Politely Discussing Elephants

Daniels comments have gotten me thinking a bit. I am curious what others think too. See excerpt from his comment below.

In cultures dismissed as uncivilized by the West, the exact opposite takes place. Emotion is expressed, voices are raised, debate might rage on for hours, but the given is that eventually the communal bond will be refound. You know that you are going to work things out. Yes, it’s agitated, loud, cacophonous, rowdy, etc. But I find it to be much healthier. And I have learned for the first time in my life to raise my voice when need be.

What I’m trying to say is that there is no point discussing adoption given the current dominant discourse’s prevailing power within the conversation. Everything “agrees” with the validity of adoption, it is a given. This is not an even playing field. But there is no point discussing it if we cannot speak of the elephant in the room–the validity of adoption to begin with. There is no point discussing it if every time an adoptee opens up his or her mouth they aren’t argued with, but are told that their WAY of speaking is wrong, or they are dismissed for X, Y, or Z reason.”

 As I noted to Daniel in a follow up, I agree, in theory and have seen this type of communiation approach work in my professional life. My old boss, Peggy, is a loud, brash, direct, blunt, no nonsense, incredibly fair and just, amazing person to work for.  She drops eff bombs regularly and tells you exactly what is on her mind. You always know where you stand with her. I adored those qualities in her for not only were they qualities she displayed but she also encouraged and allowed similar expressions to her. I regularly went into her office “to vent” about a problem and vent I did. Once I got the emotion out of the way, we set to solving the problem at hand OR we just walked away for all I needed was to let off some steam. She never held my words against me for she valued open, free flowing dialogue. She never told you to calm down, say things in a nicer manner, or cut you off. She let you say your piece any way you wanted, she listened attentively and then she helped (or countered).

I believe, perhaps erroneously, this is what Daniel is alluding to in relation to adoption discussions (Feel free to agree or disagree Daniel). I suggested the word “offensiveness” and Daniel seemed confused or in disagreement with my statement. I believe that is due to my own lack of clarity.

What I find difficult is this: in having discussions (like aforementioned) in an adoption arena a member of the discussion chooses personal attacks over candid discussion. To me there is a difference. Yet, with Daniels recent comments I find myself questioning that and also my own approach.

For example, a few years ago, an adoptee blogger was writing about her feelings as they related to her natural mother refusing contact with her. I expressed empathy and support and a discussion of why some mothers refuse contact ensued with contributors being both adoptees and natural mothers.  Conversation was going along, point, counterpoint, etc. when one of the blog commentors said to me “Oh, shut up you stupid abandoning whore c*nt. No one wants to hear from you. You are no better than her natural mother.”

In general I ignore these people as I feel their behavior says far more about them than it does about me.  I dont engage with trolls and definitely do not dialogue with people who cannot give me the same degree of respect I give them.  If a conversation is so triggering to you, that you resort to mudslinging and personal attacks, I tend to walk away. You have proven to me you are not a capable of having a polite conversation and I dont want to talk to you. I am interested in having meaningful debate on how to preserve family not how much of a abandoning effing c*nt whore you think I am. Unless you can speak politely, I am not interested in speaking to you. 

Daniels comments make me wonder if I am correct in that approach.

Is there a difference between expecting to be treated with respect and dignity and being overly focused on political correctness? Should we ignore the inflammatory statements made by some and continue on with the discussion or should we ask them to temper their words first and then come back into the room? By demanding a certain modicum of decency in our dialogue, do we hinder progress? Can we discuss adoption if members of that discussion resort to mudslinging and personal attacks? Part of me thinks yes we can but that part of me also feels that that discussion must be taking place by people with very secure egos and a certain level of emotional intelligence. Strong ego and emotional intelligence will prevent the conversation from getting derailed by the attacks. Another part of me feels that we owe each other some degree of decency and respect, perhaps even more so since it happens in the public, online environment.

Thoughts? Do you agree or disagree?

33 Thoughts.

  1. I think this is an interesting post. In re: the “stupid offensive offensive ” comment that was made to you, I certainly get similar comments with different terminology of course. The motivation behind those comments is to intimidate and censor. I also get censored when all I do is express my point of view without attacking because my point of view is not popular.

    Those kind of comments do not even have to be so overt, if for example I offer an adoptee point of view that doesn’t coddle whatever variety of mother that is in question I am told I don’t care about mothers as a class with high-fevered indignity, their point being the same, to censor me.

