I personally think you have to be careful before making judgments that are this specific. Animals that are rehomed on CL are often destined for shelters and rescues, taking them in keeps them out of the shelter and/or out of less favorable conditions in many cases. I found both my dogs on CL, both were free to the first person who picked up the phone and called. I really do cringe when I think what could have become of them if I hadn't been the one to make that call. No, I didn't pay an organization an adoption fee for either of them, but I certainly do think it's silly to imply that someone would look at either situation and say it was anything but an adoption.
I'm also of the opinion that a life is a life and they all matter - so to get down to the nitty gritty and start making assessments on what people can and can't call adoption seems to me a moot point. Sure, buying an animal from a breeder or pet store is outright buying merchandise and can't be called anything else. Taking in a pig (or other pet) that a pet store has taken in as a surrender, I don't know - I can see both sides and I understand that point that if no money goes to the store, what else can you call it; I also see the point that the whole reason a store would take in "surrendered" animals is for them to serve as the loss leaders that their other live merchandise does. So I'd have to say it would come down to a case-by-case determination and I think that level of nit-picking is, at best, counterproductive.
Over the years my "lines" have become less rigid too - I don't like the contempt intolerance seems to breed and while I'm always quick to distinguish between buying/rescuing/adopting/etc., it seems to me that there are always a certain group of folks in rescue communities that seem to want to appoint themselves the unofficial council and arbitrarily make judgments on what can be called "adoption" and what can't. This comment makes me think of that. It seems to me that if the bottom line is education and helping people to understand the true and distinct difference between buying an animal and acquiring it in a way that isn't buying (meaning the purchase doesn't benefit a breeder or large scale corporation in any way) and by educating helping to ensure that those who didn't bat an eye at buying won't do it again and will help to make sure others don't, either, then squabbling with folks over the conditions under which they obtained their pet from another home or person to determine whether or not it can adequately be deemed true adoption is an utterly pointless endeavor.
I saw a comment some time back someone made to a poster about pigs they'd taken in from craigslist along the lines of, 'that would be considered an adoption because ...' It's obviously always going to be a subjective determination, but to me, and if a person is obtaining an animal from a source other than a pet store or breeder, whether you want to call it adoption or not, it's a vast improvement over truly buying and supporting a mill or a store or a corporation that genuinely only sees those sentient lives as profits or losses.
To the OP, although I quoted you, I really didn't intend to address you specifically. Your comment about how you consider adoption to be something truly special, etc., just got me thinking and I do understand what you mean (I think). I work a job where words and how they're used are extremely important, so I understand more than I probably want to what you mean about how you, personally, feel about calling something adoption, but the comment in general is reminiscent of an attitude that I've seen taken to extremes from time to time and that's really what I meant to comment on, and I really didn't mean to direct anything I said at you specifically.
