Tit For Tat Quotes

Not to forgive is to be imprisoned by the past, by old grievances that do not permit life to proceed with new business. Not to forgive is to yield oneself to another's control... to be locked into a sequence of act and response, of outrage and revenge, tit for tat, escalating always. The present is endlessly overwhelmed and devoured by the past. Forgiveness frees the forgiver. It extracts the forgiver from someone else's nightmare.

It's so good to have the opportunity to help others who have helped you. It's not about "tit for tat," it's about "I love you, too.

I’d be more than happy to let you survey my physical perfection in its entirety. But only if I get to see you, too.” To her shocked silence, he replied, “It’s only fair. Tit for tat.” “How is that fair? You've seen countless tits.

I don’t like tit for tat. I like tit for tit. Bring on the boobies!

We are way less likely to love someone just because they love us than we are to hate someone just because they hate us.

When people don’t respect one another seldom is there honesty.

Tit for tat, Mr. North. Tit. For. Tat,” I scolded. ... He looked me up and down and said, “Well, I’ve got the tats so…

If we love someone deeply, be they friends, family or lovers, don’t treat the relationship like a playground game of back and forth or tit for tat. See it as a loving connection and let that be the basis of it all.

Supernatural healing was a handy trick for an absentminded vampire, although it would make my enemies harder to kill. Tit for tat, I guess.

You’re telling me that Acheron, my boss, the really tall Atlantean pain in most of our asses, actually authorized the killing of a human?” – Sundown “I can see your confusion. It is highly out of character for him. But since she’s been killing off Hunters…I guess he figures it’s tit for tat. Or maybe he’s just having a really bad day.” – Zarek

I feel that if I’m going through this hellish decline, you should be going through one also . . . misery loves company, and I guess we’ve all got a streak of one hundred percent gold-plated bastard in our natures, tangled up so tightly with the good part of us that we can never get free of it.

The art of crisis management is to raise the stakes to where the adversary will not follow, but in a manner that avoids a tit for tat.

Relationships are about give and take; not tit-for-tat. If you’re keeping score, you’ll lose at your own game.

Do you not see that? That's what being family is - that's the best part - it's not tit for tat or who owes more, it's simply - when one hurts, so does the other; when one finds good, you share in that, too. That's family.

Don't be rude if someone break your heart, because it is gonna be "tit for tat".

What accounts for TIT FOR TAT’s robust success is its combination of being nice, retaliatory, forgiving, and clear. Its

What you give comes back to you. It's not tit for tat--life isn't that simple--but what you give always comes back to you.

Kaden’s and Griz’s hands were firmly tied behind their backs. “Would you really have killed them in cold blood?” I asked. “It’s no less than what he ordered for me.” “Tit for tat? Is that how this soldiering stuff works?” An annoyed hiss escaped through Rafe’s teeth. “No, I wouldn’t have killed them on the spot. I probably would have waited for Kaden to do something stupid in the heat of the moment—which he surely will—and then I would have killed him. Oh, wait, excuse me! I forgot. We’re all in good hands. Griz promised to fall on him if he got out of line. Do I have that right?” I returned his sarcasm with a steely glare. “Next I’m going to order him to fall on you. Save your cynicism. All I needed to know was that you wouldn’t kill them in cold blood.

We've also evolved the ability to simply 'pay it forward': I help you, somebody else will help me. I remember hearing a parable when I was younger, about a father who lifts his young son onto his back to carry him across a flooding river. 'When I am older,' said the boy to his father, 'I will carry you across this river as you now do for me.' 'No, you won't,' said the father stoically. 'When you are older you will have your own concerns. All I expect is that one day you will carry your own son across this river as I no do for you.' Cultivating this attitude is an important part of Humanism--to realize that life without God can be much more than a series of strict tit-for-tat transactions where you pay me and I pay you back. Learning to pay it forward can add a tremendous sense of meaning and dignity to our lives. Simply put, it feels good to give to others, whether we get back or not.

I'm not really crazy about all this tit-for-tat stuff. I'm always asked to be the one to first give up the tit.

Excuse me while I throw this down, I’m old and cranky and tired of hearing the idiocy repeated by people who ought to know better. Real women do not have curves. Real women do not look like just one thing. Real women have curves, and not. They are tall, and not. They are brown-skinned, and olive-skinned, and not. They have small breasts, and big ones, and no breasts whatsoever. Real women start their lives as baby girls. And as baby boys. And as babies of indeterminate biological sex whose bodies terrify their doctors and families into making all kinds of very sudden decisions. Real women have big hands and small hands and long elegant fingers and short stubby fingers and manicures and broken nails with dirt under them. Real women have armpit hair and leg hair and pubic hair and facial hair and chest hair and sexy moustaches and full, luxuriant beards. Real women have none of these things, spontaneously or as the result of intentional change. Real women are bald as eggs, by chance and by choice and by chemo. Real women have hair so long they can sit on it. Real women wear wigs and weaves and extensions and kufi and do-rags and hairnets and hijab and headscarves and hats and yarmulkes and textured rubber swim caps with the plastic flowers on the sides. Real women wear high heels and skirts. Or not. Real women are feminine and smell good and they are masculine and smell good and they are androgynous and smell good, except when they don’t smell so good, but that can be changed if desired because real women change stuff when they want to. Real women have ovaries. Unless they don’t, and sometimes they don’t because they were born that way and sometimes they don’t because they had to have their ovaries removed. Real women have uteruses, unless they don’t, see above. Real women have vaginas and clitorises and XX sex chromosomes and high estrogen levels, they ovulate and menstruate and can get pregnant and have babies. Except sometimes not, for a rather spectacular array of reasons both spontaneous and induced. Real women are fat. And thin. And both, and neither, and otherwise. Doesn’t make them any less real. There is a phrase I wish I could engrave upon the hearts of every single person, everywhere in the world, and it is this sentence which comes from the genius lips of the grand and eloquent Mr. Glenn Marla: There is no wrong way to have a body. I’m going to say it again because it’s important: There is no wrong way to have a body. And if your moral compass points in any way, shape, or form to equality, you need to get this through your thick skull and stop with the “real women are like such-and-so” crap. You are not the authority on what “real” human beings are, and who qualifies as “real” and on what basis. All human beings are real. Yes, I know you’re tired of feeling disenfranchised. It is a tiresome and loathsome thing to be and to feel. But the tit-for-tat disenfranchisement of others is not going to solve that problem. Solidarity has to start somewhere and it might as well be with you and me

I miss talking to you, Fallen.” “That’s too bad. I don’t ever miss anything about you.” “You’re fun.” His eyes sparkled like sunlit gems. “You’re never afraid to go tit for tat with me.” “I don’t want anything to do with your tits or tats.” He laughed again, his eyes darkening back to brown. “Did we really just get beat up by that little Junior Guardian?” “If anyone asks we’ll say that there were fifty of them.” I touched my cheek and hissed. “Goddamn ninja punk.” “I feel terrible and I don’t mean my wounded ego. I feel really bad.” He groaned and rolled to his side, not moving from the floor. “I can’t believe we just got our asses handed to us by a goddamn Jonas-brother wannabe.” “He had the hilt piece. Did you see it?” “No, I was too busy crying like a girl.

Put me down. I can walk.” “Nay. I’ve no desire for you to be master of your destiny in any manner, however small. You are too unpredictable.” “I’m unpredictable?” “Aye.” She was speechless a moment. Then she pinched his butt, hard. “Ow!” He smacked her bottom. “Ow!” she yelped. “Behave,” he growled. “Tit for tat, lass. Remember that.

Although many successful givers start from the default of trusting others’ intentions, they’re also careful to scan their environments to screen for potential takers, always ready to shift from feeling a taker’s emotions to analyzing a taker’s thoughts, and flex from giving unconditionally to a more measured approach of generous tit for tat. And when they feel inclined to back down, successful givers are prepared to draw reserves of assertiveness from their commitments to the people who matter to them.

What are you Jenna?” “Yours!  I am yours!” “Yes! You are mine … don’t forget or deny it ever again.  Do you hear me, Baby?

A strike within the realm of the professional never justifies retribution in the realm of the personal

I’ve learned that tit-for-tat iterated prisoner’s dilemma is the piece of game theory that is worth knowing the most. You can almost put down the game theory book after that.

If, you fake me; indeed, I fake you back; it's called: Tit for tat.

Everything we do is tit for tat.

bizarre example of what appears to be a Tit for Tat arrangement in nature was discovered by Eric Fischer in a hermaphrodite fish, the sea bass.

Axelrod argues that tit for tat embodies four principles that should be present in any effective strategy for the repeated prisoners’ dilemma: clarity, niceness, provocability, and forgivingness.

The secret of TIT FOR TAT’s success lay as much in its ruthless dark side as it did in its default sunny side; in the fact that when the going got tough it was able to step up to the plate and mix it with the best of them.

Birdle Burble I went out of mind and then came to my senses By meeting a magpie who mixed up his tenses, Who muddled distinctions of nouns and of verbs, And insisted that logic is bad for the birds. With a poo-wee cluck and a chit, chit-chit; The grammar and meaning don't matter a bit. The stars in their courses have no destination; The train of events will arrive at no station; The inmost and ultimate Self of us all Is dancing on nothing and having a ball. So with a chat for chit and with tat for tit, This will be that, and that will be It! (poem for James Broughton)

She smiled just a little, as if to hide how powerful the words made her feel, but Chinasa saw it all the same: the way her face seemed to say that she had gotten the vengeance she sought. The kind of vengeance that turned love into a weapon. Tit for tat. You do me, I do you.

I've given this a great deal of thought and what I've realized is that revenge doesn't have to be an eye for an eye. Retaliation can take any number of forms. It doesn't need to be crude or obvious. The point is, the pain should be equivalent; not tit for tat but something comparable.

Some people do not have a problem with them continuing to like or love you, as long as you continue to like or love them.

If the secret core of potlatch is the reciprocity of exchange, why is this reciprocity not asserted directly, why does it assume the “mystified” form of two consecutive acts each of which is staged as a free voluntary display of generosity? Here we encounter the paradoxes of forced choice, of freedom to do what is necessary, at its most elementary: I have to do freely what I am expected to do. (If, upon receiving a gift, I immediately return it to the giver, this direct circulation would amount to an extremely aggressive gesture of humiliation, it would signal that I refused the other’s gifts — recall those embarrassing moments when elderly people forget and give us last year’s present once again … ) …the reciprocity of exchange is in itself thoroughly ambiguous; at its most fundamental, it is destructive of the social bond, it is the logic of revenge, tit for tat. To cover this aspect of exchange, to make it benevolent and pacific, one has to pretend that each person’s gift is free and stands on its own. This brings us to potlatch as the “pre-economy of the economy,” its zero-level, that is, exchange as the reciprocal relation of two non-productive expenditures. If the gift belongs to Master and exchange to the Servant, potlatch is the paradoxical exchange between Masters. Potlach is simultaneously the zero-level of civility, the paradoxical point at which restrained civility and obscene consumption overlap, the point at which it is polite to behave impolitely.

