Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4 November 10, 2010Posted 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.
Tags: adoption reunion, being downright nasty, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, dishonesty, domestic violence, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4
by Gert, with an introduction and additional comments by Ruth
On pages 218-220, Joan tells us she received an outlined letter from Gert and types out the letter on those pages. This letter is highly suspect. Certain things in this outline letter just don’t jive with the facts of the events that happened at the time. What I have done, is type out EXACTLY what Joan has in the book, and have included Gert’s answers, point by point.
Gert starts her post out by addressing Joan’s accusation that she wrote Joan a letter after child abuse was called on her about her daughter.
Did I write a letter to Joan? Yes I did. Did I write the one, in outline form, that Joan presents on pg 218, no I did not. First the reader ought to go over various parts in Joan’s narrative of how and what kind of language her adoptive mother uses when describing things. One notices a pattern of language and angry responses that are typical only of that mother. Joan has me saying words and expressing myself in ways that I never have and still don’t do or use today. To the best of my memory I wrote one letter to Joan. And don’t forget, I left Buffalo in 1982 never to return. I didn’t get a damm about Joan so why should I have continued to harass her, let alone her mother. Unlike Joan I had a life to live, a job to go to, children to support and I wanted nothing to do with her, ever… facts are stubborn things.
Joan says that her mother said I kept calling her, not true. I called to tell the woman what Joan did to me, but what does Joan tell her mother, its about what Gert did to Joan. It’s all about Joan. She is ‘boiling mad with rage at (my) insensitivity in badgering her mother at this time’. (when Ed died). Excuse me! Joan can destroy my family, take my child away from, label me a child abuser, and then have the gal to say I’m insensitive!
Ruth: Now here is the outline letter that Joan alleges Gert wrote. Each numbered point is followed by Gert’s response in blue. Ruth’s notes are in italic.
Gert (supposedly) to Joan, in 1981. (but the incident with Karen was not until 1982 – again we see Joan plays fast and loose with dates).
1. I’m sorry your father died.
1. I don’t recall ever knowing when her adoptive father died. I didn’t write to express my sympathy.
2. You have no business butting into my family life the way you did. How dare You. Beth (Karen) is perfectly safe here. She just doesn’t want to follow family rules.
2. true, if the child obeys house rules there are no problems. It is not up to Joan to decide whether or not my house rules are up to standard.
3. Karen has no problems relating to family. She joined a club at school in which there is a mother, a father, and all club members are sisters and brothers. I told her I didn’t like it. I told her that I’m her real mother, her brother is her real brother and she has a stepfather. She sees her real father on a regular basis.
3. This is purely Joan-speak.
4. Karen doesn’t like it that I divorced her father so that’s why she’s hanging with this club at school. She insists that this school is her family.
4. again a form of Joan-speak, redundant
5. Now, because of you my daughter was removed from our home and now I have to prove to the court I am a good mother! It will take months, if at all, that I get my daughter back! You meddling, controlling fucking bitch!
5. true it was because of Joan that my daughter was taken away from me. If Joan did not harbor a run away there would have been no problem.
6. And to think I loved you enough to find you! You have been nothing but trouble since I met you. You don’t drive and I have to pick you up and drive you wherever we go together. You say the wrong things all the time.
6. Joan-thoughts. I never said anything about her not driving and that I have to pick her up etc She really does have a problem with this issue of her not driving, but I never said this. (Ruth’s note: please see my detailed note below about the issue of Joan not driving).
7. You try to fit in but you are an outsider. You were not raised with us so you have different ways of thinking.
7. guilty, its true
8. We are street kids, we think on our feet. (Ruth’s note: another dig against the Sippel Sisters – all over the book, Joan portrays us as inner city ghetto white trash.)
8. never said such a thing. I was not raised as a street kid, I was raised in the country (foster home) and have country values; values that Joan knows not. (Ruth’s note: I also was raised in the same foster home with country values – which included manners, and to respect people, something that Joan, who was raised in a better-off suburb was never taught).
