When someone unexpectedly interrupts the conversation with another person, it is probably that he has many words still to be said to the interlocutor.
Those words were be available in the context of conversation for the simply fact that they could be uttered. By availability, we mean an unquestionable right of words to be formulated and it is a state where the problem of their truth or falsity cannot rise.
Differently, when they are not spoken out, the problem of their truth spontaneously comes up. Because we are forced to keep on those words or to discard them according to our judgment that they are true or not and, therefore, worthy or not for being spoken out in the future. The same situation occurs when we did not use some opinions in conversations, but we are waiting for doing so.
In these cases, many of our opinions are considered as truths just for the fact that they has not been spoken out, yet. The supposed false opinions have rather a short existence, being refuted in the exercise of self-deliberation.
Meanwhile, the criterion of availability does not totally lack, even if a conversation is not initiated. It is a kind of availability which depends on us. We may feel as inadequately or adequately to formulate some opinions. And it is required a sort of a science of feelings for discriminating which of them really belong to ourselves. Usually, we misunderstood as being our feelings what we hypothetically believe as being the feelings which others would instill in us in a conversational context.
Our feelings are to be found behind the imaginary conversations, in a monologue which stays under the demand of not lying ourselves. It is a moral demand that cannot leave our opinions to go astray in hastily claiming their truth. With such criterion of availability, it is probable that most of our opinions will be qualified by ourselves as not being able to pretend a value of truth.