I Am Possibly a Neighbor of Spartacus!

[edit at bottom]

Let us recall that in the last post the charge was plopped down at my feet that I've been overstating my relationship with Abbie in order to make it appear that I've been reading a script from her. This is a charge which I have flatly denied. Indeed, I argued that I was explicit about the fact that I don't speak for Abbie as her spokesman; rather, I state my thoughts in a way I think are consistent with what Abbie would want.  Sometimes my information about what she wants is better than at other times, but it is never my being her spokesman. She's like a full-on grown-up and everything now. She doesn't need one.

So, what has happened? Sacha, Franc Hoggle's friend, has been scouring Abbie's blog to find evidence of my evil ways. She clearly hasn't yet been clued in that the cat's out of the bag here as she continues down her primrose path; I'll take what she writes piece by piece:

Here is Justicar admitting that it was not Abbie's decision, it was his, then later he quotes Abbie as saying she is "tired of the shit" which I would take to mean she is tired of being harassed,

This is the tune she's singing and citing as evidence of my supposed misrepresentations as to my speaking for Abbie. Indeed, she argued yesterday:

He acted as if he was the official spokesperson for the ERV slimepit, and led many to believe that Abbie appointed him. 

And:

Spoke for her, as if he was reading a press release that she wrote herself.

Yes, I can see it now that the very best evidence to show in support of the proposition that I have pretended to be reading a script prepared by Abbie is to be found in my 'admitting' that my decisions aren't Abbie's decisions. Why, I can't think of any evidence more damning to prove that I'm pretending to speak for Abbie than to cite to me claiming not to be speaking for Abbie - dash cunning of me.

The rest of the quote at the top is this:

but Justicar acts as if she is tired of the language and other things being said, and so he says "I agree with her", only she posted the complete opposite a few pages back:

Sacha is free to take 'this shit' as the harassment. That would be entailed by my agreeing with Abbie, but is not necessarily restricted to that reading. There is more on the table than only that. The rightness of my analysis is fairly well implied by Abbie's likening what she wanted to see as what one finds at Jerry Coyne's website.

Sacha goes on to finish out my remarks as relevant:

Moreover, it is not a proper equivalence to equate ‘censorship’ with ‘being more thoughtful’. Abbie hasn’t laid down any edicts. People aren’t being banned. Comments aren’t disappearing. It’s a request (at least on my part) that people spend a few extra seconds when posting to make sure they’re not being gratuitous just because it can be done. Like I said – not to be perverse in the Edgar Allan Poe sense, which is to do something for sole fact that it can be done. The nuclear option is always on the table.

It needn’t be used to often for the sake of continuing to do it.

I ask people who come to my house if they’d be kind enough to take off their shoes. They are free to not to without consequence. It’s just a request.

But other people pointing and saying, say, you’re wearing your shoes. You know the host doesn’t really like that. Maybe you could think of not wearing your shoes, but it’s your decision.

Abbie has said she’s tired of the shit. I agree with her, and I’m trying to encourage, poke and prod people into letting go of certain things

Well, I'll leave that to you, dear readers, to parse. If that isn't proof positive that I was working hard at representing I was reading from a script on Abbie's behalf, I don't know what would. Perhaps if someone said something like:

That is the last time I will speak for Abbie unless she specifically asks me to relay a message, and then it will be word for word. 

Only this last quote here isn't from me. It's from Sacha. My remarks contain things like "on my part", "like I said", "I ask people who come to my house", "Abbie has said [note, she said that publicly for everyone to read] she's tired of shit", "I agree with her", "I'm trying to encourage, poke and prod people" . . . Yup. All of those "I" statements clearly indicate that I'm (sorry, I meant Abbie is through me) trying to indicate my (sorry, Abbie's) thoughts on the matter. My ability (or is it Abbie's?) to read between the lines I (I mean Abbie) find very impressive. When Abbie gets around to telling me what I think about it so that I can speak for her, I'll let you know what I think (and of course what she thinks, right?)

I'm almost hoping that Sacha doesn't read my blog until well after she's finished discrediting herself. I am amused. By I'm almost hoping, I of course mean Abbie is hoping. After all, my first person statements about what I think clearly indicate that I aim to represent that I'm speaking on someone else's behalf.

SP2.0, let me introduce you to FfTB; you have oh so much in common.
_______________________________________

The edit:
Sacha is aware of the blog and has responded by writing:

Just one thing that Justicar wrote in his blog post that I'd like to address (without any links). He said "And if Sacha is going to maintain that Abbie has told her I've hurt Abbie and put Abbie's well-being at risk"

I never said that. Look for yourself. I took in all the evidence and came to that conclusion. Abbie would probably not say that even if she did come to the same conclusion. I never said that she and Justicar are not really friends, I said he exaggerated his relationship with her to further his agenda.

If anyone assumed I said that Abbie said Justicar hurt her and put her at risk, or if anyone thought I was saying that their friendship did not exist, I never meant to imply that. I'd like to make that clear.

Well, let's look at what she actually said.

1.) the introduction to the section begins with this parenthetical:

(This is why I went directly to Abbie to ask for her perspective and thoughts.)

2.) she then starts delineating statements of fact consequent of that conversation:

The only thing that matters to Justicar is his agenda. If he can use Abbie to secure what he himself wants, then he will (and did). Abbie is far too kind to demand that he come clean, and she was in a difficult place, she was truly struggling with the decisions, and was not secure with her decision to step away, and telling people how to behave is against what she believes in.

3.) she in the same paragraph as in 2.) invites Abbie to clarify if the consequent of hearing Abbie's thoughts and perspective aren't correct:

Abbie, please correct me if I am wrong, I do not feel comfortable speaking for you, but I do want to give some background about this 

4.) and that what was just said is the last time she will speak for Abbie unless Abbie intervenes to specifically tell her to speak for her . . . again

That is the last time I will speak for Abbie unless she specifically asks me to relay a message, and then it will be word for word. 

 5.) the denouement:

My first email to Abbie bearly mentioned Justicar and the others who were speaking for her. I simply wanted to hear how she felt, from her.

She explained her position in detail, and all I can say is that it did not bear any similiarities to what Justi was saying.

6.) and from that detailed explanation, Sacha makes the following claim:

Justicar jeopardised Abbie's well being to suit his agenda. Consider that for a moment while I find the links to my comments... 

I'll again leave it as an exercise for the reader to compare what Sacha of today is saying against what Sacha of yesterday was saying.