9. You are a sheltered, naive, spoiled little brat who got everything you ever wanted (Ruth’s note: and Joan herself admits this several times in the book).
9.guilty, its true
10. I told you I like the finer things in life and now you’ve gone and ruined my life! You are cruel to turn me into the authorities. And for what? Because you don’t think that Roy should adopt Mark? I told you, I told you repeatedly that it is none of your business what we do in our house! No, we don’t care that Mark’s birth certificate will be changed! He’s 14, he knows who he is!
10. What? Finer things in life? What the hell does that have to do with what I am angry over? Yes, guilty, it is and never was any of her business about anything within my family including my son’s adoption.
11. And no, Roy doesn’t want to adopt Karen because she doesn’t show any love or respect for him. We don’t care about adoption laws and we don’t care that I have to sign relinquishment papers so that Roy can adopt Mark. This is our business and not yours!
11. wrong, wrong, wrong. Joan has said this same kind of shit in this book about other members of the family because she was adopted out, no one loved her. Bullshit! There never was any question about love and respect about adopting or not adopting my daughter, this is pure Joan speak and it is totally untrue. Signing relinquishment is a Joan speak and a Joan issue. True, it’s our business never hers.(Ruth’s note: what Gert says here is absolutely true – Jim (Roy) wanted to adopt BOTH kids – but Karen wanted to retain her biological father’s last name. She loves that name. Even years later after she divorced her husband, she went back to using this last name).
12. We had to throw you out of our apartment because you made a big deal out of the birth certificate thing! I don’t care! Adoption is YOUR problem, not mine!
13. While I’m on the topic, don’t say anything more to me about adoption! I should have left you alone where you were. I would have been better off without you! We all would have been better off without ever knowing you!
13. probably true
14. So Roy and I go camping and swimming in the nude. Big deal! We take Mark and Karen with us and Mark is fine taking off his clothes. Karen doesn’t want to do it and she thinks we are forcing her. We are communing with nature, as a family, and she is the one who doesn’t want to conform to a family structure. And you have to interfere.
14. a form of Joan speak, I wouldn’t have gotten into this with her. She is the one who is hang-up on the skinning dipping issue. Again, that was a family issue not hers.
15. I see no reason why you had to go to the authorities! You took my daughter away from me! — Look at everything I have done for you! You ungrateful, conniving, little bitch!
15. true but I wouldn’t have continued on with it.
16. I can kill you for what you’ve done! Me and Roy, look out Joanie, because we are gonna pay you back for what you’ve done!
16. purely Joan speak, was I mad as hell, of course, but the give away is that I never called her Joanie!
No Gert, the give-away that this outline letter is concoted by Joan (probably using some of the real letter Gert wrote and then “Embellishment by Joan”) is the telling fact that I, Ruth, am not mentioned ONCE in this letter. Go back and read Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3 where Gert tells what happened in 1982 from her perspective. She says over and over again that it was Joan AND Ruth who were to blame for her family being split apart. So if Gert wrote this letter, she would not be only blaming Joan, but both “Ruth and Joan,” and she would be wording it “You and Ruth.”
And what’s with all the exclamation points? Nobody writes a letter like that. This is just Joan’s blowing EVERYTHING up!!!!
Now as to the subject of Joan “not driving.” This is pure nonsense. Joan says in her book that she learned to drive “at the late age of 22 (1978). On page 211, we are in the time frame of the winter of 1981-1982,(and this outline letter was supposedly sent a few days after Joan’s father’s death on February 15, 1982). On page 211, Joan makes this statement, while describing DRIVING to the hospital to visit her father: “At one point, I made a wrong turn one block away from the hospital and got stuck in a snowdrift for an hour and a half.”
