There is fear, and examples, and variations, are a repeat of the fear. The thinker has to see their fundamental responsibility, and not keep externalizing, and abstracting thought.
I understood that the perceptive of understanding the reply or the situation plays a key role.
For example, if the person is trying to make you feel pity for that he is in trouble.
How will you react in that situation?
Where are you?
My answer is that I am partially attentive to the self and partially attentive to the world around me. 
A thought that arises from memory is new in the sense that it arises now, in the ever-new present moment. The thought is new, but its content, its structure is based on the old, that which has come before. It is not the old, is not what has come before … it is based on these. It’s like a variation on a theme.
Knowledge is not the old, it is a variation on the old that arises new, in the present moment.
Perhaps one finds this too picky, too ‘amateur philosophical.’
The moral of the story: The past can never exist in the present, only the new can, but if one draws from memory, this newness is modelled after that which no longer exists. Is that understandable?
In other words, you can’t clarify what you’ve said and instead, imply that those who ask for clarification, ask out of fear.
What I say will not make it clear for you. Where are you? Do you see you are the thinker? Don’t you see all this provocation is based in fear?
Where are you? You are the thinker. Self expression is your own action. The content may be about some idea, some plan, some concept, and imply a separate set of circumstances, be about your impressions of something external. But the action is not separate, and responsibly, the whole movement is you. What is this division, self expression, and content? Where did such a division arise? Action arises when there is fear. But why is this now said to be, ‘I act to be safe, etc’? All this self justification. Why don’t we see the fear, completely, for what it is?
Is that my fault or yours?
Why do people think there are answers? Why do people think some one else is not meeting their expectations? I don’t know what someone is thinking. But it is obvious this repetition of the personal way of thinking is not the way to go. It is obvious there is a difficulty in the approach. So we might ask what is this difficulty, as an approach. Not a difficulty as we find in others, but as a human difficulty. Surely we can understand I, you, me, are acting as parts of the whole, and that is not the whole. We can understand a unification of the parts, the sum of the parts, is not the whole. Basically we are in fragmentation, and trying to make it whole. What we see are all other parts, other people, and think we can teach them, or get instructions from them. But this is a repetition of the mess we are in.
If we could observe our fragmentation that would be the end of it. But our observation is always in accord with our conditioning, which means we can’t help but deny, dismiss, or distort facts that don’t fit the narrow confines of what-should/should-not-be. We don’t choose to do this - we can’t help it. So those of us who realize the nature of our conditioning know that we can’t “make it whole”.
There, you see, is the fundamental human condition, the desperate, terrible, fear, called by the experts, and I am not an expert, paranoid delusion.
If you think you can do anything to bring an end to your miserably limited conditioned mind and its self-centered behavior, demonstrate it. Make it evident. Let your light shine.
Here I think it would be added, Amen.