Aaron

One of the founders of AA actually contacted Jung regarding the Twelve Step program he had envisioned and Jung responded with the following letter... Dear Mr. W. Your letter has been very welcome indeed. I had no news from Rowland H. anymore and often wondered what has been his fate. Our conversation which he has adequately reported to you had an aspect of which he did not know. The reason that I could not tell him everything was that those days I had to be exceedingly careful of what I said. I had found out that I was misunderstood in every possible way. Thus I was very careful when I talked to Rowland H. But what I really thought about was the result of many experiences with men of his kind. His craving for alcohol was the equivalent, on a low level, of the spiritual thirst of our being for wholeness, expressed in medieval language: the union with God.* How could one formulate such an insight in a language that is not misunderstood in our days? The only right and legitimate way to such an experience is that it happens to you in reality and it can only happen to you when you walk on a path which leads you to higher understanding. You might be led to that goal by an act of grace or through a personal and honest contact with friends, or through a higher education of the mind beyond the confines of mere rationalism. I see from your letter that Rowland H. has chosen the second way, which was, under the circumstances, obviously the best one. I am strongly convinced that the evil principle prevailing in this world leads the unrecognized spiritual need into perdition, if it is not counteracted either by real religious insight or by the protective wall of human community. An ordinary man, not protected by an action from above and isolated in society, cannot resist the power of evil, which is called very aptly the Devil. But the use of such words arouses so many mistakes that one can only keep aloof from them as much as possible. These are the reasons why I could not give a full and sufficient explanation to Rowland H., but I am risking it with you because I conclude from your very decent and honest letter that you have acquired a point of view above the misleading platitudes one usually hears about alcoholism. You see, "alcohol" in Latin is "spiritus" and you use the same word for the highest religious experience as well as for the most depraving poison. The helpful formula therefore is: spiritus contra spiritum. Thanking you again for your kind letter I remain Yours sincerely C. G. Jung* "As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." (Psalms 42:1) Anyways, the program may have a very small percent of success, but in reality almost every method of recovery has the same rate of success, so if you want to recover, you don't need to join AA or practice the twelve steps to do it, with the advancements of psychology there are many other methods equally successful, but where AA and the twelve steps differ from those other methods is that if one is fearless and thorough what they can attain is an understanding of themselves and the nature of their addiction, and in understanding this also come to a knowledge that there is a power greater than themselves that can remove this addiction. This power is not necessarily God, in fact it is immensely personal for each person and where I go to meetings it's considered rude to ask what someone else considers to be their higher power. Yes there are a large number of theistic and even atheistic groups that use the twelve steps to recover with equal success, because essentially, even the atheist is understanding a unifying principle that is necessary for recovery, that there is something in the universe greater than himself. Once one understands that they have a problem, that they alone cannot be rid of this problem, that this problem require something more to do it, and they can figure out what that "more" is, then they are set on the path of recovery using this twelve step model. So, it is entirely possible and practical that one can use Buddhism as a basis for recovery, in fact Buddhism is very similar to Christianity and other religions in regards to the moral compass that one is loosely directed to follow within the program. I doubt any Buddhist would look at the twelve steps and find it to contradict the actual teaching of Buddha in any way, unless they seriously needed to nitpick. Where most people have issue is that the founders of AA used the word God in the twelve steps and referred to the higher power as God. This rubs some people the wrong way, especially atheists, because they seem to be unable to accept that the concept of God is a very personal one, and that despite what everyone thinks, we all have our Gods, even if that notion of God is atheism itself or detachment. God, as I've come to understand it, is simply what we believe to be the underlying nature of the Universe. So God can be the notion of Good, the collective unconscious, or God, and when one sees mention of this, and rather than hold onto unaddressed bitterness regarding the notion of God, but rather views it with an open mind, one can easily follow the twelve steps regardless of their religious or spiritual persuasion or lack there of. I've seen the twelve steps turn bitter angry abusive men into content happy loving men. Essentially you get out of it, what you put into it. I also think it's wise to tailor it to your own individual needs. So there is nothing wrong with changing the wording in the twelve steps around, so long as the original intent is still there. I think the danger comes from changing the steps in order to avoid some of the steps that are difficult to work through, such as the forth and fifth. When I see these steps watered down or removed from a program, I start to wonder how effective the path can be, or if one is able to fully benefit from the spiritual path that the twelve steps leads one on. Anyways, I didn't originally intend to write all of this, but I started thinking about it after I answered your original question and thought I might add it. I wish the Buddhist Twelve Step thread good luck. Perhaps if there is a great show of interest we could start a generic thread about the twelve steps in order to examine the process without having to confine ourselves to one religious or philosophical ideology. Aaron

