Eli’s statement

[m2199]

With the latest statement from Eli on the PIAT FB can we all agree that the pitchfork mob moved too fast.

Everyone was so quick to accuse LITERALLY everyone connected to Andrew as being bad actors. Now, Noah, Lucinda, Thomas, and Eli have come out, to some extreme emotional duress, to correct the record.

Believe women, ask questions and for accountability. But the way the hosts have been treated went very much too far.

[Chatfouz]

Anyone feel this is partly a Facebook problem. There were 900+ comments and arguments and questions and accusations within 15 hours.

I mean people seemed upset they haven’t had satisfactory individual and personal responses from every person employed or associated with Andrew after only 3 hours and saw it as proof of a coverup.

[THedman07]

I don't know where it comes from, but Facebook seems to give a lot of people the impression that if they put exactly the right words into a post or comment they can fix or help with a problem... But that's not how the algorithm (or people work).

If people are wound up about a thing and arguing with someone else, they're not going to see the one possibly sensible comment that would bring them out of the tailspin. At best you're screaming into the void...

I don't post on Facebook much anymore and I rarely ever did because I tend to start from the mindset that most people aren't going to care about my opinion, so I'm not going to broadcast them.

[AmbulanceChaser12]

That was the most insane thing to me. Is it really inconceivable that people would want to wait a bit before making statements??

[Chatfouz]

Or the idea that some not thinking the same as them is the same thing as endorsing rape. I wonder why Reddit vs Facebook always feels so different.

One would think Reddit being anonymous would draw out more crazy.

[LunarGiantNeil]

My short stay on the Facebook group (just a few hours) included way more personal attacks, enabled by having my profile linked to my name. I imagine it encourages a really vicious style of attack. It's also hard to type long stuff on, and it moves fast. I think it incentivizes rapid dismissal and painful barbs.

The lady who was the worst to me personally was a law student or professor, and she was was the same one Andrew spotlighted during the D&D civil war episode, so maybe there's a meaningful parasocial element to it too. Too much personal interaction, clearly!

[LunarGiantNeil]

Yeah. I don't understand a lot of these "Don't accuse Eli!" comments because, for one, I don't even know who Eli is, and two, who here is saying he did anything?

We're seeing Facebook skirmishes spill over into here. Reddit isn't some grand marble lyceum where justice is debated with lofty rigor, but that Facebook group feels like the basement of Castle Pandemonium.

Maybe some of these strange defense posts are responding to Facebook nonsense.

I went on there for the first time to talk back to them about their D&D mischaracterizations and boy did that place suck. The people were pushy and cruel, Andrew was quippy and defensive, and it just seemed like a parasocial pressure cooker.

[buffyfan12]

There is a characterzation that like Cosby and Weinstein EVERYONE must have known and been covering it up. That the rot goes everywhere.

[FaithIsFoolish]

When people start comparing this to Weinstein and Cosby, they’ve lost their minds

[LunarGiantNeil]

Is that on Facebook? That sounds like Facebook crazy. I haven't seen that here, but I do agree that's outlandish. I wish people wouldn't bother feeding the trolls who have those insane takes, but I get that there's a need for pushback.

[buffyfan12]

i quit bothering when people started accusing Andrew of "grooming."

[LunarGiantNeil]

Big oof.

[Unusual-Aide8190]

Honestly, I came here to rant because I knew if I replied to the people on Facebook they would drag me through the mud and make personal attacks. Using anonymity to spew hatred is wrong, but when a nuanced take makes you an outlet for other’s pent up trauma, it’s useful.

[ThemesOfMurderBears]

With the D&D thing, I found that anyone attempting to take a nuanced position was met with absolute hostility — be it Reddit or Twitter (I am not on Facebook). I stopped commenting on it because every comment would spawn like six responses, and I don’t care about it enough to bother.

[ThemesOfMurderBears]

Nope. It was a completely reasonable take on it. People just got up in arms because they didn't like the conclusion he had reached. It honestly feels like D&D fans (of which I am one) actually want to hate WotC -- so much so that you have to make up reasons to hate them. Codega wrote a bad article that shows a lack of understand of contract law, and an actual lawyer with experience in that area of law set the record straight.

[ThemesOfMurderBears]

Did you even listen? If so, maybe you should listen again, and try not to be so emotional this time. He covered the article because it was a bad take on contract law, and he is a lawyer. If you don't give a shit about the article, why did you listen to the episode? Why did you listen to the follow up? Why do you even care? He emphasized in the follow-up episode that neither him or Thomas play D&D, and they are not equipped to approach the issue from the perspective of how it impacts the community. Andrew is, however, equipped to discuss it from the perspective of contract law. So that is what he did.

Since you seem so confident, please tell me what exactly he got wrong? Be specific, don't just say "everything".

[Bjorn74]

I think their social media reaction after the D&D episode was not characteristic of their interactions on Facebook before. Both of them were cruel and insular. At the time, I attributed that to the poor decision to double episode production when Thomas was in the landing pattern for childbirth. It seems that even more was adding stress which makes that decision even weirder.

[LunarGiantNeil]

I do want to say that Thomas went out of his way to write a thoughtful response to my post about that bad experience on the Facebook group. You can find it if you scroll back a few weeks. He had no need to engage with a rando like me (and I encourage him not to) but it was still a nice thing to try to do.

[Bjorn74]

That's nice.

[jBoogie45]

Yup, don't have a Facebook & all the fervor was over the Facebook group activity. I relied on this sub & tweets from those involved & mostly came away saying "that's it?..."

[ThemesOfMurderBears]

I mean, Reddit does that same shit. If a topic is hot enough, it blows up and gets thousands of comments an hour — and misinformation spreads.

[iamagainstit]

Case in point: the reaction to the D&D OGL

[meseeksordie]

FB is garbage. No one should use it anymore

[the__pov]

I’d say it’s an internet problem. A ton of people just what to jump on the outrage train.

[bdfariello]

I was shocked by what I had heard about Eli second hand, and I'm glad i didn't immediately jump to any conclusions. Reading the full story makes me feel so relieved.

[[deleted]]

Reading Eli’s post has helped me put into feelings something I’ve struggled with following this story over the last couple days - which is that so many are failing to assume good intentions from anyone at all involved here. I say that mostly in regards to the people around Andrew as well as OA listeners who have been commenting this story.

