You’re not discussing in a reasonable way. When pushed, you zoomed out a meta level or two but you still didn’t go big enough picture and consider basic, overall questions like what is a reasonable plan for you to do next. Instead, you jumped into a bad plan because you found it adequately non-threatening and thought it’d make you look like you were a reasonable person making a good-faith effort.
You’re avoiding the higher levels of the discussion tree (you’re also avoiding using tree diagrams). Which is the same kind of thing as Curiosity – Question-Ignoring Discussion Pattern which was discussed earlier. In that pattern, people talk at a more detailed, zoomed in or lower level. It’s hard to get people to zoom out and deal with high level issues – which is why replying at one level below what was just said is a common response – and you continue to resist the appropriate next step: organized consideration of the big picture.
This is also related to how you (and others) don’t want to talk about the big picture of what’s going on in your life, what’s going on with your goals, what’s going on with your philosophy learning, etc. People resist that and prefer to get lost in details – talking about trees and local optima because there are things about the forest that scare them, that they are irrational about, that they are trying to evade, etc.
It’s also inappropriate to dump so much info, without establishing any agreement with discussion partners about what to discuss, and implicitly expect anyone to read it. If it were just your personal journaling that you were sharing in case anyone wanted to read it, you would have labelled it like that and then clearly labelled some specific things that were meant for others to engage with. You didn’t. You expected people to actually read all the lengthy non-bottleneck-oriented, non-prioritized, non-respectful-of-readers-time-and-attention arguments you wrote and deal with them, which would be a lot of unrewarding work.
Your writing continues to be full of problematic, wrong and socially aggressive stuff. Here is one example out of many (there are so many other things wrong – including repeatedly lying about what happened in ways that continue to gaslight ET and everyone else who read the messages in question – but it’s too much work to deal with them and I might not follow up):
He didn’t say that. You’re reframing the discussion falsely in a way that mistreats ET. And you did that to ET in the part labeled an “apology” (which was only a partial apology for a limited aspect of what happened, but with no clear discussion or labelling of what you’re currently not apology for but might later, what remain open issues, that you might still have other things to apologize for and this doesn’t cover the whole issue. etc.).
The “apology” is also reminiscent of various bad apology patterns like: “I’m sorry you feel bad”, “I’m sorry your feelings got hurt” or “I’m sorry you took the thing I said the wrong way”.