TABLE OF PROPOSED RULES TO LIVE BY The Golden Rule Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Silver Rule Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you. The Brazen (Brass) Rule Do unto others as they do unto you. The Iron Rule Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you. The Tit-for-Tat Rule Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you.

In a noisy world in which misunderstanding and error are possible, Tit for Tat is bested by an even more forgiving strategy called Generous Tit for Tat. Every once in a while Generous Tit for Tat will randomly grant forgiveness to a defector and resume cooperating. The act of unconditional forgiveness can flick a duo that has been trapped in a cycle of mutual defection back onto the path of cooperation.

Despite the name, tit for tat isn’t about playground squabbling. It’s a strategy that encourages cooperation but punishes exploitation. The mathematical version involves cooperating at first, and then simply copying the previous move of your opponent. They stay cooperative, you stay cooperative. They cheat and defect on you, you cheat and defect on them. They go back to being nice, you go back to being nice.

This concept, that there is an underlying balancing principle in the universe, according to which we should act, appears to have been almost universal. In Chinese culture, it’s the Tao or Way, in Indian culture it’s the wheel of karmic justice. If not in this world, then in the next, and if not now, then in the future, the TIT FOR TAT cosmic law of reciprocity would see to it that you’d be returned good for good and evil for evil.

There is no solution. I can see no possibility of peace in my lifetime. So long as they continue with their attacks, we will continue our defenses. We are trapped in tits for tats. It is impossible for someone so sensitive like myself to live life this way.

...Axelrod also pointed out that TIT FOR TAT interactions lead to cooperation in the natural world even without the benefit of intelligence. Examples include lichens, in which a fungus extracts nutrients from the underlying rock while providing a home for algae that in turn provide the fungus with photosynthesis; the ant-acacia tree, which houses and feeds a type of ant that in turn protects the tree; and the fig tree whose flowers serve as food for fig wasps that in turn pollinate the flowers and scatter the seeds.

She’s aware of her fondness for ledger keeping, a term that marriage counselors use to castigate their clients for keeping a running tally of who did what to whom, which is not in the spirit of generosity that supposedly nurtures a healthy relationship. The way she sees it, generosity is admirable but not always practical. Without some discreet retaliation to balance things out, a little surreptitious tit for tat to keep the grievances at bay, most relationships—hers included—would surely combust in a blaze of resentment.

This is Glesca.... Any time you're confused, take a wee minute to remind yourself of that inescapable fact: this is Glesca. We don't do subtle, we don't do nuanced, we don't do conspiracy. We do pish-heid bampot bludgeoning his girlfriend to death in a fit of paranoid rage induced by forty-eight hours straight on the batter. We do coked-up neds jumping on a guy's heid outside a nightclub because he looked at them funny. We do drug-dealing gangster rockets shooting other drug-dealing gangster rockets as comeback for something almost identical a fortnight ago. We do bam-on-bam. We do tit-for-tat, score-settling, feuds, jealousy, petty revenge. We do straightforward. We do obvious. We do cannaemisswhodunit. When you hear hoofbeats on Sauchiehall Street, it's gaunny be a horse, no' a zebra...'.

That was the beauty of love. It didn’t tally up an exact tit-for-tat list of qualifications in two people and decide whether the scales were balanced. It just let hearts decide. And mine had decided on hers fifteen years earlier. I just hoped she could trust hers enough to trust me.

Trading favors, the relationship tit for tat that social scientists call reciprocal altruism, was long thought to be the basic backbone of friendship. But recent research has revealed that we actually care less about 'fairness' with our friends than we do when dealing with strangers and acquaintances. In a friendship, when either person insists on repaying a favor it's seen as signaling a weakness in the relationship. Friendship is what happens beyond the tracking of favors.... Among the traits exclusive to -Homo sapiens-, altruism and selflessness are near the top of what makes us human.

We had been told in Bangor of a man who lived alone, a sort of hermit, at that dam [on the Allegash], to take care of it, who spent his time tossing a bullet from one hand to the other, for want of employment. This sort of tit-for-tat intercourse between his two hands, bandying to and fro a leaden subject, seems to have been his symbol for society.

Ele agora receberia o troco na mesma moeda. Aliás, a Bíblia também falava disso, não falava? 'Olho por olho, dente por dente'? O quê? Ah, sim! Sua professora explicou que isso era só no Antigo Testamento, certo? Sei como é. Dizem que agora o certo é oferecer a outra face, não é isso? Pois é. A questão é que eles já me haviam socado nessa face também.

And at the risk of sounding like Andy Rooney on Sixty Minutes, have you ever wondered why we say fiddle-faddle and not faddle- fiddle? Why is it ping-pong and pitter-patter rather than pong-ping and patter-pitter? Why dribs and drabs, rather than vice versa? Why can't a kitchen be span and spic? Whence riff-raff, mish-mash, flim-flam, chit-chat, tit for tat, knick-knack, zig-zag, sing-song, ding-dong, King Kong, criss-cross, shilly-shally, see-saw, hee-haw, flip-flop, hippity-hop, tick-tock, tic-tac-toe, eeny-meeny-miney-moe, bric-a-brac, clickety-clack, hickory-dickory-dock, kit and kaboodle, and bibbity-bobbity-boo? The answer is that the vowels for which the tongue is high and in the front always come before the vowels for which the tongue is low and in the back.