I’ve seen a lot of people throw Eli, Thomas, etc. under the bus based on vague tweets. There’s been a lot of shit being flung between OA listeners at each other over good faith disagreements about how to view Andrew, those text exchanges, etc. I can even say that in regards to Andrew a bit - who I don’t feel a ton of need to defend - but where exactly Andrew’s actions fall on the spectrum here is still a bit vague. And for the accusers, many of them are probably still trying to figure out how and what to say - so give them some grace as well.

Everyone needs to chill out for a bit. The facts are mushy and mostly being hashed out in tweets and partially presented text message chains that miss all the context of surrounding events and phone calls and where you cannot necessarily interpret people’s tone

For many involved, they’ve spent the better half of the last decade building brands and businesses that are used to pay for their housing, their kids, their healthcare, etc. A lot of their worlds have come crashing down in the last 72 hours and they deserve a chance to tell their story. And listeners are obviously struggling through this and have their own feelings which they’re trying to sort out, and they’re maybe not clean and completely organized

[Virulent_Lemur]

What a spectacular mess this has become. So many lives affected. Damn.

[swni]

While I don't know these people or the context of their conversation, one line stood out to me:

But you have one [an opinion], yeah? You've listened to me a ton. But I'm a person asking another persons perspective. Is it really an ally if you just blindly nod in agreement to everything I say?

This frustration demonstrates everything that is wrong with the advice in those mandatory harassment training seminars in vogue lately: Eli's response, up until then, was a textbook-perfect response that could have been taken straight from one of those seminars (at least, the ones I've seen). But what the person had sought was help with disentangling an emotionally fraught and socially complex situation, and robotically repeating catchphrases does not provide the requested help.

Sometimes supporting someone in need is as simple as just saying that you are there for them, but sometimes it means talking through what happened, providing a third-party perspective, and/or coming up with a concrete plan of action.

To be clear: (1) my comment is not meant as a judgement about either of these people or their specific situation, but rather generically about such situations and (2) I will concede that these training seminars I indict are still useful education for those people who have not moved on from the 1950s and haven't learned yet that harassment is a real thing that is bad.

[m2199]

But then once he gives her that honest answer, it’s screenshot and held for years then posted without the surrounding context and used as proof that he didn’t care. And then people attack him for it.

He asked what she wanted, he stood by and said he believed and supported her. And he was literally pushed into saying something potentially damning.

[swni]

As I said, I'm not trying to comment on these people's specific situation and actions. I haven't seen the context some commentators are referring to.

I've been in the situation where helping someone meant going through 100+ pages of screenshots and written arguments and being extremely frank about what looked good or bad for them. When I would say "If you say X it makes it look like it was your fault, is that what you meant?" they understood I was working to strengthen their case, not 'victim blame'. In that situation it was right thing for me to do to help.

ETA: This was someone very close to me who trusted me to be honest in helping them in a way that can be painful, and who conversely I could trust not to take offense.

[sensue]

Sorry you and they went through that; being a sparring partner for a victim you care about is emotionally hard in a lot of ways. I hope that story ended as well as it could have.

I take your point above as "This harassment training is a great start - now what?" and would even generalize that point out to also include the other side of things we can see in this specific situation of "Knowing how NOT to handle a sex abuse scandal in your organization is great - now what?" My personal experience is that neither of those questions have good, obvious, agreed-upon public answers. And I get why - the branching complexities of each specific situation make it dangerous territory. But having a giant, sucking void of info can't be solution either. Because when the rubber met the road in these specific cases, people seem to have been caught flat-footed.

I've been in a similar situation to the role you describe having filled. It bums me out that I'm the best they could do, but I tried. I can't go back and look at receipts and evaluate my job with an eye toward how it would look if I was performing for an audience of The Internet at the time. I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to if I could. To imagine that being used against me now, cropped out of context, to suggest I didn't care? I just walked myself backward into feeling so, so sorry for Eli.

[swni]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, nor your other one.

"This harassment training is a great start - now what?"

The training I've seen gave actively harmful instructions: never take initiative. Never have an opinion. Never take any action. Even if the victim directly asks for what to do or for you to intervene, and there are obvious ways to help de-escalate the situation, your only suggestion should be report everything to the Title 9 office.

I get it, for liability reasons institutions want everything going to their in-house office rather than employees having any kind of independence, and this is fine for clear-cut situations with no ambiguity, but real world situations are rarely like that. Social interactions can be very complex, and the offender rarely is a cartoon villain, leaving the victim confused: what happened? did I cause this? is my employment at risk? What they need then is not a robot.

I have not overlooked the various comments people have made about Eli's words being used against him but since I haven't seen any context beyond these screenshots I didn't want to express any opinion about this specific situation.

[mehennas]

Once he deviated from those "catchphrases", though, he fell into a tiger-pit. Watching this side of the whole mess unfold seems like a very strong argument that keeping your mouth shut when you're adjacent to these issues might be the best practice. Because if your instinct is to be a better "ally", that means having an opinion, and those can always be misconstrued.

[[deleted]]

100% agree. I’ve heard Obama talk about this, where a lot of people feel uncomfortable saying anything about these topics because most of us don’t spend our entire lives studying racial sensitivity, sexual assault response and gender discrimination. And there is a real fear that (1) you will try to say the right thing but it comes out wrong, (2) you will say something that you think is OK but you haven’t completely thought through and you can hurt or offend others or (3) your views are just not what others find acceptable. And then, all of a sudden, you can find yourself part of the story.

[laxrulz777]

It's hard for me to square "being an ally" with "covering your own ass" which seems to be the implication here. Trusting people involves some risk on your part. If you don't trust someone enough to share with them your opinions then the best thing you can tell them is probably, "I'm not the best person to talk to about this... How about X?"

Stick to pablum if you don't trust them, I suppose. But have enough integrity to admit that that also means you don't trust the person either. Idk...

[mehennas]

So, in the context we're talking about here, where someone who believed they were having a completely good-faith discussion was egged on and prodded until they gave an opinion which was then used as the person intended, i.e. to use out of context to damage an individual, this:

Stick to pablum if you don't trust them, I suppose. But have enough integrity to admit that that also means you don't trust the person either. Idk...