To back up a bit: in May of 1981, I moved from the West Side of Buffalo to the East Side. While I was living on the West side, Gert lived only 2 blocks from me. There was a neighborhood movie theatre and in the early part of 1980, they were showing the Charlton Heston/Stephanie Zimbalist movie “The Awakening.” It’s about the re-awakening of an ancient Egyptian Queen. As Gert, Joan and I shared a love of Ancient Egypt, we all went to see it, at a late night showing. When the movie ended, Gert and I WALKED home and Joan DROVE home. Joan had a car – mommy and daddy bought it for her.
When I moved to the East Side in 1981, Joan visited me there and DROVE there. What we have here is Joan mixing up events again. Perhaps Gert had said something to her about not having the time to always drive her around when we first met her in 1974. Because in 1974, I didn’t drive yet either. But by 1980 – Joan WAS driving and was most definitely driving in the winter of 1981-82, because she says so in her book on page 211. So why the hell would Gert write this? Answer: Gert did NOT write this – JOAN wrote this – to make Gert look like the villian here. For shame Joan. And once again, we see that when a chronic liar keeps lying – the thing that trips them up is they can’t keep the lies straight! It’s too much to remember what lie was told, what version of the “facts” were told on one day, and what version of the “facts” were told on another day. Perhaps one day Joan will finally learn to tell the truth and stick to the REAL facts – because whether Joan likes it or not, FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS.
Gert – November 10, 2010
As I reread this section I realized that I could have said alot more about that letter..alas…there is so much to say so little time to spend on Joan…truth is by the time I had gotten to that ‘outline’ in the book I was burning out…Joan does have that tendency on people, and I wanted to be done with that chapter.
I do want to say that Joan does have me speaking words and phrases that I don’t use and while I certainly so swear I don’t usually call people a bitch or worst as Joan has me saying in the book.
I wrote about this chapter back in april and since then I have read, thought about, and written much more of the book and I’ve gotten to know Joan alot more than I ever wanted to know her. I’ve come to see how she writes, thinks, what favorite words and phrases she uses and most importantly, her world view and how she projects onto others and puts words in their mouths.
So I could say more about that outline but, enough for the moment…there’s lots more coming..
oh and btw, Joan…give me the book!
Joan Wheeler – Forbidden Family Chapter 14 – Refutted! October 4, 2010Posted 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: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, bigotry, contradictions, creating problems where none exist, Disrespect, domestic violence, embellishing the truth, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, inter-racial relationships, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, whining
In Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family Chapter 14, she tells of her college days and her struggles with being in an inter-racial relationship, her wanting to go to Egypt or England, and her budding anti-adoption thoughts. We are not interested in her adoption or anti-adoption concerns, because they do not concern us. We are discussing how her “autobiography” involves US, in particular raking us in her hatred of her adoptive parents. Gert McQueen has already written her take on this chapter in her post, What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler Gert answers Joan confusion and questions about birth certificates in the short Chapter 13, then goes onto addressing Chapter 14.
Here is a brief segment from Gert’s post:
The times were the mid-1970s, Joan was a very immature sheltered girl who had no experience living with the racial tensions and riots that swept across the country. I, like many others, did. Interracial couplings were NOT the norm, they were scandalous and NOT for every family. The movie Guess who’s coming to dinner appeared in 1967, most families in America were NOT like the family portrayed in the movie. In real life the late 60’s and early 70’s were filled with much violence as the Civil Rights movement was stabilizing. Many whites might have been okay with mix-race couplings but many were not and the same can be said for the Blacks, if they did they were a minority keeping a low profile, something Joan knows nothing about. In many families the idea of crossing racial lines was just not done and the issue was entirely up to an individual family as to how they reached those decisions. When a child goes against the established core values of their family and the wishes of the parents, for shock value, for acting out, for rebellion, the situation never works out well.
