Deltas: what is success to you? do consider yourself successful?

[jewels]

I'm curious what different Deltas consider as success.

[Simon Ssmall]

Yeh I consider myself successful. I love my job and in these crisis times i get pay raises and promotions, the job in itself allows me to live in foreign countries which is cooler than just visiting a place on holiday. My job pays me for my plane tickets so I can go to random country for the same amount of money instead of going home, so I visit a lot of places . I am financially independent and can basically not work for a year or so and still be fine, having this security is always nice. I am independent in all possible ways and I love it.

Now the only thing is missing is someone I could share my success with, yet it seems I keep on finding the wrong people for me. Sad panda .

[duality is cringe]

Financial and occupational security/stability, according to your own set of financial demands surrounding your lifestyle, which can vary from person to person.

[jessica129]

I don't consider myself successful at all.

[meatburger]

I don't consider myself successful at all.

aww. Im sure you have lived a decent life though. Soon in the Air force you might start feeling more so.

I dont really think im successful. Ive been successful at finding a good group of friends, and in my studies . Ssmall's success seems great to me. I wont really feel successful until i get into a decent career and im financially independent and feel like i am achieving something. In a month or so when i move i will be on my way i think.

[tiny_dancer]

Honestly, I don't know. In my personal life, I'm quite happy.

[Khola aka Bee]

I'm not delta but I'm kinda bored.

I have a good job but I don't measure success by that. I think I measure my success more by how good a person I am to others, how selfless I am, how many new things I learn in a day, and whether or not I'm happy. A measure of fulfillment probably governs my ideaology of personal success.

[Creepy-]

I'm successful in some ways and on my way to being successful in others.

[DirectorAbbie]

Sure, I s'pose I could be called successful. Haven't been alive very long, but what life I have experienced is good and I foresee no strife in the future. ('Course with my lousy I'll probably end up deep in debt and hated by the world. )

[iAnnAu]

I'm successful in some ways and on my way to being successful in others.

I keep thinking about how much my life changes from year to year, and it seems like I've already had more adventures than most people see in their lifetimes. So even though I'm somewhat financially strapped right now, and I'm terribly bored by my job, I know these things will swing upwards at some point ... and in general, I dig the hell out of the life I've had and look forward to more changes that I couldn't possibly predict. I used to want to write fiction, but honestly, some of my true stories are crazier than anything I could come up with!

[munenori2]

While I've slowly over time developed my own ideas of what it means to be successful, I realize that a lot of what my parents' consider it has rubbed off on me.

I'd be perfectly happy doing something that I enjoyed for not that much money (so long as it actually is enough to live off of/support myself and anyone else in my life). I guess that's the tension I've been going through lately though. I barely make enough to make ends meet (and my family has pitched in occasionally to help), much less be the helpful one to anybody else. I've been coasting a lot lately since I am content with what I'm doing, but those moments I'm brought back to earth in how it imposes a burden on others I really start to get restless.

[xyz]

I really don't think i'm successfull at all.

[jewels]

interesting stuff guys.

So far I'd say I'm not. I mean, big picture yeah, in terms of helping others, making a positive contribution to the world, living my life my own way, etc (which I do).

But in society's eyes, I have a ways to go...a long, long way. But no time better than '09 to do it.

[jewels]

I dont really think im successful. Ive been successful at finding a good group of friends, and in my studies . Ssmall's success seems great to me. I wont really feel successful until i get into a decent career and im financially independent and feel like i am achieving something. In a month or so when i move i will be on my way i think.

once again, I completely agree meatburger. I also think Ssmalls life sounds great. And I also think to have a sense of accomplishment does mean financial in addition to everything else (if only it was as easy for us ENFps as making friends, right?) Good luck w/ your move! exciting

[meatburger]

once again, I completely agree meatburger. I also think Ssmalls life sounds great. And I also think to have a sense of accomplishment does mean financial in addition to everything else (if only it was as easy for us ENFps as making friends, right?) Good luck w/ your move! exciting

Yeah well ur amazing Jewels i dunno how you got so cool .

09 i can almost guarantee will be the biggest year i have had in the last 10 years. Move is part of it but something major thats been holding me back is gone and i feel a burning inside me that is not going to be put out.

[xyz]

I will say though that 2009 is turning out to be quite a good year... so far.

[jewels]

I will say though that 2009 is turning out to be quite a good year... so far.