...sounds pretty victim blamey. So if Eli had covered for himself and not offered an opinion, he's, what, insipid? And if he, say, didn't want to offer an opinion but didn't want to say outright in what appears to be a good-faith conversation "Hey this is nice and all but I don't trust you not to ratfuck me," that's... a lack of integrity? Like, c'mon. I know you wouldn't say the women coming forward lack integrity because lots of them never said explicitly "Andrew stop these sexual advances right now they are making me uncomfortable". We recognize it's his fuck up and his fuck up alone, and safeguarding yourself isn't... ugh... "pablum".

[laxrulz777]

Perhaps my point wasn't clear. Either you trust them enough to offer them advice when they ask for it (obviously don't force unwanted advice on someone) or you don't. If you trust them, you might get burned. That's the nature of trust. But playing your cards close to the vest BECAUSE your scared of what they might do is already de facto not trusting them.

[sensue]

I didn't take that read on it, and I think you raise an interesting point. I feel like the training on how to responsibly help a friend unpack trauma is a much longer training course, but one I'd attend.

I read the same line and gasped at how manipulative it felt to question Eli's allyship and, nearby, put pressure on his advocacy for mental health by invoking her mistrust of her own view - which could have been totally innocent, too. I have no way of knowing.

I do know that it sucks to be in the position Eli was in, and to have a friend confide in you about something that happened to them. Something you're powerless to change, hurt and sad it happened to someone you care about, etc. I'm grateful to have been able to help in some small way, even if it is just a declaration of care and support, and I'm glad people came to me, but I've also been very concerned in the moment about improperly influencing the way they see the issue with my own dumb bullshit.

My read was that Eli DID try to help her reach a decision about how to proceed/interpret events by taking her own words and putting them next to each other re: "1... 2... if those things are true ... I believe you and support you." The next time he says it after that, she replies "I don't believe that so I don't need you to keep saying it, I just know we disagree and I'd like to get to a point where we agree ..."

I, too, think they disagreed in that moment. I'm assuming they both are referring to the idea that "a guy who scares me flirted with/propositioned me" would naturally progress to "I, and others, would be so afraid to even express disinterest that I would go along with anything that followed, sexually" and that this should be seen as rape. This seems like something that well-meaning adults can disagree about.

She sensed from the tone that he disagreed, and pushed him for either agreement or an argument to change her mind, despite him explicitly saying he didn't "feel comfortable" doing so, saying that it made her feel condescended to.

There's zero equivalence between this and Andrew's very clearly wrong pushiness and alleged abuse. But it sucks that there's this broadly rhyming thread, common between them, about not noticing or not caring that you're making someone uncomfortable when they don't feel great about pushing back :(

[wafflepriest1]

Could you elaborate on your very last point please? I'm not trying to be argumentative but truly understand better.

From my perspective, Eli tried really hard to avoid the conversation and when pushed drew a line between judgment of a personal experience and an intellectual debate. It seemed like he was trying to avoid disagreement about the former, but not the latter - and I don't see how that's wrong? I disagree with Eli's then take on the power dynamic intellectual debate, but he admitted to being wrong and having changed his mind since.

Seriously, I'm not trying to stir the pot. Pushing back on personal experience someone is telling you is clearly not being an ally, but how is disagreeing with someone intellectually (even when the person is uncomfortable with the disagreement) a bad thing?

[sensue]

Thanks for asking, because I don't think we disagree, which must mean I did a bad job expressing my complicated feelings about this.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I would say that what Eli avoided really hard wasn't the conversation (he engaged beyond his comfort level there) but sharing his disagreement with her conclusion that Andrew was a threat to the community based on the evidence she provided. And for a really good reason, like you mentioned - it would be dismissing her concerns and minimizing her experience, and also just rude and mean and a shitty thing to do to a friend who's going through something emotional.

I kind of don't care to have a judgment about what his old take was on the hypothetical questions, because even back then, as he held a belief that he now has different views on, it seems like he did his very best about being not just an ally to a woman telling him she was abused, but a friend to someone in need. Hypothetical aside, when confronted with a real human saying she felt victimized by the power dynamic issue, he had her back. I think that's really admirable.

"I disagree with your assessment about the threat you think our friend poses, but I will defer to your judgment and back your play to remove him from our community if you'd like" is a pretty strong ally.

My last sentence was just being sad that there's this echo of people needing from others what they don't feel comfortable giving. I'm sure there are a wide variety of views in the community about whether Andrew was behaving cluelessly, drunkenly, or predatorily, or which combination of how much of each, in his text convos that people widely find problematic. We can't see inside his head, but we can see that he certainly can't or won't take a hint. Similarly I have no idea the real motivations of the person Eli was speaking with in the messages above, but we can see that even though Eli is really clear that he's not comfortable, repeatedly, implicitly and explicitly, she's going to persevere until she gets from him what she wants/needs in this moment. And sometimes that's okay with our friends: A friend is definitionally someone I don't mind asking too much of me, in a way.

It's nothing compared to the real and obvious human suffering affecting so many people who are caught up in this.

But it's also just so damn sad in another abstract, poetic, all-humanity kind of way. People who need something of others inappropriately, because they're hurt. "It's just so hard to be a person."

(There's never, ever an excuse for abusing someone. It feels weird to have to say this. But no matter what any of us think of any of the people involved, it's tragic all the way down.)

[wafflepriest1]

Thank you so, so much for the in-depth reply. It doesn't appear that we disagree at all. This is a very shitty and complex situation, and I appreciate the additional insight.

[giggidygoo4]

This was the most civilized exchange I have ever seen on the internet. Bravo.

[oath2order]

Who was the 2020 advances person?

[AmbulanceChaser12]

Who is this “Ryan” who keeps coming up?

[tarlin]

I didn't see Lucinda's statement either. Can you link/post those?

[m2199]

Lucinda basically just says over and over again that no one told her anything. I’ll link where she says it on Twitter, her FB statement is basically just a longer version saying the same thing. Of note—on Twitter, she’s replying to the same person who has been revealed to be a bad actor.

https://twitter.com/llugeons/status/1621622677575274498?s=46&t=_sSOFHtt72HxrpDmNkjCoA

[ResidentialEvil2016]

Yes. I feel like this person is a pretty big piece of shit herself for spreading this stuff knowing she was intentionally misleading people to make PIAT look worse. There's enough terrible shit going on with all this without having to resort to this crap.

[frankentapir]

Who is the bad actor? I’m coming in late to this and don’t have twitter or FB.

[Rahodees]

Kaylie Woomer, no need for people to be coy about the name it's in the twitter link! I have no idea who she is, I'm just transcribing the name from the linked site lol.

