> > 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).


There are many cases where (I'd say) the actual pondering of whether to "do something" or not presupposes a basic discomfort with the present situation, or at least a suspicion that things could be better.

One thing to consider is whether the situation encompasses other than yourself. Heck, maybe the others have the answer.

However, based on the exact wording of Wes' original, I'd go with the "bit of inconvenience". Many small benefits will accumulate over the years and will stay with you, but you'll eventually forget what was needed at one single time - or it will at least fade in your memory.

When all is said and done, drawing a line is entirely down to your own preferences. Which colour? Will it be straight? Will I let others help, or do you also need a fence? What kind of topology will it have? How long? Use a (wide?) brush or a little tractor like the ones they use when painting on roads? You'd be surprised by the diversity of peoples preferences. Boy, do I sound wise. And silly. I'll stop now. Bye!

jul"I hope you're not asking whether to rob a bank"ian