Hey there, friend. I appreciate your perspective, but I also disagree. Thanks for having the courage to post your disagreements. I will try to address a few of your concerns here.
I did not continue to continue engage in Kyriacos, because I am not personally interested in being insulted and attacked in a conversation. I never denied that he may have good points, but I won't communicate with someone who believes that being hostile and insulting others represents the truth. All it actually does is turn off any potential receiver, which is exactly what happened to me. Sometimes people just have to realize that their communication strategies may not be working to persuade anyone of their ideas, which is why I educate people on the above techniques.
Needless to say, I didn't "bully" him. But I did draw a line in the sand by saying that I will not subject myself to his attacks in lieu of a civil discussion. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. By virtue of advocating the methods above, I am not also mandating that people must wade through abusive language with every online person they meet. They can if they so choose, but that is certainly not a requirement.
I slightly agree with your position on nonviolent communication, which is why I have modified it in the form of compassionate communication and have applied it to my conception of relational anarchism. And I certainly do not suggest that people should be passive-aggressive with their use of these techniques. If that is the case, they likely need to look at their motivations for wanting to use this material in the first place. Furthermore, in NVC and other forms of compassionate communication, there is no need to "diagnose" needs. But it is good ascertain the needs of the other person and try to meet them if possible. It is through that conduit that mutual understanding can be achieved.
Thanks for the time you took to write out your critique. I hope I was able to respond in a straightforward way that makes sense.