Se todo mundo pode escolher recitar as frasezinhas bíblicas que quiser, de acordo com a conveniência, eu também posso. Ao que me consta, quando resolvem criticar os homossexuais, por exemplo, o Antigo Testamento continua valendo; não é dele que retiram a maioria das bobagens que recitam contra os gays? Então, estava decidido. Minha frase seria aquela mesma: 'Olho por olho, dente por dente'.

Under the Fugitive Persons Act, those who escape from service are to be captured and returned, anywhere they are found in the United States, slave state or free. All law enforcement agencies are obliged to assist in these operations when called upon (as, indeed, “all good citizens” are so obliged), but it is the US Marshals Service that is specifically charged with the job. This law was passed in the ancient year of 1793 under its old name, but it’s been updated repeatedly: strengthened in 1850, reinforced in 1861, revised and strengthened a half dozen times since. When, in 1875, Congress at last ended slavery in the nation’s capital, the slaveholding powers were appeased by the raising of fees for obstruction. When President Roosevelt, in 1935, proposed the creation of a “comprehensive regulatory framework” for the plantations (and the Bureau of Labor Practices to enforce it), he quieted howling southern senators with a sweeping immunity bill, shielding US marshals from zealous northern prosecutors. Tit for tat. Give and take. Negotiation and conciliation. Compromise. It’s how the Union survives. People

In fact, the fourteen programs submitted in the first round of the tournament embodied a variety of complex strategies. But much to the astonishment of Axelrod and everyone else, the crown went to the simplest strategy of all: TIT FOR TAT. Submitted by psychologist Anatol Rapoport of the University of Toronto, TIT FOR TAT would start out by cooperating on the first move, and from there on out would do exactly what the other program had done on the move before. That is, the TIT FOR TAT strategy incorporated the essence of the carrot and the stick. It was "nice" in the sense that it would never defect first. It was "forgiving" in the sense that it would reward good behavior by cooperating the next time. And yet it was "tough" in the sense that it would punish uncooperative behavior by defecting the next time. Moreover, it was "clear" in the sense that its strategy was so simple that the opposing programs could easily figure out what they were dealing with. Of course, with only a handful of programs entered in the tournament, there was always the possibility that TIT FOR TAT's success was a fluke. But maybe not. Of the fourteen programs submitted, eight were "nice" and would never defect first. And every one of them easily outperformed the six not-nice rules. So to settle the question Axelrod held a second round of the tournament, specifically inviting people to try to knock TIT FOR TAT off its throne. Sixty-two entrants tried-and TIT FOR TAT won again. The conclusion was inescapable. Nice guys-or more precisely, nice, forgiving, tough, and clear guys-can indeed finish first.

The conditions for the evolution of cooperation tell what is necessary, but do not, by themselves, tell what strategies will be most successful. For this question, the tournament approach has offered striking evidence in favor of the robust success of the simplest of all discriminating strategies: TIT FOR TAT. By cooperating on the first move, and then doing whatever the other player did on the previous move, TIT FOR TAT managed to do well with a wide variety of more or less sophisticated decision rules. It not only won the first round of the Computer Prisoner’s Dilemma Tournament when facing entries submitted by professional game theorists, but it also won the second round which included over sixty entries designed by people who were able to take the results of the first round into account. It was also the winner in five of the six major variants of the second round (and second in the sixth variant). And most impressive, its success was not based only upon its ability to do well with strategies which scored poorly for themselves. This was shown by an ecological analysis of hypothetical future rounds of the tournament. In this simulation of hundreds of rounds of the tournament, TIT FOR TAT again was the most successful rule, indicating that it can do well with good and bad rules alike. TIT FOR TAT’s robust success is due to being nice, provocable, forgiving, and clear. Its niceness means that it is never the first to defect, and this property prevents it from getting into unnecessary trouble. Its retaliation discourages the other side from persisting whenever defection is tried. Its forgiveness helps restore mutual cooperation. And its clarity makes its behavioral pattern easy to recognize; and once recognized, it is easy to perceive that the best way of dealing with TIT FOR TAT is to cooperate with it.

What Jesus teaches in regard to violence is so radical that it almost doesn’t even make sense. When we serve an Americanized version of Jesus, we tend to subconsciously imagine that Jesus would have said something to the effect of, “Don’t use violence unless you really and truly fear that your life may be in danger.” However, that isn’t what he taught—Jesus repeatedly taught that those who actually “follow” him must adopt a position of nonviolent love of enemies. This new ethic of nonviolence was not what people were expecting; the Mosaic Law had established principles that justified retributive violence (much like in our own culture), condoning tit-for-tat responses to injustices. Jesus insists, however, that the Kingdom he came to establish was going to operate by different principles from anything they had experienced previously, and that the use of previously justified violence had no place in this new movement God was starting.

