The New Rules Of Demand and Supply
The traditional theory of “supply and demand” may be getting a run for its money. In the age of customization and personalization, consumer demands are decreasingly less focused on what is available and more focused on what it is that they want. With lower barriers to entry and lower distribution costs in many sectors of business, companies are able to be more nimble with product offerings and cater to the wants of the consumer.
Does This Mean That The Consumer Is In Control?
NO!
What it does mean is that the consumer is more in control than ever before, but it does not mean that the consumer is in total control. After all, companies still have a say in production. Actually, they have a very large say in production, marketing and all other matters. The fact is that these consumers have a much larger influence; this does not however mean that they are in control.
The Era Of Co-Creation
In light of the statements above, we have entered into an era of co-creation. An era where corporations and consumers are meeting (perhaps half way) to discuss consumer wants.
Take Dells Ideastorm where today’s challenge is, “Help Us Become The Greenest Company On The Planet”. Dell has obviously realized the power of co-creation (now they just need to start making decent computers).
The Agencies Are Always The Last To Jump In
Okay, so this is not really a fair statement. In fact, I think that Publicis is doing something monumental in the recent announcement of their partnership with Dassault to create 3D marketing solution entitled; 3dswym.
While the concept of co-creation is something that Second Lifer’s have been participating in for a while, I think it is great that a company of this size is forward thinking enough to experiment with this type of product. I am very excited to see how this plays out!
Tags: co-creation, marketing, customization, personlization, supply and demand, Dell, Ideastorm, Dassault, Publicis, 3dswym, Second Life, participation
Jul 02, 2007
“What is does mean is that the consumer is more in control than ever before, but it does not mean that the consumer is in control. After all, companies still have a say in production.”
I disagree.
The consumer has *always* been in a position of control. Production is meaningless if there aren’t consumers willing to buy the product.
The issue is whether or not consumers exercise control. Traditionally, they haven’t. They’ve mostly grown up in a “keeping up with the Jone’s” world that’s been encouraged by the advertising industry.
The most important changes aren’t the tools, it’s the behavior and attitude of the consumer. It’s the perception of empowerment even though they always had the power.
As more people change behavior and are less influenced by the passive media which has instructed them on how to act, how to dress, what to drive, what to own, how to live; the greater they exercise the control they’ve always had.
That’s why I’m against piracy. Not because it hurts the companies, but because it’s really just a different form of influence; an Attention-grabbing mechanism that can be used to influence a purchase (e.g. don’t worry about the manufactured pop star’s music being freely duplicated and distributed over p2p; cut a deal with a car company to use it in their commercial for a gas-guzzling machine).
Consequently, I don’t believe there are “New Rules of Demand and Supply”. It’s just that the consumer is becoming increasingly aware of their real role in the old rules.
Jul 02, 2007
Second-lifers..interesting phrase. My gen use it differently – in a way – than the popularist net culture uses it. New topic perhaps.
Re Dell..my first reaction was..how meaningful that project is will depend, to a degree, on the knowledge base of the consumer and in many ways the scientific knowledge of consumers re environmental issues and phenomenon is poor (I know this because I’m done an extensive research project on this). This means that a company like Dell could have pitched a project on the basis that they may not wind up needing to do a whole lot because the customer base is not knowledgeable enough to request too much. I’m not saying that is the position in this case however I think it a potential worth considering within critical analysis. In this light a ‘better’ ‘co’ relationship may have Dell asking but also equipping consumers with knowledge or, to appear not to be influencing, to provide them knowledge paths external to their own organisation.
I disagree with you csven on your first point and am more in agreement with Adam. I just completed reading a thesis on a major CEO in a country and when he was talking about a particular industry his comment was not so much that consumers influenced product but that they influenced competition. But that comment was made in a particular cultural context.
In my cultural context I am influenced, unhappily so, by large companies that have priced out smaller competitors and make it hard for me to buy product. For example, do I really want to try and put a huge box into my small car that then requires me to use an allen key to put it together. No. I am unable to carry the box to and from the car anyway. So this obligates me to think about help and so on. Yet so many retail stores in the middle to lower price brackets are requiring this.
I am viewing this kind of trading as a response to a youthful healthy market as well as passing costs and service activity back to the customer however, the population is aging, so, will there be a response to this and a reverse of process? Some cultures offer this already such as Japan.
