>You aren't, but when Mike tried to put the interests of people ahead of corporate interests, you made it as if he was against anyone who's successful:
>
>IMHO, his comments imply that this is the case.

Possibly his other comments. I confess I started skipping the exchange of fire between you and him this week. So I may be missing some context - I didn't find that in this branch of the thread, it may be elsewhere.