In Western culture today, you decide to get married because you feel an attraction to the other person. You think he or she is wonderful. But a year or two later—or, just as often, a month or two—three things usually happen. First, you begin to find out how selfish this wonderful person is. Second, you discover that the wonderful person has been going through a similar experience and he or she begins to tell you how selfish you are. And third, though you acknowledge it in part, you conclude that your spouse’s selfishness is more problematic than your own. This is especially true if you feel that you’ve had a hard life and have experienced a lot of hurt. You say silently, “OK, I shouldn’t do that—but you don’t understand me.” The woundedness makes us minimize our own selfishness. And that’s the point at which many married couples arrive after a relatively brief period of time. So what do you do then? There are at least two paths to take. First, you could decide that your woundedness is more fundamental than your self-centeredness and determine that unless your spouse sees the problems you have and takes care of you, it’s not going to work out. Of course, your spouse will probably not do this—especially if he or she is thinking almost the exact same thing about you! And so what follows is the development of emotional distance and, perhaps, a slowly negotiated kind of détente or ceasefire. There is an unspoken agreement not to talk about some things. There are some things your spouse does that you hate, but you stop talking about them as long as he or she stops bothering you about certain other things. No one changes for the other; there is only tit-for-tat bargaining. Couples who settle for this kind of relationship may look happily married after forty years, but when it’s time for the anniversary photo op, the kiss will be forced. The alternative to this truce-marriage is to determine to see your own selfishness as a fundamental problem and to treat it more seriously than you do your spouse’s. Why? Only you have complete access to your own selfishness, and only you have complete responsibility for it. So each spouse should take the Bible seriously, should make a commitment to “give yourself up.” You should stop making excuses for selfishness, you should begin to root it out as it’s revealed to you, and you should do so regardless of what your spouse is doing. If two spouses each say, “I’m going to treat my self-centeredness as the main problem in the marriage,” you have the prospect of a truly great marriage. It Only Takes One to Begin

Andromeda said, “I see that you understand the paradox involved. These are axiomatic beliefs. If life is finite, there can be no math, no logic, nothing which says using the Eschaton Engine to obliterate the majority of the universe in self-preservation is wrong. No game theory applies, because there is no retaliation, no tit for tat. No punishment. But if life is infinite, then an infinite game theory applies, and no act where the ends justifies the means is allowed, because there is no Concubine Vector, no eternal imbalance, no chance of any act escaping unpunished.

Just remember, I follow the Tit for Tat.

I measured the tit for tat. It seemed fairly balanced on the scale of verbal jabbing.

If you treat me or my faith with abuse and insult on the right to freedom of speech, do not forget the same and bitter response: Tit for Tat.

Thanks in part to his support of the Taliban, Karzai became a candidate for the position of United Nations ambassador for the Taliban administration.24 It was a tit-for-tat deal. His father, Abdul Ahad Karzai, had supported these tribally-related Taliban in early meetings in 1994 in Quetta and in Kandahar, and wanted something in return.

The story has a sequel. In 1989, the Polish mathematician Martin Nowak produced a programme that beats Tit-for-Tat. He called it Generous. It overcame one weakness of Tit-for-Tat, namely that when you meet a particularly nasty opponent, you get drawn into a potentially endless and destructive cycle of retaliation, which is bad for both sides. Generous avoided this possibility by randomly but periodically forgetting the last move of its opponent, thus allowing the relationship to begin again. What Nowak had produced, in fact, was a computer simulation of forgiveness

The way she left matters with Nigel disgusts her. A free affair—what kind of people are we? 119

If you treat me or my faith with the abuse and insult on the right to freedom of speech, do not forget the same and bitter response: Tit for Tat

Mr. Prime Minister, how long do we only condemn Indian immoral hegemony and violation of United Nations Security Council's resolutions. Stich your lips or defend Kashmiris, as Tit for Tat; do not wait for unfair states to resolve this dispute, Pakistan and its forces for what exists?indian

No one is celebrating war; war is not the best solution; however when one imposes that, another has the right as Tit for Tat.

Do you always just stand there gawping like tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber? I thought you were supposed to pose a challenge to the throne of Solaria?” “Actually we just want our inher-” Tory started but Mildred spoke loudly over her in her baritone voice. “You do realise the only reason you're at this party is because everyone wants to have a good laugh about how us Dragons are going to use you bony bodies as toothpicks after Darius and I ascend to our rightful place on the throne?” She moved closer, her head cocked and her mouth set into a sneer. “Why would anyone bow to a couple of Orderless, busty airheads?” My teeth locked together as anger bloomed in my chest. “I'm kinda fond of the busty part,” Caleb muttered and Seth fist bumped him. “We're not airheads-” I started, figuring I couldn't really deny the other two things - dammit. “And the only reason we're at this party is because Darius is helping out Tory in return. It's tit for tat.” “Darius would never give his tat for any of your tits!” she shrieked, smoke spewing from her nostrils. Tory burst out laughing, but I sensed the danger in Mildred's tone and hurriedly used what Professor Perseus had taught us, forcing a shield of air out around us. Fire streamed from Mildred's open mouth and deflected over the shield in a powerful display of red and gold sparks. My heart hammered wildly as Mildred grunted her fury then stormed past us and exited the room. She slammed the door with a wall-shaking bang and my shoulders dropped with relief. “Good thinking,” Tory said on a breath. Darius sunk down into a chair and dropped his head into his hands. His friends grouped around him, their mocking expressions falling away. Seth nuzzled against Darius's cheek and Max reached out, pressing his fingers to the back of his hand while Caleb started pacing back and forth in front of him. I sensed this was the right time to leave and we both slipped out of the room without a word. We moved away, lingering on the edge of the crowd as I eagerly hunted for another glass of champagne. If there was one way to get through this night, it started with alco and ended in hol. (Darcy)

What you offering? You scratch my soul, you know, I’ll scratch yours. Tit for tat, darling. So what you been in? We all like a bit of theology here, love, no need to be shy.” He licked his lips. “Give us an afterlife, go on.