This is what Joan did, she did it for rebellion reasons and she gives ‘lip service’ to it when she says ‘…years later that perhaps I used racial issues as a smoke screen – something to focus on instead of what was really bothering me.’ Again, too bad for me that she didn’t come to that conclusion sooner before she interfered with my parental authority and told my 13 years daughter that ‘your mother doesn’t know anything, don’t listen to her, if you want to date a Black boy do it’! But that’s a story for a later. She says that the interracial relationship and adoption issues ‘drove a wedge between her parents and herself…they fought bitterly.’ That is her adoptive parents.
As I stated in a previous post, as very young children, my parents and us 4 children, lived in the same house with a Black family and we were raised not as racists or bigots. My father, in particular, always allowed us to make our own decisions and if we were happy he was happy. My sister Ruth has had long-term relationships with other races and they were and are accepted within our family. My personal views were that it was not right for myself, or my children, even though they, my children, were free to have friends of different races and religions. As a parent I have the right to make the ‘established core values of the family’ and no one has the right to contradict them to my minor children, as Joan did.
On pg 122 Joan tells of a phone conversation with me, ‘the eldest…which made her an authority figure’, in which I tell her that ‘it’s your choice and you alone will have to live with the consequences, but you are young and don’t know what you’re doing…you can’t dislocate yourself from your family…society isn’t ready for it and you have to live with the rules of society’. That’s correct, I said it or something like it and it was sound advice, then and now. But to Joan, she ‘…hung up the phone in disbelief…Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.’ Not true! I was stating my own personal opinion and speaking as a parent myself. It is only Joan who feels the need to find someone to point the finger at to say that they are the cause of her problems. So Be It!
So she gets back to having more dramas. ‘There was a Reunion in Progress but no one knew how to proceed.’ Did she? no she just lets more of her inner life talk to her and she comes up with ‘my families hated blacks, therefore, they hated me. I was a sinner in need of repentance….’
ok, let’s talk about race, bigotry and Joan and how she CREATES problems where none exist.
MY personal choices in MY personal life are none of Joan’s concerns and I don’t see why MY personal choices of MY life is in Joan’s book. In 1974, I was living in my own apartment, paying my own rent – (with no help from ANYone), working a full time job, AND taking part time college classes. (so much for Joan’s put-downs of me that I never went to college). I was at this time, 22 years old and exploring MY own life and all that goes with it – the dating scene, etc. In late 1974, a very nice Palestinian man was admitted to the hospital where I worked. We had several talks. In spring of 1975, I was walking to work one night. (I did not own a car, nor knew how to drive – contrary to Joan’s assertions that I drove her around to family reunions in 1974). As I passed the window of a restaurant – there was Farouk. He tapped on the window, waved, and motioned me to come in to the restaurant. He was with a couple of friends, and he bought me a cup of coffee and then drove me to work. We exchanged phone numbers and then began casually dating. The friends he was with were part of a large group of friends that hung out together, and I joined the group. Many of these people are still friends with me today.Some have passed away, others have moved to other parts of the country. Farouk and I dated for about 3 months, and then went separate ways. One of the group, Abdo, asked me out in June 1975, and we fell in love, moving in together just 3 weeks after meeting each other. Our relationship lasted 10 years. He went back to his home country in 1985, and even when he came back to Buffalo in 1994, and I was with my present husband, Abdo and I remained close friends, and I was the one who handled all the legal issues and paperwork concerning his death in 2003.
So we see again Joan not geting details of my life right, even though she deems herself an authority on it. On page 122 of her book she reports that I had been “seriously dating an Arab man,” in May of 1975. Who was she refering to? Farouk or Abdo? NO, she has to bring up the fact that I was involved with an Arab man, because she was involved with a black boy in college and her parents were not accepting it. Instead of writing about her problems with her parents, she has to drag ME into it. I am nobody’s role model. I knew Joan for one year at this point in time, what I did with my life then, now and for all times in the future and the past is NOT Joan’s business and she has no right to hold MY relationships up to scrutiny in her book. Or, as I suspect she did, to use as an arguing tool with her parents. She says her parents hated blacks. Really? well, then why 20 years later why was my current husband John, a black man, accepted by her mother as Uncle John to Joan’s kids (her grandchildren) and accepted into the family?
