Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 16:12:22 11/08/97
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks Bruce for your explaining words. The reason I mentioned this case was NOT so much the content of the story. The point was: I wanted to show that sometimes , or hopefully always in a discussion you open yourself to be honest to honor the opponent, no matter if you like him or hate him. Pretending a conflict a priori is not a CHANCE FOR the conflict but AGAINST it. This was the point I wanted to explain or refer. I know many marriages of my friends where the main problem is not the problem, but the fact that the husband denies that there is a problem !! Sometimes when you try to calm down the conflict here (in a discussion between ICCA and critics), I have the feeling that this is the same thing that happens in all the marriages of my friends, whenever the wife tries to focus the problem (e.g. when he had his orgasm but not her and she tries to explain him somehow that they should change something and he thinks this is AN ATTACK AGAINST THE SIZE OF HIS "lovemaker"). So he tries better not to speak about it ! And she tries to make it right for him. So they don't talk about it. Until they are divorced. And then she tells him: I had never an orgasm ! And he is very confused and says: Why did you never told me about... I thought you always ... And therefore the civilized societies have developed a discussion BRUCE ! To help the husband and his wife BEFORE they are in a divorce. Did you get the point or will you now explain me that you don't have problems with your wife and orgasms... or will you this time understand my point ? How shall I explain you - in which language ??
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.