I'm probably guilty as charged. I was being a bit sarcastic there. I rarely have big issues with DB, but this post was way out there and I felt the need to add some levity to the situation. Aaron

It may be surprising to find that NF's make up the smallest segment of the population. INFs are even more of a minority. Keeping this in mind, I think it's easy to see why many of us are here on this forum, but I'd be more interested in seeing the results of everyone here, even those who aren't inclined to visit this post (nasty STs! Just kidding. ) I think that's the only way to get an accurate and honest appraisal of the actual number of each type within the community. Aaron

I've always wondered about the legality of using personality profiles in the hiring process. It's always seemed to me to be just one step down from racial profiling. This person is an INFP? Oh my, we want an ESTJ... can't hire him. Why not? He has all the skills to perform the job? Anyways, I agree with you wholeheartedly in that regard. You seem much more E rather than I lately! Aaron

Steve, No one person can be responsible for the contributions within a site, rather it is the communities responsibility. I think what we need to do in regards to the subforums is create a subforum FAQ for each section. You could write one and submit it so others have a chance to review it and talk about sections they might agree with or disagree, then once everyone has had a chance to share what they think, you make a decision based on the common desires of the majority, while remembering to protect the minority as well. Simple as that... or maybe not. Anyways, that's my suggestion. A FAQ. Aaron

I would suggest before you make a statement like that about someone, at least take the time to research the individual a bit. This kind of misinformation is what keeps vicious rumors like that alive. Also the MBTI isn't exclusively based on Jungian psychology, but rather it measures a persons temperament and assigns them a type based on that profile. The labels used to describe that type have a Jungian basis, but the science itself isn't exclusively Jungian. As far as the validity of the MBTI, it's one of the most respected personality tests out there (if not the most respected), and has been for over two decades. I think it's a useful tool to understanding one's self, but it's just that a tool. How you decide to use this tool proves whether it is useful or not. I'm guessing you scored INTJ? Aaron edit- And yes I considered that a troll post. it was an incendiary comment meant to garner reactions and detract from the actual topic of the thread. If you had said something along the lines of, "I have heard that Jung had ties to the Nazi party and had anti-Semitic views. Do you think that may effect the validity of this test?" Well that wouldn't have been incendiary.

Hello CT, I think the issue is that there is no issue. I don't think that if one sees something wrong and addresses it that it means they are not facing their own faults or not transcending mediocrity, but rather that they are addressing something they believe is wrong. Perhaps the mere fact they see it is wrong is indicative of their ability to recognize their own faults? If having a bigger heart means they must look the other way while others mistreat people, then maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a Buddhist subforum or Taoist subforum, just that general discussion has gone to *&%# and the subforums seem to be run by Buddhist and Taoist fundamentalists who don't want to hear anything but what they consider to be "truth". I'm not interested in "truth" or being told what truths I can talk about and can't. I think there are elements in the Taoist subforum that are much more bigoted about this than the Buddhist, but I have seen it occur in both. Now to get back on track, I understand your point, but I disagree with it, and that is why I made an issue of it, not that I lack compassion, but rather because I think to a degree what's happening is more harmful to the community than beneficial, it's sort of like saying, "well those people don't get along with these people, so lets bus them off to their own schools, so everyone can get along. If they come to this school, then they're going to have to behave and act the way we tell them to or they're not welcome." It's segregation, plain and simple. If you can see how it's not similar, then that's fine, but in the end that's what I feel is happening. Aaron edit- Note, I've beaten this horse long enough. Time to let it be. I hope that people can make a concerted effort to be more open to other's interpretation of specific ideas and beliefs in the subforums, but I can't change them, they have to change themselves, so continuing this debate is pointless.