As to Joan creating problems where none exist – on pages 120 – 124 she is relating her views of inter-racial relationships, even stating “I wanted equality for all people- black, white, women, men, adoptees and non-adoptees.” But she picks and chooses who should have equality. For example, for all her saying that my husband Abdo (Basim in the book) was a nice guy, she shows her prejudice against Arabs twice in her book and once in real life.
In late 1979 Abdo had gone to his home country for a visit of several months. In early 1980, Joan was dating a Jewish boy named Rich. One day, she was visiting me and asked me if there would be a problem when Abdo returned to Buffalo and found out that she was dating a Jewish boy. Oh? She wanted equality for all people? Then why the ASSUMPTION that Jews and Arabs don’t get along? Yes, we all know about the ongoing enmity in the Middle East between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. Abdo is not Palestinian. He is Yemeni. And just because there is a mess in the Middle East, and people living here in America may POLITICALLY choose sides, this does not mean that they are bigots. Joan automatically assumed Abdo was a bigot. On page 123 -124, she says that she almost went on a year long exchange program in Egypt, but was advised by her college advisors that she would have to escorted everywhere. She says she was terrified of living for a year in a country where outspoken women would be a target for ridicule, assault and rape. Yes, sadly, Joan and her college advisors were correct, however, to paint all Arabs as such, and to paint all Arabs as Jew-haters, especially one who she had known for 4 years is reprehensible.
Perhaps she thought Abdo would have a problem with Rich because there was a definite problem once with Manuel, the black boy. They both came up one weekend for a visit – in his car. We all went to Voelker’s bowling alley. I was in the ladies room and Joan came running in, scared out of her mind. Manuel had just threatened her. He had alreay beaten her up, and she was terrified he would do so again. Oh boy, more drama. What to do? So I spoke to Abdo. Before we left the bowling alley we told both Joan and Manuel that we did not want any problems. It was decided that Joan would sleep on our couch, and Manuel was told to sleep in his car. (it was warm enough). Manuel had no problem with smacking around Joan, but he listened and obeyed when Abdo laid down the rules. The next morning, Manuel came upstairs, we had breakfast and the two of them left to drive back to college. I never saw that boy again and good riddance. Abdo did not have a problem with Manuel being black, but did have a problem with him hitting Joan and possibly creating a problem in our house. And when Abdo returned to Buffalo in 1980, Joan had already stopped seeing the Jewish boy, but I told him about Joan’s question. He couldn’t believe she would think that of him! Abdo was one of the sweetest persons on this planet and wouldn’t hurt a fly. Yes, we had our fights, as all couples do, and both our tempers got the best of us, but on the whole, Abdo was kind, quiet and gentle. There is another anti-Arab slur in the book, but I will deal that when we get to it. We are still discussing her college years and her problems with dating the black boy.
What’s with this statement of Joan’s on page 123 “My families hated blacks.” Where does she get this crap? Mayber her adopted parents had a problem with interracial relationships, but her birth family did not. At least her father and siblings. SOME, not all of my mother’s family don’t approve of interracial relationships, but have never held my choice in a life partner against me.
But this statement is included in a long winded paragraph, where she is going off on a tangent about her parents not happy with her choice in dating a black boy. Joan then comes up with this intelligent conclusion: “my families hated blacks, therefore, hated me.”
