>Status: U
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Michael Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Biodynamics and Darwin
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Dear Allan,
>
>Please Fwd:
>
>In my experiance, working with separate parties or
>agencies, who may or may not be in some sort of
>competition with one another, has many negatives to
>overcome. In the heat of the moment, the scouts and
>experts are out to preserve and maintain the integrity
>of their organization. This is understandable. But
>what is not acceptable is that in the interim, many
>casualities are incurred on lower levels of both
>organization. This is an impediment to future
>development.
>
>What I have found in the past that works, is to define
>common goals and objectives for both sides, or however
>many sides or involved. Once the definitions are
>adequate, it will be found that the role of mediator
>between the parties becomes insignificant. Why?
>Because, this is the point where the parties begin to
>understand one anothers operations and how those
>operations may be their own advantage.
>
>In the case of organics, the distribution mechanism of
>mass marketing is in place. In Biodynamics we have
>some older ways of producing high quality foodstuffs.
>If there could be some way of distributing some of the
>BD produce in a manner in which the Organic
>organizations do, it may be that the general public
>would exercise their demands on the situation;
>requiring produce of higher quality.
>
>Michael.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
>http://autos.yahoo.com
