But when new people take a look at the story, they still need that first demonstration that he's a liar. They might not stumble across Abbey's blog posts right off the bat, or one of the well-sourced warning posts.
Anyone "looking at the story" WILL come across posts detailing Andy's lies and abuse. It's literally impossible to go looking for Andy's story without running into one of those posts. Even Aja's fawning interview makes it clear that he has a very shady past. The only people who don't know the truth about Andy's nature are literally only those who don't know there's a story to go looking for in the first place, and those who know the story is there but refuse to read/accept it.
I think it's valuable to document and provide evidence for as many claims as possible, so that no matter what point of the story a new person starts reading, there's a good chance they'll run into some concrete evidence.
Of course it is, but such evidence has been posted for more than a decade now. It's not exactly a new thing. What's new is that the Tea Blogger is doing an awesome job of gathering all the bits and pieces of info from everywhere, and presenting them in an organized and coherent fashion. But those bits and pieces have been there all along, and any post discussing Andy's backstory always linked to one or several of those bits.
Not everything needs evidence to be taken at face value, of course. If information comes from a trustworthy source and fits logically with other things we know, then I'm going to believe it. If there's a reasonable, non-intrusive way to get evidence, though, I see no problem with asking for it. Like the nonny a few posts above said when asking about how the friends knows the information, "Either is fine. I just want to know which it is."
That's not what the nonny said, though. Here's what they said:
What I'm interested in is how this friend "knows" this information. Does she have some of kind of proof we haven't seen or heard about yet, or is this friend basically just coming to same conclusion as everyone else based on the same information?
Either is fine. I just want to know which it is.
By putting "knows" between scare quotes like that, they are directly implying that unless the friend can present some kind of irrefutable proof, then they shouldn't be believed on the topic of whether Andy has schizophrenia or DID or not, even though it's ALREADY plainly obvious he doesn't have either. People who actually have those illnesses have explained at length how it's absolutely impossible that Andy has either, so if someone who was once a friend confirms that he doesn't have them, I don't see why their word should be disbelieved unless they can absolutely prove it.
And when ANDY'S WORD is brought up as a good potential proof, I just can't take the nonny's suspicion in good faith anymore.
Re: TW mi/suicide
Anyone "looking at the story" WILL come across posts detailing Andy's lies and abuse. It's literally impossible to go looking for Andy's story without running into one of those posts. Even Aja's fawning interview makes it clear that he has a very shady past. The only people who don't know the truth about Andy's nature are literally only those who don't know there's a story to go looking for in the first place, and those who know the story is there but refuse to read/accept it.
I think it's valuable to document and provide evidence for as many claims as possible, so that no matter what point of the story a new person starts reading, there's a good chance they'll run into some concrete evidence.
Of course it is, but such evidence has been posted for more than a decade now. It's not exactly a new thing. What's new is that the Tea Blogger is doing an awesome job of gathering all the bits and pieces of info from everywhere, and presenting them in an organized and coherent fashion. But those bits and pieces have been there all along, and any post discussing Andy's backstory always linked to one or several of those bits.
Not everything needs evidence to be taken at face value, of course. If information comes from a trustworthy source and fits logically with other things we know, then I'm going to believe it. If there's a reasonable, non-intrusive way to get evidence, though, I see no problem with asking for it. Like the nonny a few posts above said when asking about how the friends knows the information, "Either is fine. I just want to know which it is."
That's not what the nonny said, though. Here's what they said:
What I'm interested in is how this friend "knows" this information. Does she have some of kind of proof we haven't seen or heard about yet, or is this friend basically just coming to same conclusion as everyone else based on the same information?
Either is fine. I just want to know which it is.
By putting "knows" between scare quotes like that, they are directly implying that unless the friend can present some kind of irrefutable proof, then they shouldn't be believed on the topic of whether Andy has schizophrenia or DID or not, even though it's ALREADY plainly obvious he doesn't have either. People who actually have those illnesses have explained at length how it's absolutely impossible that Andy has either, so if someone who was once a friend confirms that he doesn't have them, I don't see why their word should be disbelieved unless they can absolutely prove it.
And when ANDY'S WORD is brought up as a good potential proof, I just can't take the nonny's suspicion in good faith anymore.