Full agreement or partial agreement?

I continued a discussion with Gavin on curi blog (link below).

The first comment that launched this discussion was this comment.

Gavin:

> If the other person is obviously focused on the original impasse then you should be willing to try and resolve the original impasse which might then make all other impasses in the chain irrelevant.

Rami:

> The concept of “obvious” is a mistake. It you’re assuming that you and Elliot share the same understanding about whether or not you were focussed on the original impasse. To clarify, I don’t know whether or not he agrees with you on that. My only point is that it’s a mistake to assume that he does agree with you on that.

Gavin:

> I agree that I should not have used the word “obvious”.

Rami:

> Full agreement or partial agreement?

>> I agree that I should not have [done Y].

>

> I had previously said X.

>

> was your comment that I quoted meant to be a claim of full agreement with Y?

>

> or only partial agreement with Y? if so, what part of Y do you disagree with?

>

> [process: I decided to use variables to help clarify the logic of our sentences, by avoiding the content details like what X and Y represent.]

Link to the latest comment as of this post.