> Which of these two options is better?
> 1) Go through a bit of inconvenience to change something and ultimately make things easier.
> 2) Don't change anything.
>
> Wes - "And where do you draw the line at being more trouble than it's worth?"

My little trick is this: Act like you've made the decision. Doesn't matter which decision, just act like you've decided either to act or not to act. Live with it for a little while (without actually taking action). Shortly, you will almost assuredly either feel some level of relief and comfort (letting you know it's the RIGHT decision), or you'll begin to almost immediately feel some discomfort, which will grow, make you anxious, gnaw at you (and tell you that's probably the wrong decision). If the decision you "made" was inaction, and that's the wrong decision, at some point you'll also get so frustrated you'll feel like you just can't let it go any longer -- it's therefore worth the trouble to try to change something. If the decision you "made" was action, and that's the wrong decision, it will keep feeling like work -- like it's not worth the trouble and things are not unbearable in the status quo. If it's the right decision, the action will stop feeling like work -- it'll be worth the effort and the change is best for the most people affected by it.

Of course, all of this assumes you're basically a decent and good person and have a conscience and relatively un-warped values.

I have no comment as to whether this applies to you or not, Wes. ;-)

Mou"but you'll know if it does"sie