Where does she come up with this shit? Who the hell EVER said they hated her? In 1975, that is. All Gert did was talk to her on the phone about the possible repercussions of inter-racial relationships. Gert was giving her good advice, that if she wanted to date a black boy, she had better be prepared for any backlash. And I don’t mean from anybody in her families, I’m talking about society in general. In the 23 years that I’ve been with John, I have never been the target of any racial slurs, but on 3 occasions, all in restaurants, we did get some filthy looks, two occasions from whites, and one occasion from a black lady. John and I are mature enough to handle that, in 1975, Joan obviously was not mature enough to handle anything like that. My god, she couldn’t even handle me supposedly telling her around Christmas 1974 that she spelled our last name wrong, and she’s got herself imagining her families “hating” her because she’s dating a black boy. Is Joan a mind-reader? Or is she like Deanna Troi on Star Trek the Next Generation, who can sense other beings emotions! – Oh, yes, she already said in reporting on how she was a bridesmaid at the age of 18 for an adoptive cousin and she “sensed” people talking about her. Deanna Troi comes from the planet Betazed. Is Joan from that planet as well?
But see, this is how Joan embellishes things and blows them out of proportions. I don’t doubt that her parents were not accepting this relationship and some harsh words were exchanged – but how does she conclude that the Sippel family hated her? At this point in time, Kathy was living in England, not having even met Joan. I have no idea what my father or brother thought of her relationship – I don’t recall her even asking me about my relationship. so she gets some advice from one member of the Sippel family, and right away, the whole Sippel family hates her. And you know what? The Sippel family probably could care less who she was dating. We were all living our own lives, my family accepted Abdo and in turn John.
But hold on! Joan says at the top of page of 122 – “My sisters and older brother accepted my inter-racial relationship.” She then goes on to say that her natural father was outraged.” – Baloney! Gert has already explained that my father raised us NOT to be bigots, and since I was already involved with a man of a different race, why would he be outraged at Joan? This makes no sense! Maybe he was showing concern because his daughter was getting smacked around this particular black boy! Did Joan ever think of that? That our objections to Manuel was because of his behavior towards her? That we actually were concerned for her safety? Oh no! Because that would show that we actually CARED ABOUT HER – and this would go against her ASSUMPTIONS that we all hated blacks and therefore we hated her. And this would not make sense in her book, because her book is all about showing how the whole world and her families, detest her and give her nothing but grief!
And getting back to Joan’s statement about Gert when she advised Joan on the phone: “Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.” we see Joan’s propensity for BLOWING THINGS OUT OF PROPORTION! Somehow I doubt that a vote was taken by every member of my mother’s family, (the Herrs) the Sippel family, and the Wheeler family and they all chose Gert to speak to Joan about dating a black kid. What a ridiculous statement to make! Gert hadn’t met even one tenth of the Wheeler family, was busy raising her own two kids, didn’t see half of the Herr family, and the Sippels didn’t take a vote to elect her either! Why must Joan constantly speak in the superlative? Because she likes to embellish things – she likes to make things bigger than what they are. And if the reality doesn’t fit her fantasy of how things should be – she will just go ahead, make stupid conclusions, and publish them as facts. Hence the purpose of this blog – to point out Joan’s mistaken “facts” and present the true story of the Sippel family.
On page 122 Joan says there was a Reunion in Progress. (her capitalizations). She whines elsewhere in the book that now that she’s reunited with her birth family, she had these people to get to know. There was tremendous pressure on her, she was on display, they all knew her, but she didn’t know them, and blah blah blah.
At the time of our “reunion” with Joan, I myself was on a voyage of self-discovery. So was Joan, having found her birth family. Joan makes it out that she was the only one confused by meeting new people, etc. etc. Well, so was I. I was living in my first apartment, making choices in my life, including scholastic, career, sexual, and social. Are these not struggles for EVERY person on the planet in young adulthood? What makes Joan so dam special? She isn’t and the sooner she gets that through her thick skull the better she will be able to cope with life. I mean, come on! This happened in 1974. It is now 2010. THIRTY-SIX YEARS LATER – and Joan is still whining about how she was sooooo put out about her CONFUSION in meeting a whole new family!
