May I simply suggest that when there is an incomprehension or a perceived incomprehension, both sides make an extra effort to clarify what they mean, or to ask about what they fear they interpret, rather than resorting to elliptical responses or refusals to acknowledge that there may simply be a good faith disagreement, or PN comments on a narrow sub-issue?

In this case, it turns out there are some disagreements of substance, but once each made its position more detailed, it led to a very useful and interesting conversation.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes