Q The Rogerian Argument requires compromise. Some might say that compromising is a sign of weakness--and certainly it can be in some contexts. Proponents of that viewpoint might argue that compromise is the opposite of conviction. But others with a different point of view might say that compromising is a sign of flexibility and understanding. They might assert that compromise is the opposite of intolerance. Where do you stand on the issue? When have you had to compromise and how did that work out for you and the other party? How does this inform your stance on compromising?