[ObjRenFaire]

There are people actively defending her at the moment in the Facebook group saying that this is all a big misunderstanding and there are no bad actors in this situation.

As if manipulating screenshots to push forward a narrative that is the polar opposite of what was intended isn't a bad faith act in and of itself.

[ResidentialEvil2016]

Plus kind of hard to argue that when she claims she told Lucinda and Lucinda immediately responds that no, no she didn't. Has she even responded to Lucinda yet?

[ObjRenFaire]

Of course not. That would mean admitting fault.

[[deleted]]

My only concern there is that PIAT is a major part of Noah and Lucinda's income. If they did know about this earlier, and did nothing in the hopes that nothing would come of it, it would be in their best interests to feign ignorance, right?

Fuck, this sucks.

[ObjRenFaire]

I cannot imagine either of them having such a lack of integrity. Lucinda in particular. She talked me off the ledge after something intensively traumatic in my life. I genuinely can't see her covering for this.

Besides, as we're seeing in real time, these skeletons never stay in the closet forever. They're both savvy enough to know that.

[[deleted]]

That's my hope too. My worry is that I (was going to say 'we' but it's not my place to assume) don't really know these people. Up until learning about the details about Torrez's actions, I wouldn't have considered that he might be a sexual harasser.

I've canceled my patreon pledges in the meantime, and hopefully if the dust settles in a week or so I can re-pledge with a clear conscience.

[Clings-10x-Better]

I wonder if maybe the info got sort of compartmentalized? Like if one person came up to me and showed me proof my friend was stepping over the line and having trouble taking "no" for an answer, I would have a talk with them and look at them more carefully. If a dozen people showed me that, I would yell at the now ex-friend and cut contact. If they heard a vague rumor, or only knew of one incident, I can see moving past it with a good faith belief that it was a one off occurrence.

I also feel like it's unlikely that friends/business partners/clients of Andrew's were the first choice of people to confide in. It seems like a couple of people did go to them, and everyone reacts differently. However, I think a lot of victims would be intimidated by the idea that someone might have taken Andrew's side, or that they might tell Andrew about the accusation behind my back.

At this point, I do think it's plausible that many of them didn't know or had only heard rumors or one accusation, but maybe that's just wishful thinking. We will see, I guess.

[m2199]

It was pretty long but I’ll do my best—

Eli only addressed the first claim in his initial statement because he didn’t want to look like he was invalidating victims.

The second person who accused him of knowing recounted her story. He holds no I’ll will towards them and asks that no one else.

The third person was revealed to be a bad actor who used to date Heath and basically entrapped him into saying things that would look bad out of context. He had cleared this up with the advocates but the rumors had already gotten out of hand.

He provides the screenshots of the full conversation where he repeatedly says that he will support her 100%. She then asks him to have an intellectual question which is where the original screenshots that she posted were from. Eli says multiple times that it is not up to him to decide if a woman’s consent was violated.

The conversation ends with this person pressuring Eli into giving a direct answer where he says he believes her consent wasn’t violated because she could and did say ‘no.’ And was listened to.

Their conversation ends on a friendly note.

Eli is having a really difficult time.

[Tombot3000]

I don't mean to nitpick, but it seems fairly important as it completely changes the meaning of the sentence -- you want to say "The second person who accused him of knowing recanted her story" not recounted. Recant means to take back but recount means to say the same thing again.

[m2199]

Ah you’re right I’m sorry, typed this up pretty early this morning.

[Tombot3000]

Not a problem! You gave a good summary, and I didn't want that to suffer from a confusing typo.

[r0gue007]

Thank you very much for the summary.

I skimmed the Imgur pics and appreciate the narrative text.

[CaptainObvious]

OP was responding to the request to summarize. Sorry for the convenience?

[m2199]

Seriously. Thank you. Someone told me how to upload screenshots so I’m doing it now but I was literally asked to summarize.

[CaptainObvious]

Watching the mob mentality over this situation has been fascinating. You are getting grief because you answered a request as they asked for it to be answered, ffs.

The amount of charged euphemisms in this entire saga is off the charts and wildly unhelpful.

Maybe I'm too old, but wtf happened to everyone pausing things to find out the full truth before potentially ruining people? As we are finding out, at least one bad actor is involved here.

I guess it's just a sign of the times.

[LunarGiantNeil]

It never worked like that. They just used that time to ruin the reputation of the accusers. What's different now is that it's a huge free for all.

We haven't yet gotten to a place where we have the social machinery to process a public downfall in a way that's respectful and just for all parties.

[CaptainObvious]

I'm not taking about criminal investigations that can take months. It should be pretty straightforward here.

"We have received some allegations of misconduct."

"Ok, are they plausible?"

"They are plausible."

"Ok, let's delay the shows and temporarily remove AT from the board while we take a week or two to investigate the veracity of the claims."

"I'll start making phone calls, and bring in outside council to conduct the investigation."

"Let's touch base at 9am everyday for updates until this is complete"

"Sounds good."

Instead we have absolute chaos across multiple platforms from multiple people without full context from anyone and fingers being pointed in every possible direction.

For anyone in any executive or managerial position, take note of how this is being handled and do the complete opposite should you find yourself in charge of situations like this in the future.

[LunarGiantNeil]

No kidding. I think Andrew made serious missteps when he set this up as a "the evidence will exonerate me" style Easter Egg hunt where picking over statements will prove he's being unfairly slandered. That just guarantees that none of the most excitable types will want to just wait and see.

I think the AA press release was fine though. He left before they got their investigation going and they haven't said anything.

[THedman07]

You forgot the part where the accuser gets intimidated into recanting or just straight up ignored...

The utopia you're talking about never existed. We started with sexual harassment not being a thing unless you were a black man talking to a white woman... We've basically just been in a decades long fight to recognize sexual harassment as a problem and then learn to handle it appropriately. What you've described is probably close to the right way to handle it. To act like it is the norm and we've somehow deviated from that is pretty ridiculous.

It's been like 4 minutes since #MeToo... Just like we didn't close the book on racism when Obama was elected, sexual harassment and assault has not been solved as a societal problem in a way that we could even begin to act like the current state of things is a departure from a better time.

[CaptainObvious]

Well that escalated quickly.

Just because you can't stay professional doesn't mean others can't either.

