Joan’s business, after 1956/57. His advancements and income and subsequent marriages and his pension have nothing to do with them and the decisions that were made in 1956/57.

I am an elder living on a fixed income of retirement and social security. I do not get any increases in my income! I and I alone were responsible to guarantee that I would have an income in my elder years. I was married twice but never long enough to gain any social security from them. I always had to depend on my self, alone. This is an example for others to learn and plan for your own retirement, early!

This assessment is junk science for another reason…because it changes its focus in the middle and becomes a mockery of itself! First Joan attempts to portray the natural father/family as poor and then in the middle the focus moves to the lower income status of adoptee herself and finally the focus goes to the NEED for the adoptive mother/daughter to have support from the natural father! (Ruth’s note – see how Joan contradicts herself.)

Joan’s agenda actually has several parts to it and the educational and economic segments became convoluted over time and, having to be altered, as the adoptive mother aged and income became a huge issue. Joan did some massive rewrites and additions to the manuscript to fit in her ever changing agenda; chapter 38 was wholly written between April and July 2009, as stated in the book pg 482. And through out chapter 38 the reader learns more and more about Joan’s agenda, which isn’t adoption reform. Joan is so unconscious as she tells the entire world just how desperate she had become. I have already started writing about this chapter in another post. It will take several posts to complete all of the various pieces of mentally disturbed aspects of the agenda.

Joan Wheeler had the audacity to place, on the front page of ‘Part1’ of this book of lies two of the Ten Commandments. She herself insists throughout the book that she is NOT Christian. Yet, she feels that she can use Christian theology when it suits her purpose! Hypocrite! She ought to be ashamed!

The two she uses are: Honor your father and your mother and Thou shalt not bear false witness.

So, Joan, how did it work out for you and your agenda! What have you gained?

Disownment and disinheritance! Was it worth it?

Deep Reading – Why it is a must when dealing with Joan Wheeler, in person, and in print! February 1, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Lessons in Life.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

by Gert McQueen, with additional commentary by Ruth Pace

I recently READ the following editorial in my local Watertown Times paper and it is well worth reading and I do mean reading, deeply. I have been appalled at the level of ignorance by even so called professionals who have NOT read DEEPLY, things that Joan Wheeler has published not only in a book but on her web site and all the various places where she ‘mouths off’.

I have placed certain parts of the following article in italics because of their importance, not only generally but particularly in regards to anyone who is reading about Joan Wheeler. The reason, you may answer? Because she is very good at twisting the truth, making up dialogue, making herself look like the innocent victim she believes she is…and so much more. But, the truth of the matter is…UNLESS a person takes the time to DEEPLY READ what Joan Wheeler has written, you NEVER get the big picture. Joan counts on the reader NOT looking too close, that is why Joan Wheeler accuses her relatives, both birth and adopted, of harassing her, because we do look closely. Joan is scared and afraid that the truth will come out…and of course it is and will continue to do so; truth always wins.

So, if you are one of those that just blindly follow someone and don’t care to investigate whom you are following, keep following, BUT if you have any kind of intelligence you just might want to begin READING DEEPLY what Joan Wheeler has written. I have and that is why I know Joan Wheeler so well, because I have read her DEEPLY and I know where her fears are!

 Is deep reading in trouble? By Laura Casey Contra Costa Times January 16, 2011

THE OAKLAND apartment of Martha Mueller and her daughter, Nora, teems with books and magazines. Their library consists of fiction and nonfiction books, cookbooks and teen novels. Martha, a librarian, says she’ll read just about anything. “It can be the subject matter that attracts me or that perfectly written first sentence,” she says.

She comprehends what she reads, too. Ask for her thoughts on the Millennium Trilogy by Swedish writer Stieg Larsson, for example, and she’ll weave a tale about how the books, while interesting reads, seem overly violent. The main character is a victim, she says, and a sad one at that.

While Mueller loves sitting down with a good book, she may represent a vanishing breed. There is some concern in literary circles that, even though electronic readers grow increasingly popular and book sales are still strong, many people are finding it difficult to sit alone with one book and simply read to comprehend.

“Deep reading,” or slow reading, is a sophisticated process in which people can critically think, reflect and understand the words they are looking at. With most, that means slowing down — even stopping and rereading a page or paragraph if it doesn’t sink in — to really capture what the author is trying to say. Experts warn that without reading and really understanding what’s being said, it is impossible to be an educated citizen of the world, a knowledgeable voter or even an imaginative thinker.

The concern that deep reading is going by the wayside is a phenomenon that author Nicholas Carr says in his book, “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains,” may have something to do with our use of technology and our habits while browsing the Web. Just last summer, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said he was concerned about what he sees as a decline in slow reading. Instant messages and 140-character tweets appear to be taking over our ability to concentrate on a single idea or theme in a book, he told Foreign Policy Magazine. It’s easy to forget the benefits of deep reading in an age where anything worth doing is done fast, Canadian author John Miedema says. We surf the Internet, gather snippets of information and click hyperlinks that bring us to different topics and authors, he says. In less than a second, we can go from reading about Beethoven the composer to watching a clip about Beethoven the St. Bernard online.

