- This topic has 1,110 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 8 months ago by NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 18, 2010 at 9:05 PM #528656March 18, 2010 at 9:34 PM #527726sdrealtorParticipant
Nice try on the BB analogy but of course off base. You make sweeping generalities as though they were cold hard facts. I agree with alot of what you post but also disagree with alot. Every situation, every RE transaction and every person is different. Generalities work less in RE than just about anything i can think of.
March 18, 2010 at 9:34 PM #527858sdrealtorParticipantNice try on the BB analogy but of course off base. You make sweeping generalities as though they were cold hard facts. I agree with alot of what you post but also disagree with alot. Every situation, every RE transaction and every person is different. Generalities work less in RE than just about anything i can think of.
March 18, 2010 at 9:34 PM #528306sdrealtorParticipantNice try on the BB analogy but of course off base. You make sweeping generalities as though they were cold hard facts. I agree with alot of what you post but also disagree with alot. Every situation, every RE transaction and every person is different. Generalities work less in RE than just about anything i can think of.
March 18, 2010 at 9:34 PM #528402sdrealtorParticipantNice try on the BB analogy but of course off base. You make sweeping generalities as though they were cold hard facts. I agree with alot of what you post but also disagree with alot. Every situation, every RE transaction and every person is different. Generalities work less in RE than just about anything i can think of.
March 18, 2010 at 9:34 PM #528661sdrealtorParticipantNice try on the BB analogy but of course off base. You make sweeping generalities as though they were cold hard facts. I agree with alot of what you post but also disagree with alot. Every situation, every RE transaction and every person is different. Generalities work less in RE than just about anything i can think of.
March 18, 2010 at 9:35 PM #527731jpinpbParticipantI can understand compromising on things, such as one night pizza and one night tacos. Taking turns picking which movie to see. Maybe compromise on vacation locations, taking turns picking where to go, etc.
Having children should be mutual agreement. Compromising w/regard to having children doesn’t strike me as beneficial. We’re not talking getting dogs or cats. We’re talking life-changing decisions. Usually compromising, to me, is mutual concessions. If one agrees to have a child where is the concession on the other side?
March 18, 2010 at 9:35 PM #527863jpinpbParticipantI can understand compromising on things, such as one night pizza and one night tacos. Taking turns picking which movie to see. Maybe compromise on vacation locations, taking turns picking where to go, etc.
Having children should be mutual agreement. Compromising w/regard to having children doesn’t strike me as beneficial. We’re not talking getting dogs or cats. We’re talking life-changing decisions. Usually compromising, to me, is mutual concessions. If one agrees to have a child where is the concession on the other side?
March 18, 2010 at 9:35 PM #528311jpinpbParticipantI can understand compromising on things, such as one night pizza and one night tacos. Taking turns picking which movie to see. Maybe compromise on vacation locations, taking turns picking where to go, etc.
Having children should be mutual agreement. Compromising w/regard to having children doesn’t strike me as beneficial. We’re not talking getting dogs or cats. We’re talking life-changing decisions. Usually compromising, to me, is mutual concessions. If one agrees to have a child where is the concession on the other side?
March 18, 2010 at 9:35 PM #528408jpinpbParticipantI can understand compromising on things, such as one night pizza and one night tacos. Taking turns picking which movie to see. Maybe compromise on vacation locations, taking turns picking where to go, etc.
Having children should be mutual agreement. Compromising w/regard to having children doesn’t strike me as beneficial. We’re not talking getting dogs or cats. We’re talking life-changing decisions. Usually compromising, to me, is mutual concessions. If one agrees to have a child where is the concession on the other side?
March 18, 2010 at 9:35 PM #528666jpinpbParticipantI can understand compromising on things, such as one night pizza and one night tacos. Taking turns picking which movie to see. Maybe compromise on vacation locations, taking turns picking where to go, etc.
Having children should be mutual agreement. Compromising w/regard to having children doesn’t strike me as beneficial. We’re not talking getting dogs or cats. We’re talking life-changing decisions. Usually compromising, to me, is mutual concessions. If one agrees to have a child where is the concession on the other side?
March 19, 2010 at 6:49 AM #527780scaredyclassicParticipantperhaps. perhaps i just need a new accountant. whata botut hat cliche about ina marriage, each side gives 100%? I always felt that cliche was dub? how can each side give everything? I still think it’s dumb, but it may be true on some level. if one side says no to the last kid, then that side is deciding, and ther eis no actual compromise, because no actual compromise is possible. it’s a binary decision — yes/no. Why should there necessarily have to be two affirmatives? How is that giving 100% On the other hand, I don’t think I beleive the majority of what i’m wriitng. But I feel it.
March 19, 2010 at 6:49 AM #527913scaredyclassicParticipantperhaps. perhaps i just need a new accountant. whata botut hat cliche about ina marriage, each side gives 100%? I always felt that cliche was dub? how can each side give everything? I still think it’s dumb, but it may be true on some level. if one side says no to the last kid, then that side is deciding, and ther eis no actual compromise, because no actual compromise is possible. it’s a binary decision — yes/no. Why should there necessarily have to be two affirmatives? How is that giving 100% On the other hand, I don’t think I beleive the majority of what i’m wriitng. But I feel it.
March 19, 2010 at 6:49 AM #528361scaredyclassicParticipantperhaps. perhaps i just need a new accountant. whata botut hat cliche about ina marriage, each side gives 100%? I always felt that cliche was dub? how can each side give everything? I still think it’s dumb, but it may be true on some level. if one side says no to the last kid, then that side is deciding, and ther eis no actual compromise, because no actual compromise is possible. it’s a binary decision — yes/no. Why should there necessarily have to be two affirmatives? How is that giving 100% On the other hand, I don’t think I beleive the majority of what i’m wriitng. But I feel it.
March 19, 2010 at 6:49 AM #528458scaredyclassicParticipantperhaps. perhaps i just need a new accountant. whata botut hat cliche about ina marriage, each side gives 100%? I always felt that cliche was dub? how can each side give everything? I still think it’s dumb, but it may be true on some level. if one side says no to the last kid, then that side is deciding, and ther eis no actual compromise, because no actual compromise is possible. it’s a binary decision — yes/no. Why should there necessarily have to be two affirmatives? How is that giving 100% On the other hand, I don’t think I beleive the majority of what i’m wriitng. But I feel it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.