Yeah, I think '09 is going to be the best!

meatb, yeah I think when an ENFp has passion for something, just about anything can be accomplished.

[Park]

I'm curious what different Deltas consider as success.

I tend to have a very literal approach towards these type of words/things, so I don't subscribe any general meaning to them. It is what it is, the specific meaning would depend on the connotation. And I don't consider myself successful, as I do not consider myself unsuccessful either. I just don't reason that way.

[Tom]

Obviously, your personal happiness is your personal success.

I'm fairly happy, so I'll go ahead and consider myself fairly successful.

[jewels]

Obviously, your personal happiness is your personal success.

I'm fairly happy, so I'll go ahead and consider myself fairly successful.

see, you say "obviously" but for a lot of people, success is something other than being happy.

Money, status, relationships, travel, fun, abs, helping people, health, etc...so I was curious if there were any delta trends.

Maybe "success" is tied in more to the enneagram...

[xyz]

see, you say "obviously" but for a lot of people, success is something other than being happy.

Money, status, relationships, travel, fun, abs, helping people, health, etc...so I was curious if there were any delta trends.

Maybe "success" is tied in more to the enneagram...

accomplishment and health rank up there with me on how i define "Success"

[DirectorAbbie]

accomplishment and health rank up there with me on how i define "Success"

Health? Not a part of success in my book (which has yet to be published, due to my demands). I base success on overall happiness from birth to present, as well as material, mental, and emotional outlook for the near future.

[Tom]

see, you say "obviously" but for a lot of people, success is something other than being happy.

Money, status, relationships, travel, fun, abs, helping people, health, etc...

That is absolutely untrue; personal success is subjective. So how is success defined? What we really need for some broad topic like this is some Ti; a general rule that fits all possible circumstances.

Let's start with the word "success"; the definition (dictionary) of success is: "the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors". Some of us can take this at face value, but I'll do a little "uncovering" so it's easier to understand what I mean.

Let's use that definition, for starters:
Favorable or prosperous: we'll go with "desired" for now.
termination: "outcome" fits rather well, I believe.
attempts or endeavors: how about "events" for now?

So lets see what we have to present:

"the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors"
is now
"the desired outcome of events".

These two phrases mean the same thing. That's very good; it means we can now move on with something a little easier to understand.

Now that we have a decent, easy to understand definition, we have several questions we can ask to get a move on in explaining what we want to know.

The first question, surprisingly enough, is "What do we want to know, anyway?". The answer to this one is pretty easy and probably doesn't need clarification, but it's nice if we all start on the same page. We want to know exactly what this means, as well as how it is accomplished.

We'll start with "What does this mean?" first, being our second question. We've already given a definition, and made it easier to understand, so this part is to figure out exactly what that definition is getting at. Like before, we'll start by trying to phrase it differently so we can more easily puzzle it out; "the desired outcome of events" can more easily be said as "what we want to occur". But what who wants to occur? Now comes the hard bit. We need to do some objective thinking here, so from now on there may be dissenters in the conclusion we come to in this post.

To determine "who" determines success, we have to decide if it's an individual goal (it's important to remember that we know we are dealing with a goal), or if it's somehow a good for everyone. Now comes the real Ti; we can determine, objectively, that a "collective good" doesn't exist (Shocked anyone? You shouldn't be if you've ever actually thought this through). We have to start with what "good" is. Unfortunately, that is another, longer process that takes people more time to get used to. But the short answer to that particular dilemma is that there is no such thing as "good" and "evil", so there is no point to the world; there is a choice here that everyone must make: will you be civil in your interactions, or chaotic? The obvious answer here for anybody who likes voluntary, useful human interaction is to be civil. There's another thought process here in which we need to decide what civil is. For the sake of being brief, being "civil" is "not inciting aggression by coercing another". Now that we know this, much becomes clear. From these two points and their processes (which, unfortunately, are not shown here), we must move on to what a "collective good is". A "collective good" must, by definition, be good. It, therefore (if we think objectively and follow all of our very Ti-ish rules), cannot do any evil. In collectivist theory, this is known as a "common good", or, put into a more descriptive light, a "good of all people". Here is the flaw in that thinking: the belief that a "common good" exists, by definition, means that some higher, authoritarian goal which all need to follow, in sacrificial attire, exists and must be completed, no matter the cost (if we follow our Ti-related rules, anyway). But who determines this higher goal? You? Me? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Most of us (remember slavery? were "most of us" right, then?)? Nope, and here is the most important point of all: NOBODY HAS BEEN GIVEN DIVINE AUTHORITY OVER ANYTHING, SAVE THEMSELVES AND WHAT THEY CREATE, UNLESS IT IS A CONSCIOUS BEING, IN WHICH CASE THERE CAN BE NO OWNERSHIP, BECAUSE IT, BY OUR PREVIOUS DEFINITION, OWNS ITSELF. With all of that out of the way, we can easily say that this , like all else, is an individual good (or goal, in this case, because a "common goal" is simply the individual goals of many).

