Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rlgvax!dsi1!lee
From: lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women
Subject: Re: Win/Win Players vs. Win/Lose Players
Message-ID: <548@dsi1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Mar-86 10:48:48 EST
Article-I.D.: dsi1.548
Posted: Sat Mar 22 10:48:48 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 02:25:47 EST
References: <1270@decwrl.DEC.COM> <439@ccivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty)
Organization: Dynamic Systems, Inc., Arlington VA
Lines: 18
Keywords: posting misplaced from net.rec.bridge
Xref: watmath net.singles:11145 net.women:9849

In article <2037@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
>> Has anyone worked out the dynamics where one player is using Win/Win
>> and the other is using Win/Lose?  Seems to me the outcome is generally
>> Lose/Lose?  Does anyone have a strategy  for dealing with a Win/Lose
>> partner?
>
>Seriously, no ":-)", the above sounds like something you'd read in the
>"Bridge" column of the newspaper, not something you'd read involving the
>nature of interpersonal relationships... "player"? "Win"? "Lose"?
>"Strategy"?  I am sure glad I have never encountered an SO who subscribed
>to this philosophy!  It appears to be a very weak one, where contamination
>by a "lose" in the ratio of 3:1 converts the whole thing to "lose".

The Win/Lose player says, "I have to win even if I'm wrong."  The Win/Win
says, "We both have to win even if one of us is wrong."  It seems to me
that both types of players are telling a lot of lies.

Lee