[ SECRET POST #2897 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2897 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 041 secrets from Secret Submission Post #414.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Legally adopted? Considering Gold's involvement and that there was no paperwork or home visits, that adoption was shady as hell even ignoring the obvious problem that Regina Mills doesn't exist. She's a convicted mass murderer who came to this country illegally and used falsified documents to take possession of a newborn baby.

[(Anonymous)]

*yawn* Change the record, darling. I've heard this tune before.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry that the truth bores you.

[(Anonymous)]

The holier than thou preachiness of your sermon bores me, heard it so often that it has long since failed to have meaning and frankly the tone makes me want to root for the Reggie fans just on general principle that they are getting under your skin.

[(Anonymous)]

Facts are preachy?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

That is one interpretation of the facts. Another interpretation is that it was a legal adoption.

I'm not sure which I think myself. Because I think that IRL your interpretation makes more sense, but I also think the showrunners intended for it to be a legal adoption.

[(Anonymous)]

Really? I thought the showrunners went out of their way to show that it wasn't legal. Isn't it funny how we can interpret these things so differently (I'm being serious, not sarcastic)? The world would be a lot more boring if that wasn't the case, but there would certainly be less fandom wank!

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. Different perspectives are what make things interesting. But that's the thing. It bugs me when people state their interpretations as fact and are condescending to people who interpret things differently.

[kallanda_lee]

But, there's no way it was a legal adoption, not with what we know of it basically being one of Gold's deals - in the very, very best scenario, you might argue that Regina actually didn't know that fact, and that it's legal to her knowledge.

But really, given that they could not have actually left Storybrooke, and the child was somehow delivered there, it sounds to me more like a case of "being willfully ignorant to the fact it might be shady as long as it gets her a kid".

[ozaline]

Except she did leave Storybrooke, apparantly that part of the curse did not apply to her at that time, in the Neverland arc they show her at the adoption agency both picking up Henry, and almost returning him when she realized he was the savior's son (then she removes her own memory of that fact, because she loves him too much to let him go).

Gold manipulated the system, but the system was used.

[(Anonymous)]

da

Your annoying condescension entirely aside, the ayrt is entirely right, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point? Sure, she loves him, but there's literally nothing legal about the adoption.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm just choosing to be contrary because it was the first anon that started with the holier than thou preaching. It doesn't matter if they were right or not, they are guilty of obnoxious sanctimony and thus their argument is now worthless. They should have quit after the first hundredth time they posted it.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, admittedly I don't get my hands into the wank very much, but I'm not seeing how their comment was holier-than-thou or preachy? They were just pointing out facts. I totally understand if it's a general aversion you have to anti-stans, but it just isn't the specific case here, so you came off as suddenly and colossally asshatty. :/

[(Anonymous)]

Au contraire, it is yourself that is being an asshat by insisting the other anon has to be right.

[(Anonymous)]

All right, I'm done with this conversation. Have a good one.

[(Anonymous)]

Shady as hell but she didn't steal a baby from its parents.

[(Anonymous)]

True, but that's not enough to give her any kind of moral high ground. Both of them are lousy people and terrible "mothers".