Again, I perceive stronger patterns in terms of manufacturers responding to basic client needs and desire re purchases rather than (necessarily) products themselves.
There are always exceptions to rules however and no hard and fasts. Just guiding principles.
Jul 02, 2007
Thanks for the comments!
While I agree that the consumer has always had a certain of control in the aggregate (if they stopped buying, companies stopped manufacturing) it was never as easy as it is for groups of consumers to actually effect change.
I also agreed that attitudes have changed but own must ask themselves what the catalyst for change was. I think that it was, to a large degree, technology.
The one point where I disagree is when you refer to consumers always having some type of dormant power that they can now exercise. If they were not able to exercise this power in days past, what power really was there?
Jul 02, 2007
Thanks for calling out Dell’s IdeaStorm focus on green initiatives as a good example of co-creation. Whether the customer is in more control or complete control is open to debate, but many of us at Dell believe the most successful companies of the co-creation era will develop a keen sense of viewing the world through the eyes of their customers.
It would be a mistake to downplay the potential of co-creation. We spend a lot of time listening, learning and acting and at the end of the day it’s all too apparent that customers often know what is right or wrong about our business before we do.
P.S. We *are* working very hard to build better computers (thanks in large part to co-creation) as indicated by the props and awards generated by last week’s unveiling of some new consumer products. Much more to come. Stay tuned.
Jul 02, 2007
“it was never as easy as it is for groups of consumers to actually effect change.”
I’m not so sure this is true. While this can probably be said for much of the 20th century, back when people were more self-sufficient, and corporations didn’t have such stifling influence over everything from laws to media to distribution channels, consumer groups probably had a relatively similar level of impact. Where I’d agree is that consumer groups have probably never been able to have an impact of such scope. But then relatively speaking, corporations have never been more global either.
What this suggests to me, is that *relative* corporate influence will continue to erode; first by losing control of the communication channels, and eventually having less control over production as we witness the emergence of rapid-manufacturing technologies.
-
“If they were not able to exercise this power in days past, what power really was there?”
To repeat: “It’s the perception of empowerment…”
So while they were able, they didn’t *believe* they were able. That said, you raise a good point. Only the power wasn’t in “production”, it was in controlling the media. And *that* is where the current technology revolution is occurring.
What I think we’re seeing is part of the evolution of what I call an “ecoToroid”; something I was playing with a couple of years ago when I took Anderson’s “Long Tail” curve into 3D and extended over time.
Jul 02, 2007
JohnP@Dell… John..It was good to see you post. I hope you did recognise that my comment was intended, as said, as an aspect of critical analysis – a process Dell should welcome if sincere (which your post implies your company is).
The business/environment paradigm is not new. It is very very well vocalised in academe and has been around since the early 80’s. As a resource and potential criteria set for assessing quality, your business may like to seek it, and relevant papers, out.
I do believe the populace is becoming a little weary of the throw away mentality and to that end if your manufacturing process can respond to that..then..bravo. At the same time, the fact remains that the average person will perhaps only iterate at this sort of level. It’s not like the average person will know to ask your company to use X rather than V cabling because…..OR could you please stop sourcing from Y country because there they use a chemical in the process that…. (People will tend to raise issues of countries on wage, child labour and socio-political grounds).
So, you will tend to receive, and again I’m talking environmental related matters, more generic comments than not – recycling issues will perhaps be paramount and then energy saving and so on.
This is distinctly different (with minor overlap) from consumers posing functionality changes.
And all these reasons are why I often argue that large corporations would do better having an array of experts from various fields on such projects. This draws in layers of option development, concept and critical analysis.
Jul 02, 2007
“If they were not able to exercise this power in days past, what power really was there?”
On this I understand where csven is coming from in saying “It’s the perception of empowerment..”
This is an historic socio-cultural concept in society (let’s say western society for the moment) that has evolved since WW2 (in particular).
I recall as a child that my parents would simply go to a doctor or solicitor and listen. They did not view their visits as paying for a service and that your payment entitles you to have a certain ownership, and certainly a set of rights (including posing questions).
I am a product of my parents and so have a certain caution but behaviourally I do act differently than they did in some forums.
