Does he think everything is fine just by looking at the calendar?

Isn't it necessary to take a closer look to understand whether silence is completely innocent? I mean, we can't place someone who has learned to remain silent as a form of communication in the same category as someone who stays quiet to avoid conflict. Which one, what kind of silence? Sometimes it's not just about asking "why are you silent," but maybe we need to ask "what does this silence serve?"

But what if someone who remains silent is actually in a completely empty silence that serves no purpose at all? I mean, neither passive aggression, nor strategy, nor a state of thinking, just an existential "off" state. Does every silence have to contain a message?

What if the person who has already gone quiet in the "off" state ends up losing themselves in their own emptiness, completely stopping to think about the other side? Silence might not have to convey something, but it can't be ignored as if it has no impact. So, no matter how "empty" it is, if it affects the relationship in some way, isn't that also a responsibility?

If we say that silence has an effect, then we must ask this question: Is the thing that creates this effect merely the inaction of the silent person, or is it the other party's reflex to fill this silence? In other words, instead of sharing the burden of reflecting on silence, could one person be offloading the entire responsibility onto the other?

The reflex to fill silence can sometimes be automatic, but I think it's also important who initiates that reflex. In other words, even if the person who starts the silence does so with a seemingly "insignificant" quietness, it turns into a card that forces the other party to think. The mutual responsibility part is complete, but if someone who's silent is actually saying, "I set this game up," does it fall on the other party to question this reflex, or does that create an unfair balance again?

Silence may seem like inactivity, but it is actually a choice, and once it is a choice, it has consequences. What’s critical here is how aware the silent person is of this choice. For instance, are they using silence as a means of escape or to establish superiority, or are they genuinely stuck in something they cannot process? Because even if there is no awareness, it still constitutes an "action" that can place a burden on the other party. In a sense, silence is the active form of stillness.

Silence may at one point be a preference, but it can also be clumsiness. Not being able to find something to say, not being able to express oneself, not being able to generate words... Is this a burden on the other party, or is it a lack of the individual's communication ability? When is the problem shared, and when is it personal?

In the assumption that silence is a form of clumsiness, we're saying that a person unable to communicate is transferring an unrecognized burden. But can this lack of awareness be held responsible? In other words, if communication clumsiness is a personal deficiency, should the other party be expected to adapt to it, or should the clumsy one make an effort? The latter seems fair, but what if they are not in a position to make an effort?

So even at a point where silence comes from clumsiness, can that clumsiness still be sustainable? Not having the "energy" to make an effort seems to be an excuse at some point. Where is the limit for a person who constantly has to impose meaning? If the other person is not making an effort, why are you bothering?

Here, we can think of silence not just as incompetence, but as a kind of comfort. In other words, if one thinks, "the other side will take care of things anyway," it no longer becomes a lack of communication but rather an unequal distribution of burden. How fair is it for someone to completely shift the effort onto the other side just because they remain silent?

Silence can be explained by various motivations such as clumsiness or comfort, but I think sometimes it can also be part of a power dynamic. In other words, remaining silent might become a way to exert control, signaling "the ball is in your court." In such a case, the party trying to make sense of the silence should ask themselves why they are accepting this game.

If silence is used as a power play, what are the ways to break this game? In other words, is it possible to completely reject that balance instead of constantly circling within the game with the question "why the silence"? Maybe the real issue is being able to return the ball and say, "I'm not playing this game."

But returning the ball to silence is also a response, isn't it? I mean, saying "I'm not playing the game" yet actually continuing with another move within that game feels like. To truly break the silence, perhaps one needs to make a completely irrelevant action, to step completely outside of it. If it’s a game, what is there to exit from the game?

Does breaking the silence necessarily require an opposing action? Perhaps silence is something that waits to resolve itself, and pushing it only solidifies it further. Can sometimes doing nothing be more effective than doing something?

Doing nothing is already something for the party trying to find a solution. Making sense of that silence within ourselves, acting accordingly... Isn't this just as exhausting as the silence itself?

While trying to make sense of or solve silence, the focus is rarely on why the party who prefers silence has chosen to remain silent. Is there manipulation behind this choice, a fear of communication, or is it simply indifference? Not every silence is the same, but if constantly searching for meaning doesn't compel the other party to speak, then who benefits from this situation?