    I just look at like, “well that is a bunch of cr@p” Of course I care about mothers, I am one, I have two. Oh we are mother-rich over here. For me the best response that is more effective in real life than on-line life is to ask them what their motivation is, to call them on it. See if they can respond or not.

    The struggle is for the narrative, I am not letting anyone take mine.

  2. I think part of the issue at hand has to do with how we define civility. For me, name calling, personal or character attacks, and censoring someone from the discussion because you don’t agree with their point of view are examples of uncvil behavior. Loudness, directness, and “foul language” (with the exception of namecalling) are not uncivil. However others may see these things as lacking civility. And I think Daniel makes a valid point in asking who has the power to define the rules of engagement. On your blog, it’s you. For magazines, it’s an editor or editorial board.

    Joy, I like that you specified “an adoptee point of view that doesn’t coddle…” I think sometimes in these discussions we tend to revert to talking as if there’s a unilateral “adoptee voice” or a unilateral “first mother voice” or a unilateral “adoptive parent voice.” And it’s far more nuanced than that, even though we may be able to identify a certain brand of “adoptive parent voice” that holds the bulk of the privilege.

  3. Oops, forgot to paste in this middle paragraph:

    Regarding your question, ” By demanding a certain modicum of decency in our dialogue, do we hinder progress?” I think we probably do in some ways, and probably don’t in others. The reality is that trust shields us from sting of what we would typically see as threatening; as Daniel notes, “the given is that eventually the communal bond will be refound.” When we haven’t established personal, trusting relationships among the people in our dialogue, it’s harder to withstand the mud.

    • Psychobabbler :Oops, forgot to paste in this middle paragraph: When we haven’t established personal, trusting relationships among the people in our dialogue, it’s harder to withstand the mud.

      Completely agree, PB.

  4. I think one of the main issues is that

    A) The dominant discourse is a given. Adoption *can* have bad things occur, but adoption itself can and *will* be a good thing. So the bad just isn’t as bad as we all perceive it to be, because some good *can* come out of it.

    B) No one agrees on everything.

  5. “Strong ego and emotional intelligence will prevent the conversation from getting derailed by the attacks. Another part of me feels that we owe each other some degree of decency and respect, perhaps even more so since it happens in the public, online environment.”

    Not everyone has a strong ego. Some egos are variable. Our emo intelligence can be undermined by triggering attacks.
    I owe myself the degree of decency and respect I need to navigate topics that are emotionally charged. Mudslinging and name calling are resorting to attack. They are not discussion. When I hear them from a strong ego place I can hear the hurt in the speaker. When I’m not so strong, I have to excuse myself.

    There is no agenda for listening

  6. No offense, but this is kind of counter-intuitive. We just got through saying that the discussion shouldn’t be commandeered by those on the power side of things; so I don’t see the point in rehashing the discussion, or selectively quoting what I said.

    I’ll try again: The original indecency is the adoption itself. The original disrespect is the adoption itself. In and of itself the original act of adoption has spoken against and acted against not just the individual child, but his or her family, community, culture, language, and origin, in a way that is designed and manipulated to prevent a response. From the very first instance everything the child learns, hears, and understands is about squelching any contestation of an act the child had no say in. That anyone might at that point thereafter ask any adoptee to “discuss” the subject according to their rules and parameters, when the adoptee is still attempting to formulate a response that might possibly match this first aggression, this first violence, this first act of silencing, abduction, and disruption which was the adoption, is pretty mind boggling, and is extremely offensive. Frankly, I’m tired of P/APs discussing. I’m sick to death of it, especially after what I have learned about the baby trafficking that has gone on here in Lebanon since the 50s all for their sordid gain. I want to see action. These are the people with luxury, status, privilege, and rank in society, and just as all of the laws and systems bent for them so that they could traffic an infant for their own fulfillment, if they wanted to they could bend the laws a different way. But they don’t. That’s the dirty work that is left for the adoptees, who are then berated and belittled and treated with such kind epithets as ungrateful, and angry, and bitter. This is where P/APs spend their energy: trying to keep up the original pretense. This is a failed endeavor; a failure of their “peculiar institution”, and the culture of lies built up to support it. It is indecent to frame it any other way. There is no equality in this discussion. And there is no mud, no disrespect, only Truth.