However, in the philosophical sense what Adam says also has merit. If no power was exercised, whether power was latent or not, power did not exist (materially).
Jul 03, 2007
John
It is people like you that make me believe in co-Creation and social media and the power they possess.
Also, you are the only reason that I would ever even think about giving Dell another chance after the horrific debacle I had with a Dell computer. I really hope Michael Dell and all of the board see this response, and that you get the credit you deserve, as I am you core audience. I am a consumer and a director of an ad agency and help make our IT decisions. I am also a blogger, and while I am not incredibly wide reaching, anyone who crosses my path will hear my opinion loud and clear. I may not be a Jeff Jarvis, but I have a persistent voice.
Thanks for taking the time to listen. You doing a great job (now let’s see what the rest of the company does)
Adam
Jul 03, 2007
Csven
I suppose that our difference in your statement:
“when people were more self-sufficient, and corporations didn’t have such stifling influence over everything from laws to media to distribution channels, consumer groups probably had a relatively similar level of impact”
I guess I was not clear from the beginning. My claims about the rising ability for consumers to exercise power (yes, the power was there, it was just not perceived as such or contained the ability to be acted upon as easily as it is in modern times) is really only reflective of the post industrial era. Yes, there were times when corporations did not have the same influence on the media and the law as they do today. And yes, in these times consumers probably had more influence in their own spheres of existence (which was largely local). But since the rise of mass consumerism, I still have to stick to my guns when I say that this is an era where consumers have the ability to have a greater level of influence. Lowered barriers to entry, a rise in broadband penetration and an increasing decentralization of media control have lead to the consumer’s ability to not only realize their power, but to act upon it.
I think you and I are beginning to see eye to eye. In fact, I am not sure we ever really disagreed. I think, like most disagreements, the issues lies largely in semantics, however I could be wrong and to be honest, I enjoy this. It keeps the mind sharp, keep it coming
Jul 03, 2007
I think to some degree my last comment mirrored Susan’s last point.
This is an historic socio-cultural concept in society (let’s say western society for the moment) that has evolved since WW2 (in particular).
Now we are getting somewhere!
Adam
Jul 03, 2007
“This is an historic socio-cultural concept in society (let’s say western society for the moment) that has evolved since WW2 (in particular).”
Agreed.
Part of what led me to some of my current thinking was (of all things) tracing the development of “handles” as part of some work for a client. Even after the Industrial Revolution, handles on products maintained their “craft” sensibility; their concern for proper ergonomics and craftsmanship. This continued for the most part until post-WWII, when the forms changed radically. Ergonomics, quality and consumer satisfaction were, based on product evolution, less of a concern to manufacturers than pumping out large volumes at low cost using fairly crude manufacturing methods. And the emerging affluent middle class was too busy consuming to realize that the quality of the product was so horrendously poor in comparison to previous solutions.
And part of the way to get the new middle class to buy this substandard stuff was shifting money into the emerging media – especially television – in order to influence them.
Now that communications media is shifting from passive to active, we’re witnessing a reversal. And as today’s manufacturing technology improves, we’re seeing a slow move to improving quality. Only mass production, by its nature, will never satisfy a consumer the way custom production is able. But that’s where technology is taking us.
From tracing products, I’d venture that the peak of this disconnect was some time in the late 60’s/early 70’s. So from around 1950 to 1970 things were getting progressively worse for consumers. But since then things have been sliding back toward equilibrium.
The real question for the corporations afaic is: can they remake themselves into organizations that are consumer-centric (e.g. Experience matters) or will they doggedly hold onto old methodologies and attempt to exert control as if they still had any?
Jul 03, 2007
I don’ think this is a question for corporation. Consumer focus is an imperative if they wish to survive!
Jul 03, 2007
I agree. But then the music industry certainly hasn’t provided much evidence of answering this question in a way either of us would probably consider appropriate.
Jul 03, 2007
csven.. Interesting discourse you’re offering. Post WW2 one has to remember the abject deprivation that occurred during the war; the rations, the melting down of family silver and brass and even iron railings on homes for the ‘war effort’. People were glad to have product and although part of the issue of shoddy product was a remaining scarcity of resources, manufacturers also took fulsome advantage of this. They could offer cheap product fast and could advertise it in all its glory. Ads in the 40’s 50’s began to refocus on family and all the products we would now perhaps call kitch. Melamine became SUCH a big product for example. You could have a new reasonably cost effective kitchen up and wow bang did you feel the dearth of the war era was over! But within ten years the product cracked and broke and so on. Did manufacturers change product..well..they went to veneer and better adhesives. The product looked more solid and upmarket and generally lasted longer.