By contrast, highly defection-prone programs did on occasion defeat their opponents, particularly when paired with others that were excessively forgiving. But when highly aggressive programs encountered each other, the outcome wasn’t pretty: Each got caught up in a string of retaliatory defections so that they both ended up with low, punishing payoffs (mutual P). TIT-FOR-TAT, meanwhile, just kept moving along, defending itself against meanies while rewarding kindlies, and, of course, rewarding itself at the same time (via the comparatively high payoff, R). “Joint undertakings stand a better chance,” we learn from the ancient Greek playwright Euripedes, “when they benefit both sides.”9

Oh, no, that would have been rude. I don’t believe in that sort of tit for tat, do you? People are too self-centeredly unkind to one another as it is.

The judges who breach, violate, and break the concept of the constitution and law are not fair to society, even to themselves; they just put the mask on their faces as the judge. However, history is their judge that does not ignore the reality. A verdict is neither a vote nor a consensus nor a customary decision; it is the interpretation and conclusion of the constitution and law, and judges set it accordingly in the context of that and ensure its implementation. The constitution is like a rose; foreign policy is its fragrance that flies freely everywhere, and everyone feels equally beyond restrictions. Sure, such context carries beauty, dignity, self-determination, freedom, and success; otherwise, the sting of thorns becomes a painful risk. In a civilized century, it is a tragedy that one dares not express one’s feelings that may abuse God, prophets, or sacred figures. But more than that, one cannot speak a word against the wrongdoing of a handful of army generals or ISI officials. In Pakistan, veteran journalists, top judges, and other key figures draw breath under the spying eyes of the ISI; even higher and minister-level personalities are the victims of such conduct. One has to live in such surroundings. Tit for Tat is neither a constitution nor a law; it is just an act of revenge. If it continues, be sure everything collapses wherever it happens. The cheap army, undemocratic state, and corrupt nation neither fulfill their oath nor comply with their constitution.

She can make it up to me, show me how appreciative she is in the new underwear sets we bought her, ‘cause holy hell, are they hot. I can just imagine them propping up her tits, covering her tatted skin. Fuck, what an inappropriate time to be hard.

In 1985, Wouter van Hoven was in his office in the zoology department at Pretoria University when he got an unusual call from a wildlife warden. In the last month, more than a thousand kudu, a particularly majestic species of antelope with elegant stripes and long, curling horns, had dropped dead on multiple game ranches in the nearby Transvaal region. The same thing had happened the winter before. In total some three thousand kudu had died. Nothing seemed wrong with them, no open wounds, no disease, though some looked a little thin. Could he come out as soon as possible? The ranch owners were beside themselves. Van Hoven was a wildlife nutrition zoologist who specialized in African ungulates. He should be able to figure this out, he thought. He’d be over right away. When Van Hoven got to the first game ranch, dead kudu were lying about as if a war had just been fought. But the first thing he noticed after the stench was that there were too many of them for a ranch that size. As a rule, there should not be more than three kudu per 100 hectares, and this ranch had about fifteen per 100. The same was true at the next few ranches he visited. Game-ranch hunting had exploded in popularity, and to cash in, ranchers were pushing the limits of their land. He opened up several kudu and saw stomachs full of crushed acacia leaves, undigested. He looked out at the giraffes, who were spread out along a swath of savanna, nibbling acacia trees and evidently not dying. After a few weeks a picture began to come together: when acacias begin to be eaten, they increase the bitter tannin in their leaves. Van Hoven already knew this. It’s a gentle defensive mechanism. At first, the tannin rises just a little. It’s not dangerous, but it tastes bad. Typically, that’s enough to deter a kudu. But both of the last two winters were extremely dry. All the grass was dead. Too many kudu, penned in by game fences, had nothing else to eat and nowhere else to go. He figured they had continued eating the acacia leaves, despite the bitter taste, because they had to. He pulled out a few clumps of chewed acacia leaves from a kudu gut and brought them to a lab. Kudu, Van Hoven knew, could handle about 4 percent tannin content in a leaf. Above that is trouble. The acacia, he figured, kept raising the level of tannin in the leaves, tit for tat. The kudu kept eating. And then, clearly, the acacias delivered a lethal dose. The undigested leaves Van Hoven tested from the kudu’s stomachs were 12 percent tannin.

Are we going tit for tat on proving that? Or am I going to be getting off alone in my room?” I flashed him a sexy smirk. “Just like every other night I’ve spent under this roof since I’ve been back.” “What did you just say? Are you telling me that you’ve been across the hall, touching yourself this whole time?” “Course not. Toys are much more effective at getting the job done.” “You always were a smartass.” His voice was husky and low. “Let me rephrase my question. Who were you thinking of when you came, baby?” There was no use in lying, so I told him the truth. “You. It’s only ever been you, Jenner.

Sexual Intercourse Whether tit for tat, or this for that, the tête-à-tête still makes her wet.

Parity of esteem,” in the parlance of negotiation experts, is a simple concept but requires a fundamental reorientation of behavior on both sides. Each says to the other: “I know your narrative and I reject it in its entirety, yet I accept your right to define your own narrative as you wish, and I will respect that right and its aspirations.” The important component is respect; respect is more embracive than trust. Until each side reaches a level of understanding of the other’s narrative that facilitates a willingness to accord parity of esteem, peace agreements will likely falter, perhaps not immediately but in a corrosive ambience that slowly emerges and is conducive to disregarding some of their provisions. Peace agreements are pieces of paper. The task of translating them into sustainable reconciliation is a long and difficult process; former protagonists are in “recovery.” Unless they nurture that recovery, their peace agreement will fall apart or lapse into “frozen” pacts. In Israel and Palestine there is no parity of esteem for the respective narratives and therefore no trust. This is why the onset of any negotiation is often not welcomed by either the leadership or the constituencies of either side. Instead, the prospect brings latent fears to the foreground, and the leaderships play to these fears, feeding their constituencies the same stale and divisive pronouncements about “the other” that have been repeated ad nauseam over decades. They engage in debilitating tit-for-tat exchanges, talk only about what the other side has to do, what the other side needs to tell its people, never about what they themselves have to do, what their own people need to understand. All this prepares the way, should the talks collapse, for one more repetition of the blame game and violence, which becomes self-fulfilling and self-motivating.