I don't think Bill W. would approve. AA has no affiliation with any group or denomination and the twelve steps aren't meant to be confined to any one religious group or ideology. I understand your desire to keep it Buddhist, but in doing so you may be depriving someone who desires to drink the genuine chance to receive recovery, simply because you've said, "this is a Buddhist group". Perhaps you could start this in the general discussion section and just explain how you practice the steps as a Buddhist? I'm not knocking your intention, in fact a year ago I had the same "great" idea, but what I came to understand from my experiences on the Tao Bums forum and other forums, is that there are a lot of people who need help with alcohol from many different paths, and the best path to teach them, is not the Buddhist path, or Taoist path, but rather that they can choose their own path and find recovery within that path, that it isn't who or what you decide is your higher power that is important, but rather working the steps and practicing the principles. Just my 2 cents. Aaron

I like all types of music. On my i-touch I have Circle of the Down, Tool (one of my favorite bands of all time), Ozzy, Metallica, Enya, Loreena McKennitt, Enigma, Elton John, The Killers, Mumford and Sons, Elvis Costello, Van Morrison, and the list goes on. I even have *gasp* country on it as well. Again, I try to open my mind to all the different types of music, especially if it moves me. A song I listened to tonight that I absolutely love and haven't heard in awhile is "The Impression that I Get" by Mighty Mighty Bosstones... great music there too. Aaron

I understand that. I guess my issue is that the General Discussion forum has really turned to crap in the last few months. I like some of the topics in the subforums and wouldn't mind participating, but again, if I can't feel comfortable saying, "well you know the Sufi's have an idea similar to this" without having someone say, "this is Buddhist/Taoist discussion and that has no place here" then I'm not going to participate. The censorship may have been advocated by the people, for the people, but that doesn't mean that it isn't present, even if it was done at the behest of the public. If the mods did it because people wanted it, then we can't really blame you, rather we should take a good look at what we're advocating when we do decide that we want to ostracize certain people from open discussion. Again for anyone who questions my involvement or opinion regarding subforums, I will say again that the Tao Teh Ching subforum was created for a much different reason than what is being advocated in the Chuang Tzu, Taoism Discussion, and Buddhist Discussion sections, which to me amounts to private clubs where the discussion is guided by the chosen to only include what they want to hear. In the Tao Te Ching subforum we allowed translations that had obvious Christian bias, we also allowed people to openly discuss similarities between Taoism and other religions as well, because it was meant to be an academic discussion and most people in the know about Chinese history understand that it's almost impossible to talk about Taoism without talking about the influences of other cultures and religions as well. If anyone still has problems understanding my point then read Farenheit 451 and you'll understand what I'm getting at. Aaron edit- And I also don't want this to be taken out of context. I like you Apech, you're a nice person and you've always been gracious and helpful, so this isn't meant to be a personal attack on your character, because that wouldn't be fair, but rather just the climate I see forming on this forum lately. Same goes for the other mods. Yeah, I've butted heads on some occasions, but I genuinely like each and every one of you. My comments aren't meant to be anti-mod or anti-Taobums, but rather about the general attitude lately.

In regards to this obvious troll post, I will only quote what Jung said about it... "It must be clear to anyone who has read any of my books that I have never been a Nazi sympathizer and I never have been anti-Semitic, and no amount of misquotation, mistranslation, or rearrangement of what I have written can alter the record of my true point of view. Nearly every one of these passages has been tampered with, either by malice or by ignorance. Furthermore, my friendly relations with a large group of Jewish colleagues and patients over a period of many years in itself disproves the charge of anti-Semitism." Enough said... I really hope this comment doesn't incite anyone else to reply to something that obviously doesn't need to be replied to. Aaron

How do you know we're just a vocal minority? I look at the number of votes that are against moving I4L's threads to a different section as possible evidence, we're not such a minority, but rather more like a half and half split. In the end the group with the most influence will win out in the end. This isn't a democracy anyways, it's a private site, so whatever the mods decide will be the end decision. I'm just making a point that I see a real degradation in the quality of discussions since this shift and most of it has to do with the subtle version of censorship that's going on. And again, the bias against other philosophies in the special sections is one of the reasons I don't participate. Aaron

Hello Apech, I'm aware of that, but my reason for starting the TTC subforum was to allow us to have a place to discuss the TTC without having the conversations get lost in the jumble of other discussions that occurred, which is often what happened. Also it was an attempt to set up a place where we could discuss the literary works in an academic fashion, but even then there was no discouragement from comparing it with other religions or experiences, if one thought it alluded to that. I don't see this occurring in the new discussion areas, in fact I think it's the exact opposite. One is discouraged from making any references to experiences being similar or religions other than the ones posted. This is primarily the reason why I discontinued visiting them. I think every place grows, but I don't necessarily believe that placing people in safe little homes to talk about only those things they want to talk about is necessarily for the best. Anyways, it's just my 2 cents. Don't move his posts, that's my suggestion. Aaron