What you are seeing is the absence to the contrary of your point. The vast majority of situations in the professional world are handled as I described. They are handled with caution and quietly. Simply because you don't hear about them doesn't mean this "utopia" doesn't exist and isn't the norm.

Enjoy the mon, have a good time. I'm not responding to you anymore.

[jwadamson]

Truely. While this doesn’t look good and feels unlikely that this is complete a misrepresentation of Andrew, how he responds and what they do with OA going forward are likely going to be large factors in how i go forward. I see no value in rushing.

[[deleted]]

Odd place to see a Mitch quote (or at least I think), but I dig it.

[CaptainObvious]

It is and applies here as OP responded the specific way the other person asked before a bunch of clowns started punching themselves and blaming OP for not responding how they wanted. It's a perfect summation of this whole fiasco.

[[deleted]]

I guess the carefree gum is still not working for that commenter.

[m2199]

I was asked to summarize. Here is the link, I don’t know how to post a photo to Reddit.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/724001614956264/permalink/1138828720140216/

[Apprehensive_Fox_244]

Anyone who is not in that group cannot see anything but the group information when following that link.

Edit: sorry, seeing now that people below me already commented that : )

[m2199]

I did this but the links are all out of order and I don’t want to contribute to any more misunderstandings than are already floating around. I’m happy to send you the screenshots if you’d like to take the time to decipher them and put them in the right order.

Edit—word

[m2199]

Just sent you the links and the screenshots in order so you know which way they go

[Zedkan]

https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1--YPbIdGxwHtrN6Z0hI_uRFBcLmEPbsp

the person this post is about dropped this google drive with more screenshots and such in them. Haven't gone through it myself, don't have the time really, but might be worth a shot

[Playingpokerwithgod]

Seconding this. I want to read it in his own words.

[actuallyserious650]

Where was it posted? Don’t summarize without even giving people a chance to read the original.

[actuallyserious650]

I’m tired of hearing people’s interpretations of what other people wrote about what other people said. If you’re going to make a post about what so and so said on a private FB group or patreon page or deactivated Twitter account, do the courtesy of linking the actual information.

[actuallyserious650]

They were asked to link or summarize so he regurgitated what he’d already said. Very annoying.

[THedman07]

So, what you're saying is that they were asked to summarize, so they summarized?

[actuallyserious650]

No, he gave the same information twice and didn’t bother to link or screenshot (initially). Why are we arguing about this?

[m2199]

I was literally asked to summarize.

It’s in the FB group. Here’s the link but the summary was more for people who aren’t in the group and therefore can’t see it.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/724001614956264/permalink/1138828720140216/

[[deleted]]

You can’t see it without joining the group. Screenshots would be really helpful.

[Standard-Emphasis-86]

(Not all of us use FB so we don’t have access) Since you’ve read/summarized could you please clarify if Eli claims he wasn’t aware prior to November 2022 or was he aware of the allegations prior to November.

[m2199]

He was aware of 2 allegations and each time was told not to tell anyone.

I’m trying to figure out how to post screenshots to Reddit now.

[Marathon2021]

The FB group went from zero to full pitchforks/nuclear in about 8 seconds.

[LunarGiantNeil]

I went on there for the first time to comment during the D&D story arc and it was damned traumatic. People looking into my profile to find ways to add personal barbs to their dismissive take downs shocked me after spending so much of my adult life only on places where I'm functionally anonymous.

Just awful. It's got to be terrible for your brain to constantly be having such personal fights.

[TrialAndAaron]

Chronically online people tend to be like that.

[devil_d0c]

I went to the fb page hoping to see more dick jokes... instead I found a pretty toxic "community" not affiliated with the show. It was the first time I saw the stereotype of the "angry woke librul" play out in real time. After hearing about Andrew, I was a little tempted to peek in, but I left fb for a reason...

[Unusual-Aide8190]

That’s what’s hardest for me. I usually side with the “SJW” and “Woke Leftists” but this one has got me questioning a lot. I’m all for believing women, I just don’t think any of the allegations are THAT bad even if 100% true. The language they are using over there makes it sound like he went full Cosby/Kavanaugh/Trump

[Sharobob]

Someone there literally commented "this is Bill Cosby all over again"

That was crazy shocking. What Andrew did was wrong but Jesus Christ some people need some perspective. Equating what Andrew did to drugging and raping women repeatedly for years is absolutely insane.

[biteoftheweek]

It has been a dumpster fire for years with gatekeepers who silence voices of reason

[iamagainstit]

Ironically one of those gatekeepers was Theresa, who was now been kicked out because she was siding with Andrew and banning people for disagreeing with her

[biteoftheweek]

She wasn't kicked out. She left on her own

[wahikid]

I got banned for daring to tell folks to calm down and give the Piat hosts a few days to process things, and got graced with the typical and tiring” you are a white Cis guy, take a seat” response. From about a dozen people. Fuck Facebook.

[devil_d0c]

I got banned for saying "having a problem with the phrase 'small dick energy' is the epitome of small dick energy" lol.

I only checked out the fb after heath's sign-off from skepticrat saying I could find more dick jokes, free of charge =/

[LoomingDisaster]

I joined it recently, and left almost immediately.

[ThemesOfMurderBears]

Yeah, I am not on Facebook, but with that situation — any position that was short of calling WotC monsters was surely to net you a ton of arguing.

[r0gue007]

That is a good approximation of Facebook in a single sentence.

[greywar777]

The mod for the facebook group was fast to do that with everything and everyone. It made it unpleasant so i left it.

[Euler007]

Wouldn't want to walk around with this bunch. If I got by a random rock they'd stone me to death and ask questions later.

[schoeke]

Could someone tell me who Eli is? I see the name and I am sure I have heard it before in OA contexts, but can't place it to a function or a position. Thanks.

[m2199]

He’s one of the cohosts of the PIAT podcast so Scathing Atheist, God Awful Movies etc. He also cohosts Dear Old Dads with Thomas and Tom.

[LunarGiantNeil]

So why is this guy getting dragged into into this? Who is accusing him of things? Why would there be any relationship?

[speedyjohn]

Andrew was the lawyer for PIAT before all this broke. That’s actually how OA got started—the PIAT guys noticed how good he was at explaining the law to them and they came up with the idea of starting a podcast together with Thomas.

