|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 5 new of 36 responses total. |
orinoco
|
|
response 32 of 36:
| 
Jul 11 15:53 UTC 2003 |
I'd agree that the ideal is for both people to communicate honestly and
openly, etcetera etcetera. Realistically, that doesn't happen all the time,
and it's not going to happen all the time, even in the best of relationships.
I'd say trying to "train" your SO is a lot healthier than suffering in silence
when there's something you don't like, or being passive-aggressive about it,
or trying to get revenge. It's not ideal, but it's probably second-best.
|
jazz
|
|
response 33 of 36:
|
Jul 11 16:01 UTC 2003 |
I don't tend to think of someone playing a game knowing what they're
doing intentionally as being all that different from someone playing a game
and not knowing they're doing it. The effect is the same. The difference
is whether they're reasonable about what they're testing, and if they can
play it well or not.
|
jules
|
|
response 34 of 36:
|
Jul 11 19:31 UTC 2003 |
i think using the word train when refering to your mate is wrong. you train
a dog, not a mate. you try and be considerate of each others needs. you do
things to help each other, and when you need help, you ask for it. either you
will be compatable and communicate well, or you wont. if my man does a bunch
of things i just cant live with, and i ask him to change and he is unwilling,
than its time for a new man. one who is either more compatable with me, or
one willing to compromise. if you try and train a person like a dog, you are
asking for trouble.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 36:
|
Jul 17 22:05 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
otter
|
|
response 36 of 36:
|
Apr 11 22:27 UTC 2004 |
resp:30 Perhaps "dance" more closely expresses what you mean than
"game".
|