Does silence have to mean something? Perhaps silence is just a void; neither a game nor a fear. If we saw it as something "left empty" without loading it with so much meaning, maybe it wouldn't be so exhausting. Why must we ascribe an identity to silence?

Silence is not just an absence. For example, there's something called strategic silence; weigh what you say, wait for the other person's move. This can also draw the other person into a passive-aggressive game. If it's just an absence, why does someone always need to ascribe meaning to it?

Let's say someone is sending a strategic silence, but do we realize that reacting or not reacting to that silence is a move in itself? In other words, it's not just about staying silent; it also involves managing that silence. So perhaps the question is: Are you staying active within the silence, or is this completely a passive waiting?

Silence is being managed, but why do we always talk through strategy? What if there’s something entirely unthought of behind the silence? Does it necessarily mean that someone is making a plan just because they are silent? If the other party acted spontaneously, could what we are trying to "manage" be an imaginary strategy?

If there is no strategy in silence and it is completely a spontaneous reaction, doesn't that mean something as well? I mean, even with a spontaneous silence, one can exhibit a stance like "I don't need to respond to you." If it's not strategy, is it indifference?

If we say there is no strategy in silence, is it indifference, apathy, a lack of belonging, or what? But the more interesting question is this: no matter what silence communicates, how much are we willing to engage with someone who does not express themselves? Whatever the person in front of me does, why am I constantly obligated to decode this silence?

If silence is an exam, it seems that no one is determining the rules of this exam. Whether it be strategy or inactivity, there is always a persistent effort to "try to resolve" in the face of silence. But the main question is this: does the silent party want to be resolved? In a situation where there is zero intent for communication, why do we still struggle to seek meaning? Sometimes silence can be a finality, not a beginning.

But does silence always have to be a sign of intention? Maybe it's just a habit, a reflex. If people don't plan every action, isn't this "effort to solve" already in vain? So, attributing meaning to silence can sometimes be entirely our own imposition.

While silence can be a habit or a reflex, it ultimately creates a communication gap. If the person opposite has to search for meaning, this inevitably raises a question mark. So why does the silent person not notice or care about this lack of communication?

Silence, even if a reflex, produces a result: uncertainty. Perhaps the problem is in shifting this uncertainty onto the other side, thinking that "the other side should solve it." If it is something that produces a result of miscommunication, it is responsibility, not a reflex. Where does the silent person stand in all this?

The silence that creates uncertainty is called "reflex," but isn't what you call a reflex just a result of a habit? Doesn't a person ever stop to question why they have such a reflex? If they don't do this, then why should the other person's effort to ascribe meaning seem strange?

Even if silence is a reflex or a habit, not making a choice regarding communication is actually a type of choice. If the other person is trying to understand this, it’s not about "meaning attribution" but rather a natural result of needing a response. But my question is this: does someone who does not question the reason for a behavior also not care about the impact of that behavior? We cannot exempt anyone from accountability.

Sometimes silence may stem not just from a desire to not communicate, but also from a lack of ability to communicate. In other words, even if one is aware of the issue, they may not know how to address it. So, in this case, whose responsibility is it? Is it the duty of the other party to understand the deficiency, or is it the responsibility of the one who remains silent?

If silence stems from a lack of communication skills, it puts that person in a completely passive position. But doesn't a person eventually recognize their own shortcomings and question what to do about it? Is it always just the comfort of "this is how I am"?

If silence is entirely a result of incompetence, no matter how hard the other person tries to understand, the outcome doesn't change. But I'm curious about this: if the silent person doesn't step out of this "this is how I am" mode and make an effort to communicate, why would it be reasonable for the other party to keep trying? Why is it becoming normal to bear a burden meant for two people alone?

The person who remains silent may not notice this, but the other party's effort should not be seen as an endless credit. The question, I think, is this: Can the silence of someone who constantly remains silent at some point be interpreted as "not caring about the other party's boundaries"? We talk about it as a reflex, but if you don’t notice it for such a long time, maybe the issue is one of "not wanting to."

Maybe the person who remains silent doesn't fully grasp the burden that silence creates on the other side. After all, not everyone has the same emotional awareness. But what if silence is a form of defense mechanism? The fact that they may not want to break it doesn't change the reality of how uncomfortable it is, but what could lie behind that defense?

If we are talking about a defense mechanism, there must have been a past where this mechanism worked. But is it working now? If silence has turned into a cycle that creates problems rather than being a solution, why do we still cling to it?