I'm sort of disillusioned with The Tao Bums recent descent into segregation. I long for the days of the old General Discussion, when everything could be found here, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I don't visit the other sections, because I don't want to be hem hawed into discussing something from one point of view. I think a lot of people do the same. Oh well, perhaps that's just me. I really see this as another way to censor what's in the general discussions area to appease people who don't want to listen to it. First we created the Taoist Discussion section so Taoists didn't have to deal with Buddhists, then we created a Buddhist section so Buddhists wouldn't have to deal with Taoists. The thing that I find upsetting about both sections is that there is no freedom of expression, you can only talk about approved topics, an example being the fellow who responded to a topic in the Buddhist forum with a Vendanta based understanding being told that his view wasn't appropriate for that forum/thread and that he needed to go to the Vendanta section. I'm just waiting for a Christian, Islam, and Jewish section, then no one will have to read anything that they don't want to. Essentially the Tao Bums is becoming Orwellian to me, which is kind of disheartening. Maybe we should all read Fahrenheit 451 again? Aaron

It's the INFP in me, I was responding to what I feel in your post, rather than what I logically perceive. My logical response would be, sometimes people need reassurances that what they are experiencing is normal, especially if they're frightened or feeling disorientated by them. By explaining that they are not alone in their experience, then they can begin to observe that experience without having to worry about it's inherent wrongness or rightness. My response was more in tune with what I felt Cihan was writing about, rather than what he was actually saying. I think that may be why people believe I'm not reading their posts and simply replying willy nilly. Oftentimes I'll reply to topics that have nothing to do with the topic itself, because there is a part of me that feels that might be what the poster actually needed to hear in response to the post. I never said I was normal. Aaron

Well if it helps, my personal understanding of the "fog experience" is that it is the first step to realizing the nature of self beyond the physical observations one makes in the physical world. It is stepping beyond memory and experiencing something deeper about one's self. It is a beginning of a deeper connection to the invisible phenomena in the world, by using more than the senses of the body, so it isn't necessarily something to be afraid of, especially if it only happens while you are meditating. Aaron

I can feel any part of my body if I set my mind to it. I think it is infinitely more important to understand the entirety of one's being, not just the physical aspect of you, but also the conscious aspect, or mind. Mind and body are one, which is something many don't seem to understand. Muscle memory is one indication of this on a scientific level. My point, though, is that understanding the origination of the you that understands and feels your body, the you that gave birth to thought and observation, the you that decided an apple was an apple and saw that apple as others saw it allows you to also understand the you that is not only you, but every other mind in existence seeing that apple as an apple as well. Think about this, a rose appears to be a rose to you and I, but to a few a rose is nothing but geometric shapes. Showing these people a rose and an object that looks like a rose, is like showing them identical twins, they can't decide which is which. Our ability to understand the universe stems from our ability to interact on a conscious level with others, to feel that how they view something is how we should view it, but without this conscious connection we can be left with out a concrete understanding of what others view the world to be. We are wired, physically, to allow ourselves to do this, but even more than that, there is a part of us that allowed us to get to this point, to create the notion of birth so that this awareness could be a shared experience. That consciousness is not a single consciousness, but rather a shared singular state of being that permeates everything in existence, it is becoming aware of this that allows one to unravel the mystery of who we actually are. When I look at the me before I was born, I have no body, no shape, no thoughts, no ideas, but rather I simply am a being awaiting realization. To return to that original state I must be aware of who I was before my body began to observe things as it was meant to. Now even then one must realize that we have returned to that state and came back more times than we know, simply put, each return is like wiping out our previous existence, leaving only a new existence to begin again. Anyways, it's just something I've been thinking about, and I thought it might be nice to share. Yes I can feel my skull from front to back. As I said, I am very aware of the sensations in all parts of my body, and to be honest, sometimes it's a pain in the butt, literally. Aaron

