Doesn’t Rene Hoksbergen have anything better to do, in his retirement, than to continue to USE Joan M Wheeler’s families as whipping posts in a NEW forward?

Or has Joan used him, again? One never really knows with Joan because she is a sneaky con-artist who is always rewriting her life story, which includes me and mine!

When the e-book, titled, Forbidden Family, My Life as an Adoptee, Duped by Adoption, was first put out, May 2015, and I when I purchased it in June 2015, it stated and still states ….  Rene Hoksbergen (Editor), Michael Allen Potter (Editor) I would guess that Joan will NOT be able to change what Amazon has placed there!

Inside the e-book, at Kindle Location 28, it states, ‘Formatting for Kindle: Michael Allen Potter’

That is misleading for he is NOT an editor; he just formatted the text into a kindle language.

And at location 8200, which is now GONE, as Joan removed four chapters, the location is now 6919 and it states, ‘I express my gratitude to the many editors who have helped me shape this book: Dr Rene Hoksbergen, Michael Allen Potter…’

The first book, that she wrote which was pulled from publication by the publisher, was titled ‘Forbidden Family; A half orphan’s account of her adoption, reunion and social activism. Foreword by Prof. Dr. Rene Hoksbergen.’

But NOW the updated second book, done in August, has an UPDATED forward by Hoksbergen, even as he is listed as editor. Was it really rewritten by Hoksbergen or by Joan? Let’s look at this more closely.

It should be remember that he NEVER saw a copy of the manuscript after the date of 2006; 4 years before the first book was published!! Also the birth sisters exposed many professional errors that the Doctor did for Joan.

So the QUESTION to ask is…how can Prof. Dr. Rene Hoksbergen be DEMOTED from the high place of writing a forward in the first edition to just an editor in the second? I believe that once Joan decided to update the e-book in August, to remove 4 chapters, because I exposed certain points in them, she also decided to ADD the forward – but she had to rewrite it first.

Adding a whole new paragraph, changing a word here and there, taking out whole sentences and combining two paragraphs and presto…there’s a NEW FORWARD and a new DATE of 2015! She is a first class con-artist!

But going on the ‘premise’ that this was written by Hoksbergen my initial thoughts were with him in mind, for this blog post and so my thoughts were…

Why does he again have to write a ‘forward’ to a garbage book that has already has been proved to continue libelous materials? Why does he have to use all that ‘gobblely gook’ language and thoughts that ONLY academia pompous has-beens use? To make him, and Joan, appear to have ‘something’ important to say that others will be ‘impressed’ with. It’s just a show behind the curtain! Pay no attention to these great and wonderful wizards of adoption!

Why does he have to engage in quasi-science? Quasi means ‘having a likeness to something’. What he, and Joan, are presenting may have ‘a likeness to something’ (their position) but their position is faulty to begin with. As a man of ‘letters’ he should KNOW better than to exploit two families without their permissions. Using the birth and adoptive families, as he does, solely on Joan’s recollections, retellings and fabrications, he has his AGENDA at the permanent expense of GENERATIONS of people that have NOTHING to do with adoption, its faults or its reform! These two families were NEVER interviewed by Rene Hoksbergen and after being informed years ago, he continues to do the same exploitations. Shame on him!

But then I looked at BOTH forwards and noted the changes. So NOW let’s look at this new forward and ask ourselves, did Joan rewrite this or did Hoksbergen? The first paragraph is totally new and is very much Joan!

The first forward had 3 paragraphs; the second forward has 4 paragraphs. In order to show how the forward changed from the first publication and the second I use these notations;

What is totally new in second one… (a) and underlined

What was changed from the first… (b) and underlined

What was taken out of the first…(c) and underlined

underlined The recently updated forward in the e-book, as of August 2015.

Paragraph 1 (new…(a)

Being surrendered for adoption, for the adoptee means the start of a lifelong process to arrive at an understanding and acceptance of so important fact of his or her life. In the meanwhile all involved in the adoption field have to realize that because basic societal phenomena change over time, it has to be accepted that the meaning over adoption also is likely to change. For the adoptee this means that for instance the searching process and reunion event may have changed over time in their meaning and consequence for the concerning adoptee.

 

Paragraph 2, (changed… (b) ‘Life stories’ ‘but none’  ‘has’ and the words reunion and search are NOW in bold.