I agree that we are now looking back at craftsman based product but with a slightly wistful eye because many average (and I am talking average wage in terms of CPI index) people cannot afford craftsman made product. HOWEVER there is a market waiting there for whichever manufacturer uses technology well to generate solid timber (renewable resource and/or its alternatives) products that are delivered without you needing to key them together yourself as per Ikea. People are beginning to shy away from being clones and looking again at individuality; rejecting notions of having the same rugs and accoutrement that everyone in the same apartment block has (which is what the retailers have been delivering here for the past 5 years).
Office Works at least offers a reasonably cost effective mechanism to have their products constructed for you in your home however I see, as I’ve indicated, market ‘longing’ glancing over the shoulder. Retro is back and we may do well to attend to the core desires, values and views that drive that.
Jul 03, 2007
Don’t get me wrong, Susan. I don’t assign blame. I’m merely pointing out that certain opportunities presented themselves and corporations took advantage. If anything, I’ve argued that people essentially get what they ask for by voting with their dollars. That’s always been their power.
As for affordability, I’m hesitant to take your position. I’d instead argue that too many people who claim *not* to be able to afford quality product mostly can’t refrain from purchasing things they don’t need; much of it junk.
One of the amazing things about Second Life is that if you spend time in it, you realize that *Shopping* is considered entertainment for an amazing number of people. I’d have said that before I ventured into SL, but I didn’t comprehend just how big a deal it was.Now, when I watch ever bigger self-storage complexes going up across the U.S. during my travels, I’m reminded that we became a nation of pack rats and shopping isn’t about product as much as it is about the activity.
Thus, I’d argue it’s not that average people *can’t* afford quality product, but that they choose Volume instead. The shopping Experience keeps them occupied (which is kinda sad, imo). That would explain the growth of Wal*Mart during the 90’s; and also perhaps its failure to succeed in Germany (which is still a bastion of Quality) and selling their stores off to Metro.
However, as you’re saying, there *does* appear to be a shift.
I, for one, gave away almost all my furniture back in ‘99 (my time in art school had a profound effect on my approach to living). I have plenty of money, but no longer any desire to accumulate Stuff. And in a world where so many families are essentially forced to be mobile due to a volatile labor market, this approach is probably making increasing sense to more and more people (I’ve even had visits to my blog where I once posted something about my Spartan lifestyle… and the links are coming from communities of people adopting the same attitude and approach.). Note also the increasing interest in efficient pre-fab homes along with the housing market disaster; everyone *needed* an over-sized McMansion but reality is setting in: they don’t need huge homes – and overwhelming mortgage payments – to be happy.
Things are changing. At least I hope they are.
Jul 03, 2007
csven.. I am trying to think of the British actors name but it alludes me but on Parkinson a few years ago I watched his interview and he offered an anecdote that really struck me profoundly.
His father had, just after the war years, bought a radio on what was called HP then. Each month he made payments. The actor said that over the years his father paid around twenty times the cost of the original radio because of the interest. His point was that people on limited incomes can wind up paying more for items and this I think is true. If I can pay cash for something I can often bargain down the price. If I have to card it or pay it off I am in a less advantageous position.
I do agree that people do often buy junk however there are an array of reasons for that.
We are in agreement about manufacturers taking advantage.
As for the spartan lifestyle, in 2006 my life was challenged by a serious of events and I had to put all my belongings into storage. It was amazing how little I actually needed in order to get by. Getting by isn’t however sometimes good enough and good enough in the longer term. Nonetheless it was a useful lesson. Mind you, it was a year of challenge because when I got my things back out of storage the movers had broken 80% of it. And that is not an exaggeration. My washing machine had a huge crack through it, a table was literally in pieces and so on. This experience actually showed me what I really cared about and what I didn’t. I was, for example, very upset that an old cedar mirror (from a wardrobe) that I had carried around for years without a scratch, now had a long scratch down it. It was the first thing I had corrected. Some things however I’ve not replaced at all.