    • Daniel – You seemed to have misunderstood my post. I was commenting broadly on communications as your comment provoked thoughts in me about my own communication styles, experiences, etc. I was not commenting on your particular focus of taking power away from adoptive parents or even the situation that occurred elsewhere.

      I am curious though how you propose that situation, the balance of power, be changed. I get that you are tired of the situation (justifiably so) but I dont quite see what you are suggesting be done. AS I dont focus my energies there (on the balance of power between adoptees and adoptive parents), I am curious. My focus is further up the pipeline. Specifically, I work to shut off the supply that has historically met the demand. I focus on young single mothers, support services for them, education for them (and education is both college focused as well as educating them on the truth of adoption), supporting kinship care by the family of origin and such.

      What is your recommendation for correcting the situation you seem to focus on? What action do you want to see? Do you believe it is possible to stop an infertile from wanting a child? Do you believe you can change the social constructs that support adoption? If so, how? Exactly?

  7. I haven’t misunderstood anything, I’m simply pointing out that this mediation tends toward the passivist, as I like to call it, as opposed to the activist. Like wearing a red ribbon as a “sign” of charity. On the other hand, your actions on the ground are worthy, but they are within the system. A cancer doctor doesn’t put bandaids on her patient and then call the patient cured. We need a fundamental end to the sickness.

    I’m curious though about your use of the word “infertile” as a noun, and then to take that one step further, to consider that all of us want, right? We all want. But most of us learn to live within parameters that don’t adversely affect other people. I’d love to have someone helping me clean my house, but I refuse to hire slave labor. I too would like children, but I won’t destroy others to get what I want. It is interesting that you phrase this within what someone incapable of procreating might want, as opposed to those whose child s/he might steal. This is revealing.

    This brings us to the last question, and the logical answer of all the above: Revolution. A stepping down from one’s class position for the First World. An end to empire, and the colonialism and racism that go with it. Of course, these words are ridiculed in the United States. But I assure you that they are valid for four-fifths of the planet, whose time for Voice is come. And theirs will be the last word.

    Think of it this way: If every adoptive parent put the money and energy they spent on adoption toward communal care of children, or toward bettering the lives of those they share space with, or actively advocating for the very community of the child they would so readily kidnap, things would be radically different.

    I live in a context where this is the norm, and I worry for nothing, and likewise in return take care of my friends and neighbors as need be. This is normal behavior for most of the planet. Anglo-Saxon competitive, individualistic, nuclear family-based self-entitlement at all cost is, quite on the contrary, abnormal behavior. This is the bigger point. And the solution is quite obvious.

    • This brings us to the last question, and the logical answer of all the above: Revolution.

      Revolution? Amusing. Some might suggest that is already happening. Maybe not the way you want it to, or the way it does in your country, or not as fast as you want it to.

      Can you expand? Give specifics. Do we imprison those that have adopted? Shoot them? Take away their children? Curious how you suggest we revolt in our country. Is that what accomplished that communal care in yours?

    • “If every adoptive parent put the money and energy they spent on adoption toward communal care of children, or toward bettering the lives of those they share space with, or actively advocating for the very community of the child they would so readily kidnap, things would be radically different. ”

      Funnily enough, Yoon-Seon and I were talking about this last week in an e-mail exchange.

      She says there’s too much base selfishness in the world for that to occur.

      • She says there’s too much base selfishness in the world for that to occur.

        Mei Ling – I tend to agree with your friend. What brings many adoptive parents to adopt is not a desire to help a child, but to help themselves first and the child second. While I do know many adoptive parents (usually the ones who adopt from foster care or those in open adoption) that put the needs of the child first, many dont.

  8. Why put words in my mouth? I never said any of those things, nor suggested them. I am talking about a social contract. Lebanon is a shithole, a neo-liberal nightmare. But the social contract holds in most places that I find myself in. I’m not saying I live in Shangri-La, I’m only saying that if I have to live in such a nightmare, I’d rather it be this one.

    There is no revolt possible in your country. Empires crumble from the edges in, while decaying from the inside out. I would suggest reading up on Marx, Gramsci, Shari’ati, Fanon, Memmi, Said, etc., etc. Adoption maps on to all of it.

    • Oh, my, Daniel. Definnitely not putting words in your mouth. Quite the contrary, asking for your own words. I was not sure what you meant by revolution as that can mean different things to different people.