Whew; that was a difficult read, right? Don't worry; we're almost done now.

Now we can go back to the question at hand, which is "What do we (or, now, what "I") want to occur?". This part is pretty easy, if you've understood all the Ti so far; we just need to follow the rules. We know that it is an individual thing, so it must, therefore, be determined by the individual. And because we cannot coerce the individual to have our point of view, the individual must determine it for himself/herself, by whatever means he/she desires.

The original question was "Are you successful?". And because we know who determines success, and how it is determined, we can answer with a general rule (which is much better than just an "answer", which of course will follow the rule anyway).

The rule is: "An individual determines his/her own success subjectively." which, more easily, is said: "Every person defines his/her own success in his/her own manner."

Your question, therefore, Director Abbie, has great standing; "What do a certain group of people feel success is based upon; are their answers similar in any definite way?"

So my own answer, therefore, was this rule, without the process, to help further the understanding of everyone about the topic. My answer is that "everyone's happiness is their goal", because no matter what their goal is, it must pertain to their own success, which is derived, subjectively, from their own happiness.

Now, if you don't mind, I've used quite enough Ti for one day.

[Tom]

PS- Thanks to anybody who took the time/takes the time to read that.

[jewels]

My answer is that "everyone's happiness is their goal", because no matter what their goal is, it must pertain to their own success, which is derived, subjectively, from their own happiness.

Now, if you don't mind, I've used quite enough Ti for one day.

I agree w/ most of that except the conclusion...yes success is subjective, but achieving a goal and happiness are not the same thing. People can achieve a goal and have it not make them happy. So someone can be successful (from their own subjective definition) and not be happy.

Example, someone who defines success as being a CEO. They accomplish being a CEO, which is their subjective criteria for success, but they are not happy. So, they are successful and unhappy.

And some people have no interest in becoming happy, only successful.

And I'm curious why you chose to use so much Ti.

[Tom]

I agree w/ most of that except the conclusion...yes success is subjective, but achieving a goal and happiness are not the same thing. People can achieve a goal and have it not make them happy. So someone can be successful (from their own subjective definition) and not be happy.

Example, someone who defines success as being a CEO. They accomplish being a CEO, which is their subjective criteria for success, but they are not happy. So, they are successful and unhappy.

And some people have no interest in becoming happy, only successful.

And I'm curious why you chose to use so much Ti.

I suppose you're right in that respect; I guess I'd blown my Ti gauge at that point.

[Steve]

Tom that post was Te loaded. I had to take breaks while reading it and regroup.

[munenori2]

Te really? I thought it was more Ti in approach. It was like reading Aristotle if he was a young dude who blogged and was against slavery.

[Steve]

Te really? I thought it was more Ti in approach. It was like reading Aristotle if he was a young dude who blogged and was against slavery.

The content is something people generally associate with Ti-ish material, if such a term exists, but the presentation was very Te imo, as if he was going point by point in a causal way - "we have this, so we can infer that".

[munenori2]

Let us again return to the good we are seeking, and ask what it can be. It seems different in different actions and arts; it is different in medicine, in strategy, and in the other arts likewise. What then is the good of each? Surely that for whose sake everything else is done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house, in any other sphere something else, and in every action and pursuit the end; for it is for the sake of this that all men do whatever else they do. Therefore, if there is an end for all that we do, this will be the good achievable by action, and if there are more than one, these will be the goods achievable by action.

So the argument has by a different course reached the same point; but we must try to state this even more clearly. Since there are evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth, flutes, and in general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of these will be what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.

Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself.

From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents, children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens, since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this; for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and friends’ friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine this question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among others—if it were so counted it would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.

Like this?

[Steve]

Like this?

I think so. I'm not positive but that does seem Te>Ti, as it didn't seem a natural presentation for me. I kept having to stop and gather my perceptions of what I had just read in the preceding sentences.

