[SilasX]

I kind of agree with parent. While I don’t have a problem with symbolic use of adoption, I do have a problem with “multiple adoption”.

When I think of a donor “adopting” a case, I have a model of “this donation sufficed for lifetime care of that case”. If one donation isn’t sufficient, then maybe a group of donations would collectively be the adoption.

You shouldn’t have a scenario where there are more adoptions than cases (gorillas in this one). I mean imagine if a foster agency said they processed five adoptions but had only two children.

[skohan]

I guess in my mind, the point of the adoption is that the "adopter" has a point of personal connection with the funding they are providing, and they can hang a picture on the wall to remind themselves why they are supporting this cause.

Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so that they and they alone can have a financial relationship with this particular gorilla.

[SilasX]

>Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so that they and they alone can have a financial relationship with this particular gorilla.

I never suggested or hinted at that, just that it was misleading to call it adoption, if they're not granted a kind of "owning" of that relationship, in the sense of that donor is "the" supporter of that gorilla [pair]. If they want to call it "supporting", I wouldn't consider that misleading.