Interesting.
Jul 04, 2007
[...] On June 28, in partnership with Dassault Systèmes (49% of this joint venture), they launched 3dswym (see what you mean). 3dswym is a sharing 3D video platform which allows consumers to contribute and give product feedbacks. It is part of the new rule of demand and supply. The platform is still in development. [...]
Jul 04, 2007
Susan, I’m old enough to understand the radio example as I suspect it can be similarly applied to color television. However, such an occurrence isn’t a good example, imo, of to what I’m referring. Such purchases often involved the family or at least were important to the family. When I was young, buying our first color television was a family affair; it was a Big Deal. And all the neighbors *knew* when someone had purchased a color television. I assume the same is true of the first radios. So while it may have cost far too much in dollars, because of its importance to the family, it’s arguably a worthwhile purchase under the circumstances.
I’m referring to an altogether different activity; something closer to impulse shopping. In such cases, there’s no real family discussion because the thing itself isn’t all that important to the family. It’s *just* an amusement, and probably a temporary one at that.
As for self-storage, I’m again referring to a different kind of activity here. I once had to use one; but I was in-and-out inside of a month. I recently helped someone take things to a self-storage, but that was a result of divorce, and is also temporary.
What I’m referring to are people who increasingly use self-storage as a kind of remote addition to their homes. They’re not moving. They’re not in some kind of distress. They simply have too much Stuff. I’d venture maybe… maybe… some eBay sellers are using the auction site as a way to move items of theirs which are sitting in storage. Only thing is, who’s buying? and are they relocating their own Stuff into storage to make room for someone else’s Stuff they won on eBay? That’d make an interesting study. I suspect there are some cyclical movements. Might make for a funny comedy routine (”Wait sec. Didn’t we auction this thing off on eBay last year?”)
Jul 04, 2007
csven..Forgive me..I hadn’t realised you had spoken of (self) storage in previous posts. Sometimes I will respond and glance off the topic in another direction by the way.
I actually don’t agree about the radio issue *however* and I emphasise this, the disagreement lies with specific example, culture, and family orientation. This old man lived alone. His family had dispersed – some had immigrated – and they had little money themselves. The radio was the shining star.
I recall my family getting a telephone and then a tv..my parents bought ages after everyone else and I was not part of the decision or purchase or visit to the retailer at all. These ‘objects’ suddenly appeared.
I suspect you were raised in a different family atmosphere and orientation and, if so, that will surely influence your view.
Back to the point re storage you make above. I am highly sympathetic to the views and examples you express. There ARE occasions when a family simply has to live somewhere small for a while and yet there are items they would prefer not to sell or dispose of, knowing that in 12 months their living circumstances will change. However, I suspect these examples are much fewer than simply people with too many possessions.
True, if we all decided that anything we had not used in the past six months (aside from say core family memorabilia) was disposed of, we would have significantly different lives and no need to outlay for storage.
I admit I was shocked to read somewhere yesterday of a family unit (two grandparents, two parents and two children) who had..wait for it..6 fridges and 6 TV sets and all were running almost simultaneously. Now THAT is glutinous consumerism and a family that may talk and interact quite minimally.
I’ve curious csven..you don’t drive a gas guzzling hummer or similar do you? If you do, are you someone who rationalises this as something you ‘need’ to own?
I do agree that many people buy for the sake of buying. Some people take great solace in the process of purchasing and of course we know there is a medically recognised condition associated with this. Yes, many families do believe that having an established set of good and chattels is a public/community indicator of ’success’ and buy without need to add to the set.
Your humour about ebay smacks of those gifts sitcoms sometimes show ‘doing the rounds’ of family and friends.
I admit someone I know tends to buy me a flock of useless items and I once asked ..please..if you must…just one small nice vase or turned timber item or similar..not 6 [horrid I say to self] items [I will not use and that I feel bad about getting rid of].
I have recently moved and I know I simply must jettison items and I think I just need to adopt a ruthless attitude, take scores of magazines to a local commuity medical clinic, some things to a charity shop and rubbish tip the rest!
Jul 04, 2007
“The radio was the shining star.”
