I'm a bit confused because I've been faulted for "crosstalking" at an A.A. meeting. To be helpful, I responded to someone's comments; it semed appropriate to make a direct and informative response at a Big Book Study meeting.

Can one discuss something in an A.A. discussion meeting without having it considered inappropriate crosstalk?

I've served on boards of commissioners and boards of directors. Whenever we had a "discussion", a subject was presented and people shared their observations, recommendations, comments, or suggestions, depending on the issue. When one person made a statement, it was proper for another person to respond with a comment, criticism, counterpoint, or words of support.

What is the difference between discussion and crosstalk?

One dictionary says crosstalk is an "incidental, subordinate, or secondary conversation." That suggests either wandering off on a related or unrelated direction or starting a competing side-conversation while the group continues to speak to the main point. As I understand discussion, it should always focus on the subject of the discussion.

Does the definition of "crosstalk" suggest digression into a minor, casual, or subordinate issue? Would an example be shifting the subject to paint when the original subject of discussion was "a black car"? Would another example be if two fellows in the group began a private conversation about a car one of them once owned?

Perhaps someone can clarify why some people believe crosstalk is either a direct response, a contradictory remark, straying off the subject or an inconsiderate, impolite whispering among a few of those attending a meeting.