Oh for crying out loud! When a person gets married – they have a whole new family of in-laws to meet and get to know and integrate into their life – you have to learn how not to piss off your mother-in-law, don’t serve meat to a cousin-in-law, because they’re vegan, don’t invite aunt-in-law and sister-in-law to the same party because they don’t get along. EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET THAT GETS MARRIED HAS TO MEET A NEW FAMILY AND LEARN ABOUT THEM! So when will Joan stop whining about having to learn about a whole new bunch of people! We weren’t axe murderers for crying out loud! Joan says nobody knew how to proceed with the reunion. Really? I did. I simply ACCEPTED HER! I RESPECTED HER. Was I perfect? NO! Did I inadvertently hurt her feelings when I corrected her misspelling of our family name? I don’t know. I don’t remember doing it. I am simply a flawed human being. HOWEVER, I never went out of my way to hurt her. The problems between us began in the 80’s when she began to disrespect me and go out of HER way to hurt me. But we will get to those later. I do want to touch on a statement of Gert regarding this “reunion in progress.”
“Joan never gave anyone the opportunities to continue with the ‘in progress’ because she was so argumentive and aggressive in her positions and would not allow others, particularly the adoptive and birth families, to have their own opinions and views on any social issue, it was always about Joan. “
Oh, yes, this is so true. Joan always was opinionated and she never learned to back off and let other people have a say. And by god, don’t you EVER take an opposing viewpoint to Joan’s. And I’m not talking about adoption – it’s EVERYTHING! She doesn’t like this, she doesn’t like that – everybody has to stop what they’re doing or thinking about and cowtow to Dictator Joan. Now you blog readers may or may not know that in the 1980’s I was a professional belly dancer. I had a scrapbook of pictures of belly dancers, and one day (in the early 80’s) Joan was at my house and she was looking at the scrapbook. She said, “I don’t approve of this skimpy costume.” What? Who asked for HER approval? Oh, well, every belly dancer on the planet – get rid of your dance costumes because Joan doesn’t approve of them. Oh, but wasn’t she complaining because if she lived in Egypt, SHE would be singled out for being an opinionated outspoken woman? So here she is singling out OTHER women because of their dance costumes? As I said before – she picks and chooses who should have equality. Does she have a problem with ballet dancers? Gosh, I can see every curve and bump on a male ballet dancer – and those tutus! Shocking! I can see all the way up to the dancer’s crotch! – oh, well they’re covered up with a leotard. Well, how about the staute of David – nude drawings by all the famous painters – The Vetruvian Man – Venus de Milo with her breast exposed – IT’S CALLED ART! Dance is an artform of the human body. I have seen nude dancers – and I’m not talking about the exotic dancers in strip joints – I’ve seen modern jazz dancers IN THE NUDE! Golly Gee, they didn’t even have on a skimpy belly dancing outfit! Let’s burn them at the stake! Why? Because Joan Wheeler would not approve of them.
Another time – it was 1983 – Joan, her husband Colby and I went to see the new Star Trek movie – The Search for Spock. Towards the end of the movie, there is a scene in a temple, with your usual Hollywood style temple maidens – all dressed in see-through white flowing dresses. Oh boy! In the car ride home that was the whole topic of conversation!
Okay – let me expound on something here. I have had a crush on Leonard Nimoy and the character of Mr. Spock since the summer of 1966 when I saw the very first commercial for Star Trek. I didn’t even wait for the show to begin – I saw 5 seconds of him on a commercial and was hooked! In the 1982 Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan, Spock died in the end. Oh that hurt me. BUT we science fiction fans could see in the film’s last 5 minutes how they set it up for Spock’s return. So we knew he was coming back – we just didn’t know HOW. So now in The Search for Spock, we see Spock come back to life. And it was a pretty good movie! I was walking on air when we left the movie. In the next 10 minutes, during the 5 mile drive back to my house, all I heard was all about those disgusting white dresses and blah blah blah and I couldn’t wait to get the hell out of that car. I got in the house and I had a headache! Abdo asked me what was wrong. I said “I have a headache – that bitch just ruined my mood – Spock came back to life and all because of that idiot and her f’ing big mouth I have a headache!”
