Which point? she may not want to get into a fight about when they talk about it Jack's point is that among the plausible reasons to want to avoid the subject is a desire to not have the fight associated with the subject. That her strategy involves picking a different fight doesn't take away from the point that she has plausible fight related reasons for not talking.

Then it's not clear to me why you're posting in this tree?

Weeding is part of gardening.

But really, Silas posted about the man not being to blame for lack of communication, so I can stand behind that. I also thought it a description of fact without necessarily involving blame when you described the woman as putting the man in a no-win situation. So I didn't read that as you blaming her. I read your next sentence as blaming her, but on a different topic, as "out-and-out lie" implies a lot of judgement. I may or may not agree with Jack's next comment, depending on what he meant by "lie". She communicated poorly on the crystal-to-mud clarity scale, using a literal falsehood that had a relatively high likelihood of conveying the truth, for a literal falsehood. I don't see any moral problem with that as such.

So I find myself agreeing with whoever is defending a character, it gives me a coherent side in each sub-part of the argument.