I had started to reply to your post Kim but realised that I/we may be heading for a fall.

If we did have these agreements it would be incumbent of me to let you know that as much as I Appreciate your reply, and can Acknowledge your point is valid and would be only too pleased to respond. I am sorry but would like to Apologise and ask you if you could rephrase your question as there is an element of rhetoric and accusation which is not Acceptable to me:

"What is the longest you have been able to impose 3A logic on a human interaction?"

To me, the question has an element of accusation in it. The use of the word "imposing” of a certain “logic” which I have allowed myself to be accused by other members of this group before.

The 6A rules of engagement are not my “logic” that I am “imposing” on anyone Kim. I think, rather I am “proposing” 6 words/concepts for anyone to use in a trial agreement when interacting with me, only.
They are there to protect me/them from such possible accusations. So at this stage Kim, I once again apologise, but I don’t feel comfortable continuing until this issue of "imposing" verses “proposing” is addressed which comes under the banner of Accountable language, I think.

Like creativity, I think conflict starts with a spark, but in this case, unlike how creativity needs to be fanned, the spark of conflict needs to be extinguished as soon as possible.