Saying no without attempting to negotiate first also comes off as childish, and affects the outcome of future negotiations because it demonstrates an unwillingness to compromise.
This post struck me as overly simplistic; not sure if that was intentional for illustrative purposes, or the classic "I read 50 pages of this management book last night and now will apply it to everything" approach. The answer is almost always the third way, where you both get pretty much all of the essence of what you're after, but not through oppositional simple paths. You don't negotiate WHAT you get, but HOW you get there. The post here is very one-sided and confrontational.
Sometimes "no" is a full answer. Compromise is not owed if the demands seem unreasonable. If you ask a question and can't accept no for an answer, you were not really asking.
No is a perfectly reasonable starting point for a negotiation.
Right?? Not sure how you start a negotiation without the first move being a no.