lol, one had a timestamp...which I though was pretty cool....
There are other issues though...in termps of compromise.
Which is more fair, for both parties to drive an equal distance, which means one party will drive a great deal further than they currently do, and the other party a modest amount.
Or a scenario in which both parties add, say, 15 miles to their current drive. But one party will be driving nearly twice the distance of the other party.
I am saying number one is more, fair...she says number two.
I think it is my own fault. Had I advocated moving, say, twenty miles from work, then the area I want to live seems like a compromoise, ie I am giving something up. But because I do not want to live there, it seems like I am not giving anything additional up. Where I failed was to establish a high value on my wanting to move closer to work than I really do...ie lie. In retrospect, I should have lied, saying I want to live really close to work, but out of the goodness of my heart I am willing to settle to moving to an area that I really wanted to live in the first place.
But since I cannot go back in the past. which do you think is more fair? I am not considering things like I will be paying for the house, I make more money, her skills are more transferrable than mine, etc. Just from a driving distance perspective.
She dismisses my contributions to the compromise because they occured before she was a party to the compromise. In effect, now that she is a participant, I should have to make additional tradeoffs.