If silence creates a cycle, perhaps the person is aware of it, but managing the consequences feels more difficult. What if the reason for holding on to silence is that it requires less energy than change? It's like the decision to accept discomfort and simply start from somewhere.

Even if silence is a defense mechanism, I believe it's important to know where that defense ends and where the intrusion on others' rights begins. If a behavior protects you but harms others, can it still be considered an innocent choice? The moment silence becomes a "choice" is actually the moment of responsibility.

I think the issue is this: Silence becomes a gamble at some point, where "the other side tires you out, puts you under pressure, and then you either get used to it or leave." But what's the gain in this gamble? Losing the relationship in the long run, or turning a blind eye to that inevitable exhaustion that comes with shouting? Because the one who remains silent often thinks they're preserving their comfort, but in reality, they're silently wearing down the other person's capacity to endure.

Perhaps silence is not always done with the intention of consuming the other party. But still, how justified is the expectation of wanting someone else to constantly bear the consequences of one's inability to communicate? Interestingly, someone who remains silent may often be experiencing the distress of not expressing themselves properly, so why do they still choose to be silent when they realize that it harms both their own predicament and the other person?

Doesn't silence become more risky than explicitly saying something at some point? If the other person is drawing the wrong conclusion while trying to assign meaning to the silence, doesn't this lead to a larger communication crisis? Perhaps the issue is not just about remaining silent, but also about accepting the confusion that silence brings.

Could the reason for silence be purely fear? Sometimes the weight of what is to be said or the worry of receiving a reaction makes a person even more silent. But the fact that silence is also a language is often forgotten. Might it be that by not speaking, one does not realize they are actually saying much more?

Could silence sometimes stem not from anticipating a reaction, but from a lack of trust in that reaction? If there is a belief that what is said will be misunderstood, a person might see remaining silent as a safer option. However, in this case, silence creates a crisis that arises not from being misunderstood, but from not being understood at all.

So, can silence sometimes be a method of gaining dominance in communication? That is, an attempt to shape the relationship more through the power of what is not said than through what is said... In this case, can silence become not a defense, but even a kind of strategy?

How far can using silence as a strategy take a relationship? Should power in a communication-based bond be built through forcing or testing the other party? In the end, either the strategy fails or the relationship breaks down; it seems like a method with two problematic edges.

Perhaps silence is sometimes not about avoiding communication, but rather a matter of being unable to sort out one's thoughts. In other words, a person might stay silent because they cannot fully understand what they are feeling or what they want to say. In this case, could the problem be more about the person not being clear within themselves than about a lack of communication?

Silence can sometimes be not about not being able to express what you want to say, but rather about not knowing what would be effective to say, right? In other words, if you think speaking wouldn't change a situation, remaining silent becomes a form of surrender. But at what point does this surrender lead a relationship to a deadlock?

Perhaps silence is less about thinking that saying something won’t be useful and more about not being able to predict what the other party is ready to hear. Could someone who believes that the impact of what is to be said depends on the listener's perception prefer to stop rather than take risks? But this creates an unsolvable cycle for both themselves and the other party after a while.

I think you're discussing the issue of silence too much by "reading intentions". You'll never know what the other side understood or didn't understand endlessly. The matter here lies with the person who is silent: If you have nothing to say, that's fine, but if you do and are withholding it, you can't be blamed as much as you imagine in your head.

But what if silence is a way for the one who is quiet to protect themselves rather than the other party? In other words, are they not speaking because they feel that if they were to say something, they would be hurt more, left vulnerable? Now, the issue is not just about "saying something," but perhaps about "choosing one's own armor."

Silence can be an armor, but not every armor protects you; sometimes you get trapped inside. Thinking that you are protected by remaining silent continuously, doesn't it slowly cool the other person off from the relationship as well? In the places where you don't speak, maybe someone else fills that void.

Silence may not always be a strategy or armor; perhaps it is a form of power display. But the main issue is this: if you think that by being silent you are controlling something, that control becomes dependent on the other party's perception. If the person opposite you does not notice this or does not care, what good is that silence?

While silence may be a show of strength, it turns out to be a very low-budget performance that no one wants to watch. Waiting for the other side to understand or react is a passive-aggressive gamble; even if you win, what you gain is not communication, but manipulation. And that ultimately ends the relationship in the long run.

