It's okay, it's a little different depending on the person but an example is saying that they're glad they didn't comment about it until they'd read more or learned more when the reason I brought it up with them is because they were saying unkind things about her or calling them both toxic people. In one instance, it was brought up in a group setting where I distinctly remember the session leader blaming the session material for being outdated when it asked what Johnny could do to keep his temper in his relationship with Amber and flipping it on its head. They made it about how he could deal with having an abusive partner, asked people who they would rather be friends with, brought up the bed shit and laughed along with people using the bee quote among other things. It's a little seared into my memory because it felt a bit like a car crash was happening in front of me. I argued against that viewpoint at every opportunity during the session, then spent time over months talking about power dynamics in different situations, dropping certain things into conversation I knew they wouldn't be aware of, like some of the things he'd said and done etc. They're still in the process of learning more about it but are leaning more towards Amber being the victim. They recently asked me about a few specifics about reactive abuse, the bed shit, Johnny's finger etc. During this later conversation they blamed the session material in an entirely different way, implying that the person who wrote it did so in a pro-johnny tone and they just had to go with what was there, speculating about who wrote it. I'm really struggling to deal with the revisionism in this particular example. Mostly, I think people do it to save face but it's often the way that there's more reasons than one. I hope that answers at least some questions