TWO TIT MICE WALK INTO A BAR... Bartender says, 'What will ya' have?' The two tit mice say, 'Tat.' 'Tat.' Thank God the tit mice weren't a stutterers as well, or they'd say, 'Tat, Tat, Tat, Tat, Tat!' 'Tat, Tat, Tat, Tat, Tat!' ...and everybody in the bar would duck, except for the two stuttering ducks sitting next to the two tits, who'd just go, 'Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack!' 'Quack, Quack, Quack, Quack!' Then two six trigger happy Texans would whip out their six shooters, openin' fire and shootin' the two tit mice and two ducks deader than a doornail. The moral of this tale told by a fa, fa, fa, fool, is a pair of tits aren't safe in any bar. And whaT about the ducks, you ask? Well, I reckon... they were just sittin' ducks.

it’s only right I show you mine. Yes, Mr. Faraday, I’ll give you my tit—in exchange for your tat, of course. (What did you think I meant?)

He needed her again,

It is you, who forced me to take the way of the tit for tat; otherwise, I was not such a person.

You can't escape karma ... It is what it is. It doesn't judge, it's neither good nor bad like most people think. It's the result of all the actions, positive and negative--a constant balancing act of events--cause and effect--tit for tat--reaping and sowing--what goes around comes around ... However you phrase it, it's the same in the end.

Chancellor Angela Merkel attributed some of her own country’s decline in the second quarter to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, over which tit-for-tat sanctions threaten trade. The Munich-based Ifo, a research firm, echoed some of those sentiments as it reported its business climate index, based on a monthly survey of some 7,000 companies, fell to a worse-than-expected 106.3 from 108, the lowest level in more than a year.

We become matchers, striving to preserve an equal balance of giving and getting. Matchers operate on the principle of fairness: when they help others, they protect themselves by seeking reciprocity. If you’re a matcher, you believe in tit for tat, and your relationships

They would herd the large whale into shallow waters close to a whaling vessel, allowing the whalers to harpoon the harassed leviathan. Once the whale was killed, the orcas would be given one day to consume their preferred delicacy—its tongue and lips—after which the whalers would collect their prize. Here too humans gave names to their preferred orca partners and recognized the tit-for-tat that is the foundation of all cooperation, human as well as animal.45

So that’s what this is? Tit for tat?

Let us engage in a mental experiment by way of trying to construct proverbial wisdom out of the relationship between terrestrial life, its pleasures, and it’s Beyond. If one says, ‘Forget about the afterlife, about the Elsewhere, seize the day, enjoy life fully here and now, it’s the only life you’ve got!’ it sounds deep. If one says exactly the opposite (‘Do not get trapped in the illusory and vain pleasures of earthly life; money, power, and passions are all destined to vanish into thin air—think about eternity!’), it also sounds deep. If one combines the two sides (‘Bring eternity into your everyday life, live your life on this earth as if it is already permeated by Eternity!’), we get another profound thought. Needless to say, the same goes for its inversion: ‘Do not try in vain to bring together eternity and your terrestrial life, accept humbly that you are forever split between Heaven and Earth!’ If, finally, one simply gets perplexed by all these reversals and claims: ‘Life is an enigma, do not try to penetrate its secrets, accept the beauty of its unfathomable mystery!’ the result is no less profound than its reversal: ‘Do not allow yourself to be distracted by false mysteries that just dissimulate the fact that, ultimately, life is very simple—it is what it is, it is simply here without reason and rhyme!’ Needless to add that, by uniting mystery and simplicity, one again obtains a wisdom: ‘The ultimate, unfathomable mystery of life resides in its very simplicity, in the simple fact that there is life.’ This tautological imbecility points towards the fact that a Master is excluded from the economy of symbolic exchange—not wholly excluded, since he occupies a special, exceptional place in it. For the Master, there is no ‘tit for tat,’ since, for him, tit is in a way already its own tat.

Machiavellian tit for tat requires devotion to appearances, including protestations of one’s virtue even when one chooses vice. And such protestations are most effective when the person making them really believes them.

You don’t owe me anything. It’s a basic sentiment, yet it catches me off guard. I’ve lived a life of constantly owing someone something. Tit for tat. My attention in exchange for a favor. Constantly caught in the middle of warring sides and having to smile my way to the top. I’m so sick of smiling.

If forces fail to defend their people and state, it is a grave level of obliviousness. The proper response to Tat is Tit for Tat, which displays boldness, bravery, and self-defense.

However, ‘tit-for-tat’ should not be confused with an aggressive strategy. It calls for presenting a friendly face to the world—the first move in the game is always to be nice. Yudhishthira presents an affable face during the interminable peace negotiations. And he will make an exceptionally generous offer to Duryodhana, as we shall soon see. The difference is that Yudhishthira is no longer willing to be exploited. It has taken him thirteen long years to realize that Draupadi may have been right.