About six months into my daily meditation this started happening to me and it occurred repeatedly for several weeks until one day instead of fog there was just light, everywhere all at once. I was able to return to the light after that, but at some point it seemed unnatural and I stopped trying to achieve it. About two decades later I decided to try and reach that point again to examine it and I had some profound insight into the nature of that light, which is also the stillness many refer to, but I made the mistake, as I often do, that somehow the stillness was a truth, which it wasn't. My advice as someone who has meditated for many many years is about the same as everyone else who has spoken before in this thread, don't be afraid of it, just be mindful and it will pass, but also in meditating and realizing those things you hadn't before, never mistake your realization for the end. Within stillness there is no compassion, there is no emotion, but that doesn't mean that compassion is meaningless, only that within stillness there is peace and hence no suffering. It can be an addictive place to go for one who has suffered, but at some point I realized that achieving stillness was not the end of suffering, but rather it allows for an objective understanding of the nature of suffering, not only without but within. I wont go too much more into it, except to say that you should be happy, you've reached an important stage in your practice, just don't let it be the final stage, keep going! There is so much more to experience. Aaron

INFP... 56, 25, 75, 33 Aaron Also people constantly refer to me as a "Dog", not in a negative sense, but they attribute the qualities I exhibit to those of a dog. Don't ask me how they came up with that, I've always thought of myself more as a cat person, especially since I had a phobia of dogs until I was in my late 30s because of being bitten a few times by them as a child. So I guess spiritually I am a dog. Aaron

I understand, even if I don't necessarily agree. You have every right to your opinion and my comparison was simply meant to illustrate that we have to do distasteful things sometimes in order to solve problems that involve the ecology. That's one of the reason I made the point of not freezing humans multiple times, because I know some people might take that comment and say, "so you're proposing killing humans?" Again, for anyone else that might come along, I am not proposing that. I don't advocate any solution that involves harming people, including abortion. I am merely saying that in order to solve problems, we sometimes have to do things that we don't feel comfortable with. I have a very hard time with the frog thing, but if it means that I can save the frogs that are indigenous to this area, then I will do it. One of the things I try to advocate to people who are thinking about having children, is to adopt. There are millions of children around the world that need homes, and it's certainly a proactive solution. If you already have a child and are thinking of having a second, then that's even better. Sigh... Now I really regret the frog comment. Aaron

Well look at my example of a certain species entering an area which isn't their natural habitat, they can have dire and catastrophic consequences on the native population. What we do when that happens is cull the invading population, in most cases as humanely as possible. For instance there is a species of tree frogs in Florida that are threatening the native frog populations. The local wildlife groups advocate capturing them and freezing them then disposing of them. It's the most painless way apparently. Now don't suddenly gasp and say, are you insinuating that we should do this to humans, because I'm not, but rather I'm pointing out that we're actually seeing that the rise in population is causing a detrimental effect on the ecology of the world. This, again, isn't debated, but a fact that most scientists agree on. If we know this is happening, then people obviously are becoming a problem. That doesn't diminish the value of a human life though, rather it is a warning sign that we need to find a humane and compassionate solution (one that does not involve freezing people) that will allow us to diminish this detrimental effect. Anyways, you're right people aren't problems, but the behavior that comes along with over population, and the effects this over population will have, is. Denying there is a problem because we see it as being hurtful to the notion of people may not be the best way to view this, but rather to look at the potential problem and solve this. Aaron

I think Manitou and Steve make some good points, in particular I would have to say (as a gay man living in the United States) that intolerance is still prevalent in society today. I have made friends who upon learning I was gay stopped being friends with me. I believe it also effected my consideration for a few jobs I've applied for. Even if you take away the intolerance towards gays, there is also a great deal of racism in the United States, and it isn't just among the whites, but also among the African American, Asian, and Latino communities. The problem is that we can't come to terms with our past, or refuse to give up views we've held to be true for so long. I hope that the children of today will be closer to overcoming these problems than the adults of today are and I honestly think they are. I think the decline of Christian values in America is a blessing for everyone living here. I'm thankful that people are not blindly following religion and have started to think for themselves. These are a few of the reasons I hold trepidation for the future, but also have great hope concerning it. Really change begins with each of us. It starts when we stop blindly following moral dogma and begin thinking about the actual consequences of actions. Aaron