Who wrote it?

Compare it to this Ti:

DEAR SIR,-I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it, because a subject comes into my head, which I would wish to develop a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general despatches .

The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here, on the elementary principles of society, has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted, I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society .has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants, and these will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to its creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor, takes it, not by natural right, but by a law of the society of which he is a member, and to which he is subject. Then, no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come; and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which is the reverse of our principle.

What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of. the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals . To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age, all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of twenty-one years, and their period of life thirty-four years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons of twenty-one years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come and go of the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. At twenty-one years of age, they may bind themselves and their lands for thirty-four years to come; at twenty-two, for thirty-three; at twenty-three, for thirty-two; and at fifty-four, for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at the respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted, between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation . Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of a whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent, to his creditor, rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society, dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors; beyond their faculties of paying.

Ti writing "spreads out" while Te writing "moves forward". Idk if you can pick that up from these examples.

[munenori2]

Bear with me and I'll tell you who they are, but what do you think of this first?

These arguments on each side (and many more might be produced) are so plausible, that I am apt to suspect, they may, the one as well as the other, be solid and satisfactory, and that reason and sentiment concur in almost all moral determinations and conclusions. The final sentence, it is probable, which pronounces characters and actions amiable or odious, praise-worthy or blameable; that which stamps on them the mark of honour or infamy, approbation or censure; that which renders morality an active principle and constitutes virtue our happiness, and vice our misery; it is probable, I say, that this final sentence depends on some internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal in the whole species. For what else can have an influence of this nature? But in order to pave the way for such a sentiment, and give a proper discernment of its object, it is often necessary, we find, that much reasoning should precede, that nice distinctions be made, just conclusions drawn, distant comparisons formed, complicated relations examined, and general facts fixed and ascertained. Some species of beauty, especially the natural kinds, on their first appearance, command our affection and approbation; and where they fail of this effect, it is impossible for any reasoning to redress their influence, or adapt them better to our taste and sentiment. But in many orders of beauty, particularly those of the finer arts, it is requisite to employ much reasoning, in order to feel the proper sentiment; and a false relish may frequently be corrected by argument and reflection. There are just grounds to conclude, that moral beauty partakes much of this latter species, and demands the assistance of our intellectual faculties, in order to give it a suitable influence on the human mind.

[Steve]

Bear with me and I'll tell you who they are, but what do you think of this first?

That seems really Ti and felt rhythmically in line with my style. The writer grouped a bunch of ideas together and essentially said "I am saying (this), about that clump of ideas". That's generally how I process things and write myself as well.

To be more certain I'd look up other writings of the person and maybe some quotes of theirs and try to get a whole picture of them, but my first impression is Ti>Te. It almost resembles Jung.

[munenori2]

The first was Aristotle from his Nicomachean Ethics. The second was from David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals.

They're typically examples of what I've so far thought was Ti and Te respectively (although I admit that I prefer Aristotle's precision and conciseness a bit better than the way in which Hume sometimes gets a little muddled for me). The piece by Hume that I quoted goes on to elaborate (touched on slightly in that excerpt) what I consider to be a description of Fi.

[Tom]

Yes, while the type of information is largely Ti, I'll of course present it in a very Te fasion, because that is the easiest way for me to convey information. Steve is right in this; I said "Ti" so much because I don't want people to forget what type of information we are dealing with, and I also had a feeling I would need to explain myself to people telling me how "Ti" I am.

I like the first writing particularly; it certainly reminds me of my own style, albeit, in appearance, a little more practiced. It was very easy to understand and moves in the same manner I like to move in when I explain something, at any rate.

Both Jefferson and Hume seem to attack the issue from many sides at once in their writing (which is both interesting, yet decidedly harder to read, in my case); I like how Aristotle's tends to flow, going from one point to another consecutively.

[sunnycalih]

I consider myself a success in progress Success is not so much of a destination to me. Being in the process of bettering yourself, that's a sign of success. That's a sign of success as a person, to me.

Then there's always society's view of success, and in it's eyes, i suppose I would be somewhat of a success... I make a decent salary, even w/out getting me degree (yet). And pay my own bills, am engaged, etc.

I suppose it depends on the definition of success you use.

2 yrs ago, I would have answered this question with a resounding no. I was stuck in a deadend relationship working as a waitress, with no goals.