Oh, just fine. How You Doing?” I fall into bed, and claw the blankets up onto me. The mattress depresses heavily beside me and his hand is on my forehead. “Ah, that’s nice.” His hand feels like the sort of temperature I should be striving for. Everything we do is tit for tat, so I raise my hands up and put them on his forehead. “Okay.” He is amused.

Age changes people, and it is one of the most predictable ways that people abandon crime and violence. People get older and wiser. But Curtis knew it was more than that. It was also because he had created some distance between himself and the conflict. Having reached his saturation point and tagged himself out, he was removed from the day-to-day, tit-for-tat cycle of the streets, and what a difference this made. It gave him space to think other thoughts, to cultivate competing identities. Revenge was no longer the only idea that captured his attention; his Stone identity was not the only identity to which he owed allegiance.

Let us not silence the chroniclers. We may not like the choices our ancestors made but so what? We didn’t walk in their shoes. Life goes on. Same as today. Some people, as they make their matrix game (Weird Tit-for-Tat) choices, are compassionate; some, clearly, are not. If the past has a story to tell we should hear it. We might see a bit of ourselves (or our enemies) and our game choices in the decisions of Squire Davis, Jennet Ferguson, William Ferguson (Sr and Jr), Mary Ferguson, Barton Farr, David Thompson 1, Richard Brown, Addie Miller, Isabella Davis, Joseph Brant Thayendanegea, Lucille Goosay, Jeddah Golden, Nellah Golden, Pierre Beauchemin, Jake Venti, Aughguaga Polly, Sara Johnson, Lizzie Bosson, William John, Bride Munny, Boy Hewson.

If you fake me; indeed, I fake you back; it's called: Tit for Tat

North America and Europe have always had a porous border when it comes to culture (the US sends us Hollywood movies, we send them cheese that isn’t the colour of Fanta, tit for tat).

Ye-es…?” he replied uncertainly. I rolled my eyes. “Of course.” “Okay. Okay. Tit for tat–” “You just wanted to say ‘tit’.” He beamed. “I did. But the point’s the same regardless. I’ll let you make me over. Although, how can you mess with perfection?” He ran his hands down, indicating his body.

This thinking mind, with a certain tit-for-tat rationality, made the Gospel itself into an achievement contest in which the one with the most willpower wins, even though almost everybody actually loses by the normal criteria. That is how far the ego (read “false self,” or the Apostle Paul’s word sarx, “the flesh”) will go to promote and protect itself. It would sooner die than change or admit that it is mistaken. It would sooner live in a win/lose world, in which most lose, than allow God any win-win victory. Grace is always a humiliation for the ego, it seems.

There are endless variations on this sort of tit-for-tat, or almost tit-for-tat, gift exchange. The most familiar is the exchange of presents: I buy someone a beer; they buy me the next one. Perfect equivalence implies equality. But consider a slightly more complicated example: I take a friend out to a fancy restaurant for dinner; after a discreet interval, my friend does the same. As anthropologists have long been in the habit of pointing out, the very existence of such customs—especially, the feeling that one really ought to return the favor—can’t be explained by standard economic theory, which assumes that any human interaction is ultimately a business deal and that we are all self-interested individuals trying to get the most for ourselves for the least cost or least amount of effort.28 But this feeling is quite real, and it can cause genuine strain for those of limited means trying to keep up appearances. So: Why, if I took a free-market economic theorist out to an expensive dinner, would that economist feel somewhat diminished—uncomfortably in my debt—until he had been able to return the favor? Why, if he were feeling competitive with me, would he be inclined to take me to someplace even more expensive?

Okay, so let's say you're the one hearing feedback from your partner - now what? Yield. Don't get defensive, or go tit for tat, or any of that Adaptive Child behavior. You, the listener, also need to be centered. You too need to remember love. What can you give this person to help them feel better? You can begin by offering the gift of your presence. Listen. And let them know they've been heard. Reflect back what you heard. If you're at a loss, just repeat your partner's feedback wheel. ... If you are the speaker, and the listening partner has left out important things or gotten something seriously wrong, help them out. Gently correct them, and then have them reflect again. But don't be overly fussy. Serviceable is good enough. Now that you've listened, you need to respond. How? Empathically and accountably. Own whatever you can, with no buts, excuses, or reasons. "Yes, I did that" - plain and simple. Land on it, really take it on. The more accountable you are, the more your partner might relax. If you realize what you've done, if you really get it, you'll be less likely to keep repeating that behavior. And conversely, not acknowledging what you did - by changing the subject, or denying, or minimizing - will leave your partner feeling more desperate. ... If you are the speaker, it pays to keep it specific. The feedback wheel is about this one incident, period. Most people go awry when they escalate their complaints, moving from the specific occurrence to a trend, then to their partner's character. For example: "Terry, you came late." (Occurence.) "You always come late." (Trend.) "You're never on time." (Trend.) "You really are selfish!" (Character.) When the speaker jumps from a particular event to a trend (you always, you never) to the partner's character (you are a ...), they render their partner ever more helpless, and each intensification feels dirtier. ... Once you've reflectively listened and acknowledged whatever you can about the truth of your partner's complaint, give. Give to your partner whatever parts of their request (the fourth step in the feedback wheel: what I'd like now) as you possibly can. ... And finally, for you both, let the repair happen. Don't discount your partner's efforts. Don't disqualify what's being offered with a response like "I don't believe you" or "This is too little too late." Dare to take yes for an answer. ... Let them win; let it be good enough. Com into knowing love.

Think before you follow; face Tit for Tat after you unfollow; the immature one neither feels shame nor pity. Thank goodness that profile is now pure.