tête-à-tête to banter

For somebody, very much interested in the mechanism of a concerted conversation, one thing keeps popping out of my head: is it a necessity to drag a "wage war movement"
whenever there is a rotting existence of silence? OR to induce spontaneity, brings along a pseudo topic that you can call an argument just to break the muted gap?
I really would like to appreciate the effort of your call, but on every occasion I RESPOND ACCORDINGLY on it, you always respond as if I am wide of the mark. Besides, if I am to defend myself, would just pile up my cons as a partner- since we never did have the same wavelength (and if ever, is a rare case). The question of why's and how's of my temperament is not the remedy to make me cognizant of my flaws. Yes, I do so admit. That to be able to stretch the dawning conclusion of this understanding, you talk of you becoming a martyr as if that is the only medication left for the recurring cancer of our conversations. At the same time, you keep on pointing me a finger that it's me who's keeping this mess up.
Finishing off the discourse early is not a negative means of prolonging this fight. But apparently, you have superimposed yet another meaning for my untimely resignment. The following day, that I felt at least ok, you slap me once again- as if I've done it all again. What do you want me to do? I have just tried all the possibilities.
Plus factor: I so thought you are to go out for errands, how come it's not the way things turned out today. As if it's a big deal to ask what your errand is that you're hiding it like a surreptitious act. And what a sudden plan of going out with family? I so thought your Saturdays are free.