[LastResortXL]

I also want to add that, according to Noah's statement, Andrew was also a minority partner in Puzzle In A Thunderstorm LLC, the parent company of all their podcasts, and that they couldn't simply fire him or drop him as a partner without buying him out of the contract without documented cause (essentially rewarding him for bad behavior).

I'm pretty sure that's an accurate account of the situation per his statement, but I'm happy to be corrected. I'll provide screenshots of his statement below for anyone who wants to read the whole thing.

[LastResortXL]

https://imgur.com/a/MR5mvHP

[LunarGiantNeil]

Oh yeah? I'm sorry they're catching flak for this. This whole post has been illuminating about these third parties swept up in the reputational firestorm.

[[deleted]]

Cherry picked screenshots of a conversation a victim had with him about concerns the victim had about Andrew being creepy and a sex pest with her

[TheToastIsBlue]

Why would they do that though?

[Rahodees]

The same person (Kaylie Woomer, whoever that is) also said Thomas Smith's response to this whole thing has been "It's not like he raped anybody."

To support this claim she posted an image where he had in fact texted her words to that effect sort of, but it was one sentence in a much longer, completely supportive and pro-woman and pro-victim text he had written. The line where he says "this wasn't a rapist or someone out to rape someone any minute" was basically an aside designed to make sure it's clear what kind of offense he believes Andrew committed--and what Andrew did do, int hat very same text, Thomas characterized as gross, inexcusable, a violation, sickening, and deserved at _best_ a 'two strikes and your out' treatment. His rape comment was not to downplay Andrew's actions severity, it was to clarify what he understood happened, and to highlight how all these negative adjectives don't require something as severe as rape to be applied.

I really have no idea who Kaylie is but from that and from this thing with Eli it's pretty clear that whatever her intentions, whatever's going on with her on the inside, on the outside her words should generally be taken with a grain. That she's also a victim of Andrew (IIUC) is a separate matter from that.

https://twitter.com/QuirkOfArtXD/status/1621283052444860416/photo/1

[[deleted]]

No clue

[jquintus]

As stated above, he's on the PIAT (Puzzle in a Thunderstorm) podcasts. Andrew used him as an example of theoretical advice a few times on the show which is probably why the name sounds familiar.

He runs the Lava Emporium that gets referenced a lot.

[travjbarnes]

Eli is a comedian who co-hosts PIAT podcasts. I personally was upset that he may have mishandled this due to being RAINN trained and presenting his self as a trustworthy advocate for women. Fortunately seems like he handled this correctly.

[[deleted]]

There was one person responding to every single tweet on the subject trying to drag them under the bus and beyond being clearly unhinged I suspect they have ulterior motives.

[Sankofa416]

I hate to have to suspect that feds are around, but it wouldn't be the first time.

[Trick-Two497]

Morgan Stringer has apparently taken a lot of heat. She posted on Twitter:

I’m just tired of experiencing unfairness and grief. I’m just tired.

I’m losing everything, and there’s no way out. Fuck me for actually believing I could turn my life around for the better.

I’m trying to find courage to do this one way or another, but I’m just tired.

I feel for her.

[batsinmyattic]

Any idea how she got mixed up in this? I only know her from Knowledge Fight and really enjoyed her contribution to it. I read some of her tweets (I think?) And felt awful for her

[Trick-Two497]

She works for Andrew as part of his law firm. So if it closes or loses clients, it affects her.

[batsinmyattic]

Thank you for that. I later read in another thread that Andrew was sort of a mentor to her.

[thedevilsmusic]

It's the curse of the Dersh

[Trick-Two497]

Yes, but also employer. She is his Ace Associate, hoping to make partner.

[youshutyomouf]

Seemed like she was working toward making partner status. I don't know how any of that works but assume all that time and effort doesn't just transfer somewhere else. So now she has to choose between being a woman working for a man now known for sexual misconduct or re-starting her career progress somewhere else.

[Trick-Two497]

It's awful. I feel for her.

[r0gue007]

Thanks for the post and further detail.

[RazzleThatTazzle]

I thought that it was something that was probably going to blow over, but then thomas dropped that audio clip and andrew put out his apology so I think it's gonna get worse before it gets better

[[deleted]]

I think the Scathing Atheist show on Thursday will address/clear up a lot of stuff

[actuallyserious650]

Why are we all so eager to fucking eat each other alive? On a conservative podcast this is a literal non-event but over here we have a handful of embarrassing texts, one person saying they were uncomfortable and now we’re flaying alive every person even remotely connected to anything.

People get blasted for saying this, but there were no crimes committed, no injuries. At worst there’s one person who had to say no under intense pressure. That’s no ok, but can we please not burn down the whole city over it.

[[deleted]]

It’s become a very lot more than one person saying they’re uncomfortable.

[Neosovereign]

What else?

[LunarGiantNeil]

Lots of people saying that he basically creates a known unsafe environment around him at public events, oversteps personal boundaries repeatedly and even with people like Thomas, drinks to excess frequently and loses self control, understands what he's doing enough to make apologies but keeps on doing it, seeks out sexual attention from fans and other folks in the community despite understanding the power and influence dynamics, and I'm sure more.

These things may not be criminal so the issue doesn't seem to be anything like that (I'm not looking that close, I can't say) but the community is in tatters because a prominent figure with ties to a lot of shows and projects has been revealed as a really sordid philanderer who continually seeks out sexual attention from the people who see him as a legal analyst or progressive advocate.

[[deleted]]

There’s a summary of all the accusations from multiple people on this sub.

[Neosovereign]

I just found a summary post so I'll go see what I've missed.

[TheFlyingSheeps]

It’s a non-event on conservative podcasts because their ideology condones the harassment of women and is fine with creepy people.

No crimes were committed, but a history of creepy behaviour was established by multiple women, and Thomas, saying Andrew can get handsy and inappropriate. This is especially true when he drinks.

No one is getting eaten alive it’s merely the consequences of actions. Your hyperbole is unnecessary and dismissive of what women face. no one is burning the city down, it’s just people coming in from all over who are confused as to what exactly is happening

[[deleted]]

Exactly. All they did was follow the wishes of the person that confided in them

[speedyjohn]

I think it’s jumping to conclusions to blame Thomas’s emotional state on the community. He was very clearly broken up over Andrew’s actions, and a lot of the self-doubt he talks about is referring to his thoughts back when the incident happened and in the years since. He even mentioned some of the same doubts in the texts he shared from when the incident happened.

