I already did: For the purposes of this conversation, “abusive” is using the system to target nebulous situations, and those where only a small portion of the work is actually infringing. The actual intended purpose is held to be taking down clearly-infringing work, such as whole-sale piracy.
If you can provide some source saying that the intent of the law was indeed to use it to resolve nebulous edge-cases where a small portion of a work might be infringing, I’d be happy to reconsider my stance.