In regards to the reduced risk of energy problems I mentioned earlier in this thread, I made this decision based on the knowledge that there are trillions of gallons of oil waiting to be tapped within the U.S. alone, once we're able to reach them in an economically viable fashion. Also we're already tapping the Bakken Play, which holds an estimated 100 billion gallons of oil. That oil should make it to market in 5 years or so. My estimates regarding how (un-)dire the situation is, comes from listening to both sides and determining whose agenda seems more nefarious. Now maybe I'm wrong and maybe it will be unfeasible to reach these oil reserves, but even then, I don't think we're without alternatives and considering what Ralis and others have pointed out, the continued use of fossil fuels may have a dramatic effect on the ecology of the planet which could also contribute to the lack of resources. With these factors in play, I think it is all the more important for society as a whole to come up with a viable solution that will prevent the possible mass extinction that could take effect if nothing is done. I think dealing with the population growth is perhaps the most serious, but also one of the most difficult to come to terms with, because it involves some hard truths, not only in looking at our own (the wealthy countries of the world) part in the massive poverty that nearly a third of the world is living in, but also how we can stop this growth in a humane way. I know many think my idea of enforcing a limit on children seems cruel, but remember it is only cruel in the sense that it prevents people from having the number of children they want, in fact to the children that are saved from a life of poverty and death and disease, it is much more kind. Compassion isn't always allowing people to do what they want, sometimes it's preventing them from harming themselves. I would never propose that this should be enforced without the majority's consent either, rather it should only be implemented if there was a final consensus and most people saw the need and decided it was the only viable solution. I hope before it's too late people are educated and come to an intelligent and compassionate decision on their own. In the meantime we shouldn't allow this problem to divert us from other problems that will only exacerbate it, the ones mentioned in this thread as well as others, such as nuclear proliferation and chemical and biological weapons, and the possibility of further ecological disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukashima. As an example, if a nuclear reactor melted down in the North American heartland, it could prevent the agricultural use of that land for decades. In that respect I think this thread is great, because many of us do see how these things are related (and I'm learning more about this relation as a result), but in learning about these things, it's also important to take action before these things can happen. Aaron

Thanks for presenting a good example of how intolerance is still alive and well, just basking under the guise of politics. They're poor because they don't want to work. They choose to be poor, because they can get public assistance. No offense, but your understanding of the situation is indicative of someone who has grown up in a middle class family, never had to worry about school clothes, education, or even where your next meal has come from. When I say the entitled of America, this is what I'm talking about, not the poor. You believe that you "worked" hard for everything you got, but did you actually work that hard? You got a degree because, either you parents paid for it, or you were able to take a loan out for it, but even before then you were living a privileged life that allowed for all of these things to occur. The fact of the matter is that many people who are down and out, have very few options to help them get on their feet again. The government doesn't provide much assistance anymore, that's an actual fact. Just look at the millions of homeless families out there today. Cool fact for the intolerant (I would also say psuedoracists) that like to talk about too much government assistance for the poor... right now in America 19% are living in poverty. One if freaking five people!!! And you have the audacity to say that the government is providing people with TOO MUCH assistance? I have no problem listening to this crap that you guys are spewing, but don't put smileys and all this other shit thinking it's funny. I actually grew up in poverty. I remember I went to my guidance counselor in high school and he said that there wasn't a chance for me to go to college, so he set me on the track for technical school. I believed that mo-fo, you know, and I quit school, because I thought what was the point, why go to technical school to learn to be a boat builder, when I can just go work lawn care and earn the same amount, I didn't need an education for that. So that's what I did, I quit school at the age of fifteen and mowed lawns for the next several years, working my ass off, full time, watching the fortunate kids going off to play baseball or skateboard. But hey, it taught me the value of discipline and hard work, something us poor folk need to learn. But guess what, one day I woke up and thought, that middle-class mo-fo was full of it. I went and got my GED and I did go to college. I went to a community college for two years, then transferred to a university. I actually earned two degrees and graduated in the top 5% of my class. I wasn't stupid, I didn't lack potential, I was just a kid who was told he couldn't do something because he was poor. I was someone who listened to people like you, who told me over and over that I was poor because I was lazy. I was poor because I wanted to be poor. You guys make me sick to my stomach. If you knew the amount of hate you create and fester in others, I don't think you'd be able to sleep at night, or maybe you would, because it's hard for me to believe someone that spouts this kind of crap is really that oblivious or ignorant. Aaron