See, that's the thing. How am I supposed to understand what you're saying was meant that way as opposed to simply what it said on its face? Though I can see the logic, there seems no way to distinguish it on the dint of what you have written.

And then I still get back to having to ask you, even if my anger has had a chance to dissipate some now, because I truly honestly can't see it, how you can think it must be the same for everybody, that there is an only "one-size-fits-all" approach given how diverse human beings and their circumstances are. And how you can justify such a sweeping, exception-free statement and, in doing so, what credentials or experience you bring to the table that is at least as good as what the person you were talking to were claiming as their credentials (or else, some evidence that they lack the credentials they have stated they have). Of course, maybe they too were making a sweeping statement, but then - again following logic - that just means two of us need to "pony up", not one.

And how exactly was your post calling that person "talking out of your ass" and "your opinion is crap" very "polite", exactly, much less "agreeable", and at least more agreeable than everything I have said to this point? It's hard to accept correction from someone who seems like they might (and I say "might" because again, I am trying to be open to the possibility I am wrong, so I can be fair) be a hypocrite.