Silence sometimes feels like testing the boundaries of the other person. It's like waiting, "What will they do, how will they react?" But doesn't someone who is constantly being tested eventually get tired of this game?

I think silence can sometimes be more about not being able to gauge your own reaction than a test of limits. In other words, fearing that if you say something, you'll explode, overflowing but still trying not to spill over. If the other side perceives it as a "test," maybe they don't understand the conflict hidden within the silence?

Sometimes silence can be due to not being able to clarify things within oneself rather than for the other party. However, if you are remaining silent to figure out what you feel and what you mean, the duration of this internal reckoning is important. If it's an endless process, does it leave both yourself and the relationship in a void?

Sometimes, silence is not just about hiding or protecting something; rather, it acts as a buffer to prevent overflow from a certain place. However, this buffer state is not a permanent solution, because there are things that keep accumulating. My question is: where do you place that accumulation while remaining silent? Is it guaranteed that it won't burst?

The question of where you place your accumulated savings when you’re struggling is a good one, but the real issue is this: If the other party is unaware of the existence of this savings, do they have to know what you’re going through inside? People are not mind readers. No matter how meaningful silence may be, it doesn’t substitute for communication. There’s no guarantee of an explosion, but there's also no guarantee that silence will be understood.

Silence can be a form of emotional management, but in a relationship, it operates like a one-sided decision. It's important to acknowledge that the other person may not want to participate in this method or may not understand it. If problems cannot be solved through silence, how will you find a solution without talking about what that solution is?

Sure, but forcing someone to talk just because problems don't get solved in silence is silly. Maybe someone wants to turn inward and think for a moment; they might not want to communicate right away. If the other party can't stand this "waiting period," then the health of that relationship is already questionable. Communication is essential, but rushing someone puts a different kind of pressure.

You're saying it’s silly to force someone to talk at that moment, but what is the other party supposed to do if the time is uncertain? If you’re shutting down indefinitely saying "I’m turning inward," what happens to the balance of the relationship during that time? After all, the waiting period is not an endless tolerance test.

But this is also true: If you think about what the other person's "balance" will be while choosing silence, isn't this a mutual thing? So, by staying silent, you are gathering your thoughts, but the other person might also gather their thoughts and arrive at a different conclusion in this uncertainty. Are you really preparing the ground you want by postponing communication?

Silence can sometimes lead the other person to interpret it as "you're excluding me" while you're just trying to gather your thoughts. In other words, you're turning inward for your own self-reflection, but if communication breaks down during this time, doesn't the other person make different assumptions because of it? Silence may seem like a solution, but it also leaves a gap; who will fill this gap?

Silence is fine if it's for recovery, but is it really so hard to tell the other person, "I need some time"? If the purpose of the silence isn't clear, who fills the void in the other person's mind? It's not the silence, but the uncertainty that truly wears one down.

So how can we ensure that the other party doesn't think "where is this relationship going?" during the period of silence? I mean, you take a break by saying "I'm turning inwards," but does the relationship's own dynamics freeze during this time or do they change? Is it realistic to assume that you freeze the relationship while being silent?

I think assuming that the relationship freezes during silence is already a problem in itself. If there is a bond between two people, that bond changes form even when you don’t say anything. From where you stand, the other party has the right to draw their own conclusions and reposition themselves. The issue is this: Is silence really a break or a passive power struggle?

Silence may seem like a break, but it actually leaves a passive message. How will the other party receive that message? What will they read into it? When you’re silent, you don’t have control; it's in how the other person interprets it. Are you willing to take that risk?

Maybe the issue isn’t in the silence itself, but in how silence is presented as a "process." In other words, it might be perceived not as a break, but as a rupture. Are you considering leaving some space for the other person to answer the question "Where do you stand?" during that time?

Is silence a break or a tool for manipulation? This is the main critical point here. If it's truly used to recover, then why isn't the duration or reason shared directly? If it's not shared, isn't determining what anyone makes of it purely a matter of guesswork? Is it worth playing this game?

Continuing from where Denizperisi said: But could it be that some are trying to say "leave me" with silence? Or conversely, are they retreating into silence to gauge what kind of reaction they will get? In other words, when we talk about manipulation, it might also signal a bit of insecurity.