Even today, I am a huge Star Trek fan, and I also head up a local Star Trek fan group, called the USS Ari, a starship, formerly of Starfleet International, now an independent ship/group. FORTY-SIX YEARS OF LOVING STAR TREK and when Captain Ruth Pace, commander, USS Ari NCC 1723, comes out of a Star Trek movie with a headache and just wanting to run in the house – you have to wonder why! BECAUSE JOAN IS A PSYCHIC VAMPIRE! She sucks all the air out of the room. And when her mouth starts going and her voice starts getting shrill – all you want to do is get the hell away from her. I left her daughter’s fourth birthday party because she and her mother, in front of the birthday princess and all the guests – started SCREAMING at each other. My ears were hurting – I got John and said “I have to go. I can’t stand this noise.” So we left.
Another time on the phone, (around 1993, so much for her saying she hasn’t had contact with me) we were talking and all of a sudden we started arguing about the money she stole from me. She started yelling at me, I tried to tell her to stop, she kept on going off on a tangent – then she said, “and I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway: adoption, ADOPTION ADOPTION.” Then she hung up. WTF? first, I never said I hated the word, just dam tired of it. Second, the conversation was not about adoption, it was about the money she owed me. Third, her statement “I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway..”shows how SHE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT HOW ANYONE FEELS. SHE HAS NO RESPECT FOR ANYONE. Fourth, just like the rambling long paragraph on pages 122 and 123, where she starts out about her dating a black boy, gets off on a tangent about a woman dying leaving five little kids, throwing out stuff like “respect your elders, “What.,she’s angry? and concludes that everybody hates her! She gets herself worked up and when she gets going she can’t or won’t stop and ends up pushing people away from her. I have had way too many outbursts like that from her and for my own peace of mind – and the sake of my ears – (not to mention her stealing money from me, stealing the beads off my dead mother’s wedding dress, her disrespect of my wishes of not talking about infertility after my miscarriage and other things) – by 1990 I didn’t want any more “reunion in progress” with her – she ruined it. I don’t associate with people who treat me like dirt. Do you?
oh and Joan, your addition to your cyberbullying page – geez! This is how you honor Mom on her birthday? Slapping her obit up there and saying: “Mom, I’m sorry your older daughters are making fools of themselves. I love you, Mom. I’m sorry you died too soon. If you had lived, we would be a loving family.”
See how Joan keeps trashing her sisters YET AGAIN on October 4, 2010 (got that Rus – see how Joan wants peace, yet keeps yakking about us?) Anybody who would put up such a birthday rememberance is NOT honoring the dead woman – anybody with brains can see what Joan is doing – USING a dead woman’s obituary and trying to say she loves her, and trashes her sisters in the same sentance. No, Joan, everybody can see who the fool is. And I said before – you can lie to yourself, you can lie to your friends, but you can’t lie to Mom. She’s not that stupid you know. and neither are we. roflmao!
1. Gert – October 4, 2010
Every human being is going to DIE, that’s a fact of life! Missing someone who has died is also a fact of life! To wish for things to be different is also a fact of life!
But…to use the dead and their memories to PROMOTE one’s (Joan’s) personal vindictive campaign against one’s own blood…and to invoke the dead against blood family…in the form of BULLYING…is not only dishonorable…it also shows the true nature of the one who is promoting their vindictiveness…Joan wrote and invoked our mother to use against us…shame, shame, shame!
Today, Oct 4, is our mother’s birthday! It is NOT a date for Joan to continue her lying and bullshit…Joan what do you really think our mother is thinking about you right now? Would she be proud of you?
Why don’t you just stand up like a woman and answer your blood relatives as to your actions against them? Why don’t you allow our mother to rest in peace?
Joan, you are a very sick person.