I think you make a good point for possibly all of us to take notice of, Mike. What's worked historically, and what hasn't? View that objectively and make attempts to change what we don't like/tolerate...knowing we can't control anyone but self. If we acknowledge that we can't make others hear us, understand us, etc., if they can't/won't, it's easier to lay something down.

So, in the future it might be good to work up to the, "I hear what you're suggesting. Please show me how you came to that conclusion." That might be a good point to analyze based on the responder's choices.

If they give more to work with, move forward. If upset starts, there's nothing more you can gain because no more information has been given, etc., then maybe it's a good thing just to move on from it. It's like that in almost any conversation. It does take two.

Another option might be to *with respect*, agree to disagree...to say, "I respect what you're saying even though I might not understand it all, but based on what I do understand...I disagree. We can agree to disagree."

Also, it's OK for others to disagree! We're all very individual in our lives and illnesses. Having someone disagree with us, then explain why, can really help in gaining expanding understanding and knowledge. We still may disagree at the end of the day, but it should all be OK. Saying, "I disagree" is NOT a bad thing...not at all...when it's said with respect.

From there, it can be laid down knowing that all was done that could be, and moving on is easier, I think...remembering that a debate or argument has to have *at least* two sides...

Just my two cents...

I think it's ok to continue to discuss how communication can be better (as we are now), but want to remind those replying that this continued discussion is for that and not to blame others, flame, make stands, pointing out another's past words or actions, etc...in essence continuing the argument.

Thanks!

KD