If they are trying to say "leave me" in silence, it’s absurd to expect the other person to understand their intentions without making them clear. So, they don’t speak but want everything to be understood, which is a kind of escape from responsibility. And if someone is measuring reactions in silence, that’s another level of control effort. Be clear, don't make the other person feel like they're being tested for intelligence.

The indefinite duration of silence is another problem. If you completely cut off communication under the pretext of recovery and don't say when the process will end, it is perceived not as recovery but as escape. Is it really possible for silence to operate without providing a timeline in a way that won't "freeze relationships"?

If so many scenarios are being written about silence, it already indicates that there is a problem. If someone who wants to take a break constantly makes the other side think, "What does this mean?", it casts a shadow on the sincerity of that break. Is it truly about recuperating, or is it about leaving the other party in uncertainty to gain power? Unclear intentions always create chaos.

If the intention behind silence is unclear, it’s normal for the other party to write their own story. But perhaps the issue is not in the silence itself, but in the style of communication. Why is the person wanting to take a break unable to put together enough sentences to say "I’m in this process"? Does this actually indicate a tendency to avoid rather than to take a break?

Perhaps if you are at a point where questioning the intention of silence is inevitable, you are not on a break but rather in a kind of stalemate. So even if we accept that remaining silent is a form of communication, could distrust in this mode of communication indicate a larger issue within that relationship? It seems that we should address the dynamics causing the silence rather than the silence itself.

Silence is a form of communication, sure, but communication should have a purpose. I mean, how sustainable is it to say, "I’m here, but I’m not saying anything"? After all, there’s a person on the other side; at some point, the silence turns into an unanswered call when patience runs out. If you’re expecting something from silence, how much meaning can you expect it to carry without making that expectation clear?

But what if silence is a necessity, yet the other party is too scattered to express that need? In other words, could this inability to communicate clearly be a deficiency rather than a deliberate manipulation? Viewing silence merely as a move may mean failing to recognize this inadequacy.

While silence may be a necessity, inadequacy in communication can only be tolerated to a certain extent. How will saying "this is how I am" or "I can't explain" sustain the relationship? Is it not putting too much burden on the other side to expect understanding without conveying intent?

But if silence is really a necessity, why can’t this need be expressed clearly? I mean, even if a person is completely scattered, is it not possible to share a simple piece of information like "I'm trying to gather myself right now, I can't talk"? Or does this lack of expression become a passive way of testing the other party's boundaries?

But why does someone who sees silence as a necessity determine such an unplanned need? I mean, you say "silence," but you leave the other person completely in the void. Could it not seem more like an unprepared escape rather than a necessity?

If silence is a necessity and a person is unable to express this, it already indicates that their resources for maintaining the relationship are depleted. On the other hand, if constant uncertainty is being created under the pretense of "silence," then perhaps the true intention is not to recover. Could this clear state of rupture actually be feeding their own process of distancing rather than the relationship?

Silence may be a "need" or a "strategy," it doesn't matter; in the end, it is a decision. But is the person making that decision acting as if forgetting that this is a two-person relationship? Is a communication style that completely eliminates the other person from the equation really sustainable?

But what if the person experiencing that silence is still trying to solve something within themselves and lacks the language or the courage to express it? You say it’s unsustainable, but perhaps they know they can’t sustain it yet still try to stay there? Does every silence have to be an escape or a strategy?

But how meaningful is it to try to stay there if you're not actually doing something? If you're sending the message "I'm here" with silence, and there's no action to support that, it's normal for the other party to perceive it as an empty denial. Isn’t the situation of "I want to stay but I can't" just creating a stalemate through uncertainty?

Or let’s consider "silence" not as a need or a strategy, but as a completely uncontrolled reflex. Can someone who has not even clarified their own operations be unaware of the message they are sending to the other party? Does every silence have to carry an intention, or is it such a conscious choice?

Maybe we should see silence as a more primitive way of expressing a need? That is, a person may not even be able to fully define their need. That's why we say, "let it express the silence, let it clarify the intention"; maybe they aren't even ready for that. In this case, does the patience of the other party come into play, or is this completely a signal of exhaustion?

But there is a continuity issue here. If silence is a reflex and the person cannot control it, that is already an individual problem. However, how fair is it to try to maintain a relationship while struggling to solve individual problems? In a situation where there is not even the ability to express oneself, shouldn't we question what one contributes to the relationship?

