🚀 go-pugleaf

On 28 Apr 1996, Ron Bean wrote:

> -=Weezel=- <louise@mv.mv.com> writes:
> 
> > >it's easy to rekindle romance with people
> > >
> > >but only if they know what they want and can tell you, somehow.
> > >         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >some days I wish people would purr when I get things right, and bite my
> > >hand gently when I don't
> > >
> > >and stand in front of whatever treat it is they want and meow loudly
> > >
> > >this would make communication much simpler.
>                                       ^^^^^^^
>    I think what you're getting at here is not that communication should
> be simple, but that it should be clear. Often women are accused of
> being indirect, beating around the bush, etc., although men can play
> that game also. It doesn't help the relationship any (and that goes for
> your kids or your parents as well as your spouse). As you say, it's a
> lot easier if you know what you want in the first place.

Yes, Ron. That was the meaning of "simple" that I intended. Simple = easy
as opposed to simple = trite. It is easier to communicate if people are
direct as opposed to being indirect. 

Note1: it doesn't mean the communication will be pleasant... or that the 
discussion will be easy, just that it will be easier to convey 
information from one person to the other.

Note2: There is a difference between being direct and being crude or
hurtful. There are times when you should not directly tell someone 
something because what you are doing is using them as a confessional when 
they are not in that profession. Or you are using "being honest" as a 
whip, as in the person who tells his/her SO exactly who s/he thinks is 
sexier than the SO.  

Note3: It also does no good to directly tell someone facts and events in
such a way that they have no idea what these events mean to you. Like,
directly stating "there's a movie" doesn't say whether you want to go to
it. That's INdirect (unless you've developed a code that your SO can
decipher... but it is a pain to have to do this!)

--L