A life story of an adoptee can be very compelling. This is definitely the case with Joan Wheeler’s account. Her life story differs a lot from other stories in nonfiction books about adoption. The main reason why her report is so important is because her Forbidden Family is the first book to focus on the ‘reunion in progress’. Many books have given us a rather complete description of all the feelings and facts involved with the ‘search in progress’. Up until now, the adoption literature has given us brief accounts of reunion and post-reunion experiences, but only a few so far have focused on all the effects of the post-reunion. In Joan’s account, the effects are shown on the adoptive parents, the original father, all siblings involved and also on other relatives and acquaintances further up in the social surrounding of Joan Wheeler born Doris Sippel and her two pairs of parents.

 

Paragraph 3, taken out…(c) and underlined    changed… (b) and underlined

Joan has been able to show us the seemingly weak position of an adoptee in the US of A. By the end of the well-written history of her life one has the feeling that there is a chance for every ‘found adoptee’ to be judged harshly and shunned by her adoptive family and not be to become fully accepted by all her ‘new’ relatives, unless she fulfills the cultural role she is expected to fulfil. This role is to be a grateful and dependent person who is always very concerned with the feelings of all relatives involved.

taken out…(c) ‘Joan has also shown us that deeply-engrained beliefs can hold certain families together while tearing others apart. By careful dissection, Joan has illustrated how the implicit public perception that adoptees are not wanted by the parent who has surrendered the child, is not true. She has also demonstrated that not all adoptees originate from ‘illicit’ unmarried sex, and that those distorted perceptions carry damaging prejudice.’

 

Paragraph 4, taken out…(c) and underlined    changed… (b) and underlined

Joan Wheeler has confronted us with basic questions about family life and the complex problems where two families are inextricably bound together by adoption. Her account is also a strong testimony against the system of closed adoption. She has shown that this adoption policy definitely was not in her ‘best interests’. For the biggest part, however, Joan’s account is a complex, intense and very relevant description or better analysis of adoption life in our culture.

(the original sentence was…Joan’s account is a true description: and intense and intimate analysis of adoption life in our culture.) *** note that ‘true description’ has been REMOVED.

She gives a detailed examination of opinions and emotions of adoptive parents, natural parents, and their children in the USA during the last decades of the 20th century and the beginning years of the 21st century.

Dr. Rene Hoksbergen, Professor Emeritus, Coordinator, Adoption Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. June 1 st 2015   

Original date of the forward was August 8, 2006

Also of significant note, years ago, on her first book, which is still is listed on Amazon, she posted, in her own author’s boilerplate, a ‘review’ by Hoksbergen that was written for a Netherlands publication; that piece was not in the book she wrote. She just used it for her own propaganda.

NOW take a look at the discussion on Amazon that I placed about this forward. There has only been, to date, one reply and they didn’t TOUCH on the first paragraph. I find that very telling, for it proves to me that that first paragraph was written by Joan.

http://www.amazon.com/about-the-FORWARD-/forum/Fx16ZHWP5PQHHCK/Tx2ACMKSGGGG4SV/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_tp_cq?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B00X520CGW&cdSort=oldest#Mx16G15LCZTNM4X

Here are links to blog posts where Ruth and I have addressed Hoksbergen

https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/joan-wheeler-lies-about-dr-rene-hoksbergen-in-her-book-forbidden-family/

https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/open-letter-to-professor-rene-hoksbergen-and-rebuttal-of-his-%E2%80%9Cprofessional%E2%80%9D-review-of-forbidden-family-by-joan-wheeler/

https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/our-second-success-in-recovering-our-lives-from-the-many-lies-told-by-joan-m-wheeler-in-her-trashy-book-forbidden-family-college-professors-are-now-agreeing-with-us/

https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/emails-from-willem-koops-former-colleague-of-retired-professor-rene-hoksbergen-palsie-walsie-of-joan-wheeler/

https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/gert-mcqueens-review-of-rene-hoksbergens-review-of-forbidden-family-by-joan-wheeler/

end…

Advertisements

One thought on “Doesn’t Rene Hoksbergen have anything better to do, in his retirement, than to continue to USE Joan M Wheeler’s families as whipping posts in a NEW forward?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s