Afro, you wrote several times that posters here were focusing on the play itself, whereas you were interested in how to deal with your partner. I understand that.

However, the first 18 posts of this thread (not counting yours) are focused on how you should have dealt with your partner. The posters here told you what they thought, and then moved on to examining the play itself. It's kinda like a reverse hierarchy -- once the "big" questions are answered posters move on to the "small" stuff -- like debating the specifics of the play that caused your situation in the first place, or the "nitty gritty" as you mentioned here:

I have learned that the more you write about the play, the more opportunity there is for someone here to criticize you. Why? It's the nature of clarity -- the more words we write (after a certain point), the less clear we become. Officiating, and the call your partner made, is based on judgement. And if you open up discussion of the play by detailing everything that took place, you are going to receive criticism of your judgement and rules knowledge.

If you wanted to focus on the man-management aspect of your situation, I think it was a mistake to flesh out the specifics of the original play.

Read what MD Longhorn wrote again. He was saying "members of this forum were repeatedly saying you were wrong" about how you were approaching other officials. The "repeatedly [telling] him he was wrong" did not refer to how you approached your partner in the OP.