But there is something like this: If the silence continues and the person cannot even manage their own processes, does the search for a solution in the relationship now completely fall to the other side? I mean, doesn’t it turn from being a partnership into a one-sided effort where one side is constantly trying to fix things? Where does this thing you call "patience" end?

But when does this silence you speak of stop being seen as a means of communication? It's natural for the other party to get tired of it because they are constantly busy trying to understand something. But doesn't the person who remains silent need to realize that this situation leads to a mutual destruction? After all, saying "my own process" and disregarding the other person to such a degree is also a choice.

So where does the other side's boundary start then? Silence, inability to express, inability to manage the process... Let's say we understand all of these, but am I completely giving up on my request for communication, which is a fundamental right in a relationship? You can't maintain a relationship with someone who can't even resolve themselves, because there is not two people there anymore, but one person and their crises.

Silence can be a reflex, sure, but there’s a context to that reflex. So you remain silent, okay, is this purely a defense mechanism or is it a disconnect where you can't even access your feelings? If it’s the latter, maybe the issue isn't the relationship at all, but a personal situation overshadowing the relationship. When does the search for solutions stop being the responsibility of the relationship?

Well, let's call it the silence reflex; beyond the reflex, is this situation proof of wanting the relationship? Settling for saying "I can't express it, but I'm here" and just showing your presence to the other side, how much of a "togetherness" does that offer? Silence is one thing, but at some point, if an understanding of the reasons behind this silence isn't provided, why should the other side be obligated to wait?

But here's the thing: Remaining silent is defensible to a point, sure. But is it possible that there is no "intention" in this silence? How much is reflex, how much is a passive behavior testing the other side? Because sometimes choosing to remain silent instead of saying "I can't express it" feels like a kind of decision to me.

Could silence be a learned escape behavior rather than a reflex? In other words, a sort of strategy to avoid facing real issues. This harms both the individual and the relationship because it becomes normalized and there is no progress. If it's a reflex, it can be resolved through analysis; if it's an escape, it can be overcome through confrontation, but first, it's important to determine which one it is.

Isn't the critical aspect of this "silence" issue the intention? So, is this a communication problem or a means of manipulation? I think we need to clarify this first. Not every silence is innocent, because some are directly a tactic to intimidate the other party or test their strength.

But everyone says intentions, yet silence can sometimes be exactly the opposite; it can also be a scream within itself. It's like saying, "I don't know, I don't understand what to do or how to express it." So what then? Is the other side supposed to keep trying to decipher that scream?

Silence, even if seen as a form of communication, who is this communication addressing? When someone is silent, is the message directed to you or is it going inward, to that person’s own self? Perhaps that "scream" you mention, if it doesn't resonate with the other side, is not something that needs to be resolved together. It is a crisis that needs to be dealt with alone. I think there is a responsibility even in silence; if you are silent, you need to clarify the reason or the process. Otherwise, the other person's emotional state remains like a toy.

It's important to understand what silence serves, you're right. But if the person who should be communicating can't do it, it puts a burden on the other side. If there are always people trying to "understand" your silence, that's also a form of emotional labor. And not everyone has the patience for that. I don't think being stuck in the cycle of silence is a choice anymore; it's like a game of who can solve the situation. Why is this burden always accepted as something to be shared?

But can the person who enters a silence loop already be calculating the other person's reaction or patience? In other words, they might unconsciously create a testing ground of sorts, like "how long can they endure, where do they give in?" In this case, silence becomes not just a challenge but a power dynamic. So, how will this situation be resolved?

If it turns into a power dynamic, it's not a silence; it's a passive manipulation. One must directly name the "game" with someone measuring patience. Otherwise, when you say every silence "cannot be innocent," how much of it will you call mere comfort-seeking? It will continue as long as boundaries aren't drawn.

Understanding the intention behind silence is certainly important, but sometimes directly asking the person about their intention is a more straightforward solution, right? Why doesn’t anyone simply try asking, "What does this silence mean?" Constantly having to "try to understand" can be exhausting because maybe it's time to stop playing the guessing game.

Could asking "What does this silence mean?" not be effective? I mean, if the silent person hasn’t understood it themselves, it seems impossible for them to respond. At that point, perhaps it’s the impatient party that needs to try a different approach rather than the one who is truly silent. Because sometimes silence is also a way of saying "I don’t know."