A listener’s state of mind is different from a speaker’s.
It is more dreamy, often more visual, and has a wider range of associations in play.
For this reason, listeners often react more to their own minds than to what the speaker meant.
An example of this occurred recently.
While my partner was speaking, she referred to someone as a “douche bag.” She meant to distinguish that person from someone else with the same name (who is not a douche bag).
As she said “douche bag,” a strong image rose in my mind of the person in question being pushed into a region of darkness.
In response to that image, I protested “he is not a douche bag”; not so much to recover his honor or reputation as to keep him from being pushed further into the darkness.
She changed her wording and the conversation went on. I completely forgot the incident and the image that had arisen in my mind.
The next morning my partner brought the subject up again and explained in FIML detail why she had used “douche bag” and that it had been meant as a minor distinction between the two people and not as a deep statement.
The memory came back to me of struggling to pull my friend out of the mistaken darkness I had imagined.
It’s a good example of how a speaker’s mind differs from a listener’s.
American Buddhist Net 
Thank you for the example. Little by little, I’m coming to understand the practice. I can’t recall if I’ve read before—what does FIML stand for?
Thank you for the example. Little by little, I’m coming to understand the concept. I don’t recall reading what FIML stands for—please tell.