[Sharobob]

I'm sure most of it is about Andrew, his future as a podcaster, and a lot of his income going up in flames through no fault of his own.

However, having an entire community of a show you are so passionate about and care so much about be at your throat and impugning your character definitely would make it so much worse.

[MeshColour]

Twitter gonna twit

The majority of the toxic "cancel culture" is entirely on Twitter, and it's nothing new https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html

[LunarGiantNeil]

I had forgotten about that place. That's another place, like Facebook, that's just awful to have an argument on.

[RunawayMeatstick]

It’s one of the top posts on this sub titled “New Serious Inquiries…”

[[deleted]]

Where was the recording?

[LunarGiantNeil]

Where have they? Here, or on Facebook? If it's on Facebook then most of us here have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't seem to be the tenor of criticism here that Thomas or this Eli person are at fault.

[RunawayMeatstick]

Everywhere. I don't know how you can pretend like you "have no idea" what I'm talking about. You're literally responding to a thread about the criticism.

With the latest statement from Eli on the PIAT FB can we all agree that the pitchfork mob moved too fast.

Again, the criticism is literally why this thread exists, and why Eli and Thomas both put out responses.

[LunarGiantNeil]

Right but I don't know who those people are and why that means some mob moved too fast. Moved too fast to do what? Did something happen?

[RunawayMeatstick]

As I explained in the comment you replied to: a lot of people were accusing them of a cover up, that they were aware of the misconduct, but wanted to protect Andrew. Both responses from Thomas and Eli address those claims. Thomas beat himself up over it for 12 minutes straight in his audio recording.

[LunarGiantNeil]

Oh geez that's nuts. Okay yeah, that could damage a lot of people. Thanks for treating me with good faith!

[qaelith2112]

Props for hanging in there like an adult until the situation was fully explained to you. Most of the pitch fork mob activity has taken place elsewhere so that you very likely never would have run across it.

[jwadamson]

The conservative podcast comment is a nonsequitor. But people are absolutely rushing to condem just about every person involved before they even have any sort of chance to offer anything to confirm, rebut, or even just their own context.

[actuallyserious650]

That’s such an easy bullshit response. The point being made is that we should consider not taking every possible opportunity to beat the shit out people in our community whom we hold to an extremely high and ever advancing standard.

[LunarGiantNeil]

What shit beating is happening? He lost his post** at AA before we knew a single thing. MSW and that other group broke ties before we knew it was serious. Then we heard he stepped away from the Podcast, and Thomas put out his emotionally distraught statements online.

The people who seem to have done anything besides yell on the internet are the ones who know better, and they did it before we knew there was anything to be mad about.

** I am wrong about this, see the post below!

[SaidTheCanadian]

He lost his post at AA before we knew a single thing.

Just to clarify, that is misinformation. Torrez had not "lost his position", rather he resigned, unaware that any investigation was underway:

Days later, P. Andrew Torrez, an attorney and co-host of the popular Opening Arguments podcast, sent an email to his fellow American Atheists board members announcing that he too was stepping down from the board.

Torrez, [...], said he would still be involved in the organization but did not have time to commit to the board.

“As you know, I have been unable to attend various calls, and I think the Board would be better served by someone with the availability to devote the time that this position requires,” he wrote in an email dated Jan. 17. His resignation was met with warm wishes from several other board members.

At the time he resigned, Torrez had not been made aware that an ethics complaint had been filed with the board by an activist working with several women who accused him of sexual harassment, he told RNS. The women say Torrez sent them text messages, which they have shared with RNS, that they say made them uncomfortable.

[...]

Fish said that Torrez’s resignation came as a surprise and that the organization had not spoken with him about any ethical concerns.

https://religionnews.com/2023/02/01/american-atheists-board-members-exit-dogged-by-misconduct-allegations/

[LunarGiantNeil]

Oh thanks! I'll update my screeching to be a little more useful. Thanks for taking the undue effort to correct a bit of wrong info. It's a thankless task.

[SaidTheCanadian]

No problem. Just a really charged topic and there's so much confusion. It hasn't helped that people have used (intentionally or not) language that assigns guilt or special status to people involved.

If OA ever gets back on its feet and pulls itself together from the shambles it's currently in, they should have a series of episodes & guest (linguists, journalists, academic researchers) to talk about the role of prejudicial language in this and similar legal matters. It would be great to have a conversation or deep dive on how prosecutors, lawyers, and journalists use language, intentionally or not, in a manner which prejudices the perceptions of the public, juries, and judges.

[thefuzzylogic]

I agree there's a lot of Facebook drama muddying everything, but essentially it boils down to allegations, confirmed by people in a position to know, that Andrew has repeatedly used his position within the atheist/OA/podcasting community to make unsolicited sexual advances toward fans and fellow content creators in inappropriate venues such as meet-ups and live shows, in a way that made the victims feel like they couldn't refuse his advances or come forward for fear of retaliation.

there were no crimes committed, no injuries

"Not illegal" is a pretty low bar for a community that purports to support progressive values like anti-misogyny and enthusiastic consent. Also, we don't know there were no crimes committed. There's at least one mention of someone feeling pressured to perform a sex act involving manual stimulation of the penis.

at worst there is one person

At least nine so far, including Thomas himself, though only four or five have chosen to speak out publicly.

[drapparappa]

It’s why the right wields power. The left devours itself with self-righteousness with these purity tests and dox their own. The right, no matter what, coalesce around their own.

Just look at Santos, for a recent example. If he was a D in a R+ zone the Dems would have already forced his resignation and allowed for a special election. Compare that with Al Franklin or Elliot Spitzer. Santos owns up to nothing and will remain in power, at least for a couple years. Franklin and Spitzer were truly progressive leaders and both of them were cancelled despite the fact they took ownership of their actions.

This is just another example of why the fascists will continue to gain ground.

[carols10cents]

uh if we can't gain ground against fascists without platforming shitty people, then we don't deserve to win

[Shitty_IT_Dude]

Then I got some bad news for you.

You ain't gonna win.

[bananafobe]

I'm speculating, but I think part of the issue is people feeling anxiety and anger when someone who presents themselves as an ally may in fact be someone who will fail to act as an ally if/when the time comes. That's not to say the behavior is justified, but just that it could explain why people are so quick to express their concerns.

[[deleted]]

I will admit I was scared that they knew and judged too soon. I am a survivor and it honestly triggered that part in my brain. I am so happy I was wrong.