I think us Delta-Quadraners are too open minded to give a valid yes or no answer to this. lol. but then again, maybe i should've read all the responses here before posting that.

[xyz]

I consider myself a success in progress Success is not so much of a destination to me. Being in the process of bettering yourself, that's a sign of success. That's a sign of success as a person, to me.

Then there's always society's view of success, and in it's eyes, i suppose I would be somewhat of a success... I make a decent salary, even w/out getting me degree (yet). And pay my own bills, am engaged, etc.

I suppose it depends on the definition of success you use.

2 yrs ago, I would have answered this question with a resounding no. I was stuck in a deadend relationship working as a waitress, with no goals.

I think us Delta-Quadraners are too open minded to give a valid yes or no answer to this. lol. but then again, maybe i should've read all the responses here before posting that.

nah, you're generally right. If I ever consider myself a success I'll just sit on my ass, without any ambitions and pet my dog all day and drink beer.

[munenori2]

Yes, while the type of information is largely Ti, I'll of course present it in a very Te fasion, because that is the easiest way for me to convey information. Steve is right in this; I said "Ti" so much because I don't want people to forget what type of information we are dealing with, and I also had a feeling I would need to explain myself to people telling me how "Ti" I am.

I like the first writing particularly; it certainly reminds me of my own style, albeit, in appearance, a little more practiced. It was very easy to understand and moves in the same manner I like to move in when I explain something, at any rate.

Both Jefferson and Hume seem to attack the issue from many sides at once in their writing (which is both interesting, yet decidedly harder to read, in my case); I like how Aristotle's tends to flow, going from one point to another consecutively.

While I wasn't making any digs at your type when I made that response to Steve, I do find your reaction interesting. There's certainly a lot of ways in which all of this is qualifiable (small samples of writing, non type related issues, etc) of course, but I've generally conceived the opposite of Steve when it comes to Ti "spreading out" and Te "proceeding along" or however he put it exactly. I'm not making any clear assertions that he's right or wrong in this, as I've never bothered or seemed particularly apt at delineating the two in any sort of concrete way. In fact, the overlap between them has confused me frequently, but I've been talking to someone who is Ti base for a while and it would at least seem to fit what Steve describes, since I frequently find myself at a loss for picking up the 'point' or 'direction' of certain exchanges in the conversation.

However, the meat of what I was getting at was that my past conceptions of Ti and Te has primarily been that Ti seeks to clarify terms, establish definitions, and systematize. From that base, then inferences can be made and observations from the world subsumed into that order, so as to bring the world around them into a subjective understanding. I don't have time to flesh out any ruminations on Te right now since I have to go to work (and I feel kind of bad how this has all kind of blown up in a now completely unrelated way to the thread), but I also wanted to note that I've considered (they're far more preliminary and based on the above analysis) Aristotle to be ISTj and Hume ENTj. Anyway, I'll think this over a bit and maybe we can split this off into another thread.

[Tom]

While I wasn't making any digs at your type when I made that response to Steve, I do find your reaction interesting. There's certainly a lot of ways in which all of this is qualifiable (small samples of writing, non type related issues, etc) of course, but I've generally conceived the opposite of Steve when it comes to Ti "spreading out" and Te "proceeding along" or however he put it exactly. I'm not making any clear assertions that he's right or wrong in this, as I've never bothered or seemed particularly apt at delineating the two in any sort of concrete way. In fact, the overlap between them has confused me frequently, but I've been talking to someone who is Ti base for a while and it would at least seem to fit what Steve describes, since I frequently find myself at a loss for picking up the 'point' or 'direction' of certain exchanges in the conversation.

However, the meat of what I was getting at was that my past conceptions of Ti and Te has primarily been that Ti seeks to clarify terms, establish definitions, and systematize. From that base, then inferences can be made and observations from the world subsumed into that order, so as to bring the world around them into a subjective understanding. I don't have time to flesh out any ruminations on Te right now since I have to go to work (and I feel kind of bad how this has all kind of blown up in a now completely unrelated way to the thread), but I also wanted to note that I've considered (they're far more preliminary and based on the above analysis) Aristotle to be ISTj and Hume ENTj. Anyway, I'll think this over a bit and maybe we can split this off into another thread.

Good idea; I'll do so now.

[Rubicon]

nah, you're generally right. If I ever consider myself a success I'll just sit on my ass, without any ambitions and pet my dog all day and drink beer.

Can't you do that now?