“The Web is essentially a distraction machine,” Miedema says. “Hyperlinks are meant to take you away from where you are.”

In his book “Slow Reading,” Miedema argues that deep reading is like the slow food movement — it takes time, care and effort to read quietly and concentrate. “I can appreciate people’s desire to read faster,” Miedema says. “But if you want to have a deep relationship with a text and understand a complex idea, then slow reading is a preferred style. It’s good for pleasure, too. It’s not a rushed experience and you can lose yourself in a text.”

Young minds Mirit Barzillai, a child-development doctoral candidate at Tufts University of Boston, focuses on literacy and says researchers are just starting to study how people process what they read on websites. “There are so many different and new places to read these days — online, with electronic readers, on the phone — that there isn’t a lot of research looking at the processes of reading and how technology affects it,” Barzillai says.

Barzillai is interested in the way children read and if they will learn how to read deeply as they grow up in the digital age.

“Reading isn’t something we’re born with,” she says. “Your brain has to form that reading circuit. And that circuit is shaped by what you’re reading. When (adults) came to the Internet, we came with those skills and experiences that were already developed. If children learn to read primarily online and through digital media, I wonder if we are encouraging or growing a different kind of reading process.”

Nora Mueller, 17, notices that when she has to do a paper for school and researches it on the Internet, she rarely reads a whole page. She primarily clicks links and scans. “I read so little about what’s actually there. I don’t feel like I absorb everything,” Mueller says. “I’ll read the beginning of a paragraph and then I’ll skip the rest.” She can remember what she reads when she’s engaged in a book, she says, but retains little from the Internet.

Back to books

Ohlone College English professor Cynthia Lee Katona wrote “Book Savvy” specifically to help people who have stopped reading get back into it.

Katona was late in picking up her first book — she didn’t start reading novels until she was 14 — but she’s a voracious reader today. She says reading is a highly social activity that builds the mind and social connections. If you read, she says, you simply know more and have more to talk about with friends, partners and acquaintances.

Deep reading also can take readers on trips around the world even if they are sitting in a living room armchair, Katona says. Also, it helps readers understand themselves and others and develop thinking, writing and conversational skills. “If you like beautiful things, authors put words together that are really beautiful and expressive,” she says. “If you want to write well — and there are lots of reasons to be articulate and to express yourself clearly — you should read.”

Ruth’s note – not only do Joan Wheeler’s readers don’t do Deep Reading of her book and her blog, but they also do not PAY ATTENTION to graphics that I have posted here. Actual court documents, handwritten letters by Joan herself, envelopes addressed to me from Joan, that show her for the LIAR that she is! It is not only appalling to me, that a PROFESSIONAL psychotherapist actually thinks Joan’s book is good, but one of Joan’s own friends/supporters/puppets is a POLICE OFFICER! These two so-called “professional” women, who JOBS are supposed to be upholding the LAW and unveiling the TRUTH, actually have allowed themselves to be CONNED by Joan, because they didn’t do any DEEP READING!

Thank goodness I know these women’s names, because if I have ever find myself on trial (highly unlikely, because I do not break the law), I would be able to object to them being on my jury, because they don’t seem to comprehend a LIE told by Joan and an ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENT that shows Joan LIED.  I really have to question their comprehension skills.

I find both these women to be woefully lacking in their career skills. If I were to get a traffic ticket from the one police officer, I could challenge her in court on the grounds that she is a poor police officer, one who can’t detect shit when spoken by/written by Joan Wheeler. If she can’t figure out that a court document that I post here proves Joan Wheeler is a liar, she obviously can’t read her radar scanner – and law breakers can give her any line of bullshit, and she’d believe it. Trinidad, California needs to upgrade it’s hiring standards for police officers.

The other bimbo looks through Joan’s book and doesn’t DEEP READ and see contradictions from one page to another, and even in one sentance! And she calls herself a “professional” therapist? HA!  I feel sorry for her clients – they probably come away from her more screwed up than when they started, all because she doesn’t DEEP READ and READ BETWEEN THE LINES and see the TRUTH behind Joan Wheeler’s LIES!

Feb 2, 2011, 2:23pm -hi adoptees! welcome, welcome! Hi Joan!  lol – Stalking me? Hiding again behind wierd websites – like I can’t tell it ain’t you guys? Because the stats counter keeps going up from the website about getting rich, using your computer as an ATM, and the stats from THIS post goes up the same time. You aren’t fooling anyone. but if you want to be cowards, and keep coming here to read, while disguising yourself, that’s A-OK! The point is- you are reading it.

And I’m glad that I have regular readers – yes, regular readers, I see the same websites over and over. Well, that’s quite ok with me – because there is a lot more to put up here on this blog. A hell of a lot more.  And you won’t want to miss what is coming! 

%d bloggers like this: