What do you see..... ( Archived) (34)

Yes that would be a "one-way-street". But if only one person has to compromise, then using "compromise" is a contradiction in terms, because compromise means both parties are in a tacit agreement. So, compromise cannot be just about one person. May I offer what I believe would be a fair way to go about it, using an example? (It is just an example, not the only scenario available).

She has a passion for shoes, which she buys many pairs of. She uses most of them, but not really as often as it would seem needful. She wants to buy three more pair. He is annoyed. He wants to go hiking with a friend for ten days. She likes him to be at home. She is annoyed. He agrees to her buying one new pair of shoes, and she agrees to him going hiking for seven days. Both get some of what they want, and the other party is not (or is less) perturbed. Do you understand now? (You cannot call it compromise if both do not agree)

I've done it. know what, though? You shure look purty even when you make a mistake!!