      Unlike you, I have not given up on my country or those of us inside it fighting the monster known as Adoption in the USofA. Our children, past, present and future deserve better. I am not willing to wave a white flag.

  9. “Another part of me feels that we owe each other some degree of decency and respect, perhaps even more so since it happens in the public, online environment.”

    I’m coming to believe that it is wrong to expect any respect online. I find that a little sad, having spent quite a bit of time pondering this myself over the past couple of weeks, but also exhiliarating. Sometimes you have better communication when all the knives are on the table and everyone’s prepped for battle. It’s just really hard to watch the newbie APs get whacked sometimes, kind of like watching a train wreck.

    I’m now chewing on what you said on my blog today about whether it was even worth it to try to educate us. It occurred to me that, contrary to what I have thought all along, there might actually be a lot of learning going on when we’re called out.

    There’s actually something more interesting to me in in Daniel’s comments, though. I think they’re getting to what I have also been thinking lately is the real heart of the adoption debate: whether or not children really need families or if other types of care are better for them, particularly if their cultures, languages and ethnic identities are at stake.

    I would love to hear that debate.

    • “I think they’re getting to what I have also been thinking lately is the real heart of the adoption debate: whether or not children really need families or if other types of care are better for them, particularly if their cultures, languages and ethnic identities are at stake.”

      This debate about potential guardianship is believed to be false on many fronts. Apparently it wouldn’t work. Neither would foster care. Neither would extended family because they don’t have immediate rights to the child.

  10. Margie :I�m coming to believe that it is wrong to expect any respect online. I find that a little sad, having spent quite a bit of time pondering this myself over the past couple of weeks, but also exhiliarating.

    Margie – Should we expect or demand it? By that I mean, I am a believer in the thought that we teach people how to treat us. Do we really not want any consideration, respect, etc in our communications? I understand Daniel is advocating to drop all that political correctness and let the chips (or knives) fall where they may but I am struggling with that. How does that work? How do you facilitate a discussion amongst so many audiences, with such varying education, languages, experiences and NOT set some sort of “rules of engagement”. Surely you as a linguistics person can understand what I am getting at (and I as the communications major). Put more simply, if I am speaking English and that is my only language, and someone else is speaking Chinese and that is their only language, how can we communicate if one does not learn the language of the other or if we dont agree to say, learn Esperanto?

  11. Pingback: What’s The Point? « Exile of Xingnan

  12. I think adoption discussion derails less on misunderstanding points of view and more on the dismissal of the adoptee voice. I haven’t experienced too many situations in which adoptees and adoptive parents or first parents haven’t understood each other, but many in which adoptees are dismissed.

    From my point of view, adoptees, first parents and adoptees are not on equal footing. My rules of engagement would require adoptive parents, and to a lesser degree for a reason that probably only makes sense to me, first parents not to dismiss the adoptee point of view. It gets tricky for me where adoptees disagree, which is another discussion I’d like to hear.

    Do I believe the reverse is true, and that adoptees should not dismiss the genuine efforts of adoptive parents and first parents to express their experiences? If we agree that adoption imposes an unwanted and burdensome experience on adoptees, then no unless that adoptee chooses to extend their respect.

    It comes down to humility for me. I believe APs absolutely have to have it, and if they do, they will recognize their obligation to listen without dismissal. I’m not saying I do this all the time or even some of the time, mind you, just pointing out that I believe it’s part of the dynamic.

  13. Should have added: I define dismissal and disagreement as two different thing – dismissal as disbelief in someone’s expressed experiences, and disagreement as a differing point of view on a particular issue. Disagreement is a given in ANY discourse; dismissal is another thing altogether, I think.

  14. Suz, I think you have the correct approach which is one of the reasons I take time out of my day to read your blog. While the intersection of internet culture and civil discourse can be tricky at times, I do believe that civility needs to prevail.

  15. Those with more power in adoption frame the discourse that adoptees can have. If we do not share what others want to hear, how they want to hear it, we are invalidated with “angry adoptee” labels. Similar to a woman who is standing up for herself or taking a leadership position having others frame how she can do so by calling her a “nag” (or some other female stereotype) if they don’t like what she has to say.