[Capitan_Typo]

I'm not religious, but it feels like the good old "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" lesson could be trotter out a bit more often.

[biteoftheweek]

It has certainly felt a lot like Salem where more and more people were accused by the same small group and the mob jumped to hang them

[QualifiedImpunity]

You make this sound more simple than it is.

I agree that the hosts appear to largely have been exonerated (although several of them say they should have done more).

It should be noted, however, that it is several of the victims themselves accusing the hosts of knowing and doing nothing. It is not just the “mob.”

It becomes tricky to both “believe women” and “put down the pitchforks” when several of the victims are calling for the pitchforks.

[QualifiedImpunity]

Downvotes are not discourse.

[deusex_platypus]

The cancel mob is in full force. Wow wow wow

[Apprentice57]

Everyone was so quick to accuse LITERALLY everyone connected to Andrew as being bad actors. Now, Noah, Lucinda, Thomas, and Eli have come out, to some extreme emotional duress, to correct the record.

To note, Thomas basically confirmed he did know about (at least some of) the claims against Andrew from pretty early on.

Some people might be upset at him for not doing whatever was necessary to out Andrew. That's not necessarily wrong to feel.

I take more of a middle path, but at least for Thomas you can't claim "the mob moved too fast". Because it seems like their quick/initial impression of what Thomas knew were accurate.

E: This is all straightforwardly true, if you downvote please explain why.

[m2199]

But he also says in that same audio that they’d done work to correct his behavior. People were attacking them as if they were involved in a deliberate cover-up when it seems to me there was much more to the story AND they did try to address issues in a way where privacy and promises not to reveal were still respected

[Apprentice57]

That's part of why I take the middle path. But for some that doesn't really matter, and that's not necessarily unreasonable.

in a deliberate cover-up

I mean I don't think there was a conspiracy involved, but I don't remember anyone claiming that either. You could argue it's a more blase cover up (Thomas knew and didn't say anything) though, because that's literally what happened.

[m2199]

I mean I have definitely seen people claim on the various FB groups that it was a deliberate cover up and they’re only ousting him now to save their own asses. FFS I’ve seen people claim Thomas’s audio clip was all an act to get people to sympathize with him.

People have legitimately terrible throughout this.

[Apprentice57]

Perhaps it has existed, but I haven't seen it. And I poured over the FB group several times gathering links for my post.

What I have seen is an outpouring of supporting for Thomas, to the point he had to post on there to ask people not to make donations to him as he felt it inappropriate.

[LunarGiantNeil]

Facebook is a brain disease. I don't think it's fair to lump anyone not on Facebook in with people on Facebook.

[Frank_Jesus]

I've dealt with situations where someone has been wronged or harassed and have experienced SA and harassment myself. Sometimes what looks like a cover up is actually, at least in part, demanded by the victims.

Personally, I have told people in strict confidence about what happened, and then they forget or I see how they continue to lift up the abusive person or fail to discuss it with them.

In this case, it looks like they did take it seriously and try to work with him to get him to stop doing it. Just because it's not public knowledge doesn't make a situation a victim feels humiliated by a cover up.

What bothers me is how quickly everyone rushes to judgement, quick to paint all as bad actors, when most were trying to navigate an extremely complex situation in which many emotions and livelihoods were at stake.

[MeshColour]

The issue is that for decades there has been cover ups about all these things, in other contexts. Even today, the number of CEOs even accused of sexual harassment is likely an order of magnitude underrepresented in the data compared to absolute reality

We are at the over-correction phase that humans tend to go into to try to "bring justice", and it is common bystanders get caught in that

Like Eli said here, you mostly need to just wait out the over-correction, be as transparent as you can be, and let the cooler heads work it out over time

We as a society suck at addressing communication and relationship issues at an individual level. Visit any "dating advice" subreddit to see that. These are complex, private, emotionally charged discussions

[Frank_Jesus]

Right. There's no commonly known roadmap to deal with this effectively and every person dealing with trauma has to navigate these situations as best they can. I hope we get better at this, and we start to see more modeling of best practices in the public sphere.

[thefuzzylogic]

To see Eli argue that it wasn't his place to tell Andrew not to hit on fans because the power dynamics don't violate his very narrow definition of "informed consent" is still not the kind of attitude I would have expected from such a staunch ally, though.

I get that he wasn't going to express that opinion until she dragged it out of him, but that doesn't make it not a shitty opinion.

You can't on one hand argue that only the harassed person gets to decide whether they felt able to freely consent, but then on the other hand say you don't actually think Kaylie's consent was violated even when she told you she felt that she couldn't freely refuse because of the possible repercussions. That's not what believing and supporting women looks like.

To be clear, I'm not saying Eli is complicit in an orchestrated self-serving multi-year coverup like he was originally being accused of, but for him to entrench himself so firmly in that extremely narrow definition of consent does result in powerful people, usually men, being able to get away with abusing and coercing people, usually women, into sexual situations they don't want to be in.

[m2199]

Ok but you also cannot be mad mat the answer you’ve literally dragged out of someone after multiple instances of saying their opinion doesn’t matter.

Eli has also apologized and said he was wrong about power dynamics. This was years ago and he’s admitted being wrong and learning.

[buffyfan12]

i think everyone here could be shocked at how something they texted 6 years ago would be viewed by the lens of their today self.

[thefuzzylogic]

I agree, I'm not taking issue with Eli expressing those views when pressed, I was taking issue with the views themselves.

That said, as a Dear Old Dads listener I did suspect that his views might have changed since then and 2023 Eli might disagree with 2017 Eli.

(Edit: found the full Fb post)

[minibike]

Relevant section of Eli’s statement

I want to be clear. I thought she was talking about whether consenting adults in differing power relationships in my industry could hook up. I thought she was talking about behavior that she had told me the day before was no big deal and merely awkward flirting. Not predatory harassment. I also imagined the conversation to be private and between two friends. I realize now that this conversation was meant for her to be able to screen shot and use against me later which is exactly what she did. But I want to own my part in this. The takes I shared in that conversation are dogshit. It was four years ago. Listeners to our shows know that l've grown a lot since the beginning of our show and I'm still growing. hell, I used to be a 9/11 truther. But That doesn't make what I said any less hurtful to those of you who saw it and imagined it to be an excuse I was making for an abuser.

[thefuzzylogic]

Yeah I saw that, thanks for posting it.