    It gets exhausting to be treated that way. To know that you are part of a group so marginalized and disenfranchised that all anyone has to do is say “oh, they’re just angry” (or whatever other adoptee stereotype) and it’s a free pass for the rest of the world to ignore adoptees that day. I have lost track of how many times I’ve been called “angry” when I was actually quite polite, simply because I didn’t churn my opinion through the adoption rainbow and butterfly machine before expressing it.

    In my humble opinion, the issue in adoption discourse is that too often adoptees are labeled as lacking civility, not because they truly are lacking, but because others have labeled them as such to invalidate their viewpoint.

  16. This whole discussion only proves my point, following up on Amanda’s comment. I don’t even have to say a word, and the whole thread drips with tactical innuendo; I will not rise to it any more. The fact that this more subtle form of talking down, or belittling, or putting someone in their place, or getting the last word in is acceptable according to the bourgeois Anglo-Saxon rules of engagement as described and understood (because we all understand them, even if we don’t agree with them) does not hide the fact that they are as “in your face” as so-called “uncivilized discourse”. It’s like the racism I dealt with in France when I lived there in the 80s: I much preferred it up front and center, then formalized and coded as it is in the U.S.

    And thus the whole discussion is a charade, bordering on Orwellian, meant to do exactly the opposite of what it is pretending to: namely, remind those who don’t “play nice” the rules of the game. Maybe we could have a discussion among slave owners about what they think of what they do, while telling the slaves themselves they shouldn’t act uncivilized, or telling them they “sure are articulate [for a ….]”. Same thing.

    I won’t get into adoptees playing the equivalent of Uncle Tom to this power differential, because frankly it kind of makes me sick. Especially given those of us working on this end of things. South Korea is ending foreign adoptions as of next year. Maybe pro-adoption adoptees should go there and tell them that adoption is a given, and that there is no changing anything, and that their children will be better off plundered just like their economy was. A quarter of a million children lost in a diaspora they never asked for. Go ask them what they think, and then tell them they are wrong.

  17. Daniel Ibn Zayd :
    This whole discussion only proves my point, following up on Amanda’s comment. I don’t even have to say a word, and the whole thread drips with tactical innuendo; I will not rise to it any more.

    Tactical innuendo? Really? If that is true, it is unfortunate you wont help clarify and show people how their alleged innuendo is preventing you from making your point. I am stumped with how you think we should solve the problem. I agree with your assessment of the problems, the power plays, yet I wanted to know more about how you think it should be solved. I am asking to hear your voice – you are shutting it down because I or others aren’t getting it or responding appropriately. How do you suggest we clean the morass? Or is that your point? That adoptees, being the ultimate victims, shouldn’t have to solve the problem, just state it and by stating it the ignorant societies in their ignorant state that caused the problem should figure it out. If that is so, I must say I don’t have much faith in that. I believe we need more than to tell people who have profited from the selling of children that they should just stop because the victims have said so.

  18. Daniel, fascinating thoughts, are you familiar with the expression, ‘if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem’??
    Offer solutions instead of constantly overstating the obvious, : )

  19. To be blunt Daniel, the only person using tactical innuendo here is you. It’s interesting how you’re talking about power issues in language and communication, but don’t see (apparently) that the way you’re using language is not designed for real communication. There is a lot of critical analysis that centers around the problems of using the type of academic and theoretical language that you’re messages are coded in. Another words, you can blame people for misunderstanding you, when you are the one, in fact, you has chosen to speak in an academic and theoretical language that is ripe for misunderstanding.

  20. Yaa Rich, yaa habibi, come to Lebanon. Walk with me here. Work with me on the ground here. March with me to the border of Palestine and watch teenagers get murdered. Come teach in the camps, and in the marginalized neighborhoods of the southern suburbs of Beirut. Go through a month of bombings, and drones, and assaults, all branded “Made in the U.S.A.–Your Tax Dollars at Work.” Live next to the weapons arsenal for the criminal political party supported by the United States and Europe that resulted in a street war of four days. Attempt to move forward against the onslaught of all of this. You want to go somewhere else? Go to South Korea, or Guatamala, or any other place any of us has given up everything to return to. You don’t know me to say what you said. You don’t know. And this is willful, because it is very easy to find out what I do here ( http://tinyurl.com/marounarras ). And that story is yet ongoing. Let’s talk again in a year and compare notes.

    Yaa Janet, yaa ukhte, I’m in no position of power for what you state to even slightly be true. Furthermore, nothing I am saying goes misunderstood by those I come in contact with here on a daily basis: marginalized populations within Lebanon, Syrian migrant workers, Palestinians in the camps, all of whom have much less education than I imagine you do. I don’t know how much more “real” my communication with them could be, given that I speak with them one-on-one, instead of removed behind Internet layerings. They understand these terms and this story because they too are dispossessed, displaced, and have lived with this their whole loves for generations; and thus the link I make with my so-called (to you) theoretical language. I have fine-tuned my way of speaking BECAUSE of interacting with them, not by talking over their heads. Can you not imagine that the “critical analysis” you mention is likewise bent on stamping out resistance of any kind? This is facile. So the question becomes why the willful misunderstanding, the epithets of academic remove? The irony, of course, is that the academy that we seem to equally loathe has seen fit to let me go BECAUSE of my activism, not in spite of it. The reach of empire is great, indeed.

    Yaa Suz, yaa binte, we are not “ultimate victims”. That is the whole point. These are the references I made earlier to others who argue the same thing, bridging adoption to other forms of exploitation, and the empowerment of those exploited. This is current discourse here, among all of the countries of this region going through their revolutions, although it might simply amuse you. I’ve stated my solution: A reversal of empire, a systemic revolution, based on ideas of equality of thought and action; theory and practice. There is no thinking without doing, and there is no doing that does not involve the local and the global picture, as well as the avoidance of systems that maintain Empire. That you might wish me to summarize this in bullet points on a blog somehow is willfully disingenuous; that you might put the onus on me to explain what ninety percent of the planet understands is the sheer sloth of such Empire.

    James Baldwin, in The Fire Next Time, writes: “…the American dream has therefore become something much more closely resembling a nightmare, on the private, domestic, and international levels. Privately, we cannot stand our lives and dare not examine them; domestically, we take no responsibility for (and no pride in) what goes on in our country; and, internationally, for many millions of people, we are an unmitigated disaster. Whoever doubts this last statement has only to open his ears, his heart, his mind….”

    And so we pose the question: How, then, do we alter, change, bypass, subvert, indeed, overcome such a system? James Baldwin is suggesting that we examine our own lives, we take responsibility for what our country–our Empire-does, and that we listen to the rest of the planet. What does it mean, then, in this framing of things, to critique those who simply advocate for this, or who are actively engaged in this? For a critique from the inside of Empire is invalid; because it is the given. I know it, I have lived it for most of my life, I understand it, and it is nothing but tactical.

    But so be it. In any event, I sincerely invite you all to come to Lebanon; join me on the outside, on the periphery, face-to-face, on even ground. Then we can talk, as long as you want, as long as it takes. I’ll gladly show you around. And I’ll make the tea.

    • Daniel – Thank you for so eloquently illustrating my point on communication. I will expand on what I mean in a separate post later today. I was particularly amused by your slang derogatory Arabic terms used towards Janet, Rich and myself. That also supports my point. The tea invite is lovely, but can I substitute a nice strong coffee instead? While traveling in Israel some years back I became quite fond of the very strong coffee that part of the world offers.

  21. Slang derogatory Arabic terms? “Yaa habibe” would roughly translate as “O beloved one”. “Yaa ukhte” would translate as “O my sister”. “Yaa binte” would translate as “O my daughter”. These are terms of endearment. I don’t know where you learned your Arabic from, but your projection states much more than your words do. And the place you are referring to is “Palestine”. A salaamu aleikum. [Peace be upon you].

    • Daniel – Thank you for once again supporting my points. What you consider loving endearing phrases are for me, based on my experience, used as sarcastic slanderous ones. Since you dont know me or my life experience beyond this blog, you would not know that. You also would not know that I find it odd for a man on the internet to refer to me with terms of endearment. All of the above and more support the topic of how communication problems occur. Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by Palestine (more communication challenges) as when I had the coffee I refer to I was sitting in cafe in Tel Aviv, Israel. If you call that “Palestine”, again, a root cause of communication challenges – different languages, different experiences, teachings. Also, so very glad you mentioned projections for I intend to write about that, and transferance, in future communciation topics. Thank you again for the prompts and the support of my points.

  22. As you wish and as you will. Take it and run with it. Twist it and turn it and make it fit as you need it and as you see it. It’s your world after all. As-salaamu aleikum.

Comments are closed.