Which is my point. It had significant value. People today often buy things not because they’re “shining star” material, but instead because they’re engaged in the Shopping Experience. Too often when asked why something is purchased, I hear “It was on sale”. That’s just not a good enough reason, afaic.
And as I’m sure you’re aware, retailers are savvy about how to use this mindset to entice consumers. Ever visited IKEA? Now *there* is a good example of controlling and enticing the shopper to make unnecessary purchases.
-
“I recall my family getting a telephone and then a tv..my parents bought ages after everyone else and I was not part of the decision or purchase or visit to the retailer at all. These ‘objects’ suddenly appeared.”
I had friends like that. But even then, the purchase was a Big Deal. I recall friends announcing that their parents had made surprise purchase and we would run over and look. There aren’t many purchases in the U.S today that are as significant, imo, and that’s because so many things are being commoditized.
I can think of a few groups in the U.S. who might still behave that old-fashioned way, but they’re not the norm (e.g. farm families, Amish, aso).
-
“I’ve curious csven..you don’t drive a gas guzzling hummer or similar do you? If you do, are you someone who rationalises this as something you ‘need’ to own?”
No. I don’t. I drive an older gas efficient vehicle and it will, like my two other previous vehicles, be used until it literally expires (based on experience, that will probably be around 250,000 miles; my last one dying right at the dealer as I drove in!).
I also drive when there is less traffic; either early in the morning before rush hour, or late at night. I rarely need to drive during the day, and when I do, I actually map out a circuit so that I can most efficiently hit all the places I need to visit. It’s not that I don’t enjoy driving. It’s that I dislike sitting in traffic.
Probably worth mentioning that I also prefer hand-operated devices (e.g. coffee grinder). In addition, I have never owned a microwave… I don’t need one. And while I have a dishwasher in this apartment, I don’t use it. It’s an unnecessary convenience, afaic. I’m content to wash dishes by hand.
-
“Your humour about ebay smacks of those gifts sitcoms sometimes show ‘doing the rounds’ of family and friends.”
I watch *very* little television. I bought my 13″ TV in 1985. It still works, though because I refuse to get cable, I only receive one channel here in the valley. Fine with me. I can read instead.
-
“I have recently moved and I know I simply must jettison items and I think I just need to adopt a ruthless attitude”
I’d rarely felt as free as when I simply gave away that furniture. It was like taking off a ball and chain. I’m sure the immigrant family to whom I gave those things thought I was being generous. Far from it. I should thank them for making use of things I no longer had any desire to own.
In any event, I enjoyed the back and forth. Thank you. All the best.
Jul 04, 2007
csven.. Now, don’t you make me go back and cross reference your posts. Not unless I get coffee and a cookie
I suspect you interpreted ’shining star’ in a different way than I intended it but nothing about my example of the old man and his radio meshed with your point about superfluous spending. I DID agree with your point in other examples but the radio vignette was intended to show an exception (if you will). I emphasised that in second post about it.
I presume your ending was a sign off on the discussion so I won’t continue.
Adam..a flat white and an anzac biscuit if you will *grin*
Jul 04, 2007
“I suspect you interpreted ’shining star’ in a different way than I intended it but nothing about my example of the old man and his radio meshed with your point about superfluous spending.”
Apologies. I *did* misinterpret.
And you’re correct. I didn’t want to continue this here as we seem to be drifting off-topic and assume we’ll converse again. However, feel free to pick this up via email if you wish. I’ve enjoyed the conversation and would be happy to continue it.
Jul 04, 2007
Good-oh csven. Thanks for acknowledging the misinterpretation.
The off-topic issue is actually a topic unto itself and on this I’d welcome a comment from Adam. If one of the reasons Adam runs the blog is to garner insights into people and what they denote as important in their lives, then ‘off-topic’ is potentially as valuable as core. One could argue even more so.
I think we were arriving almost at the end of the discussion anyway because in many respects we don’t disagree. I agree that we are bound to see each other on a different topic here soon
I am not adverse to emailing as such however one does cut out the potential of others joining in by doing that. Let’s see what transpires in time to come..and drift..drift…drift..on the tide of the online swell. 
Jul 04, 2007
Susan and Csven
I fully agree that the off topic is as important as the topic itself. That is the beauty of blogging and conversation in general.
I have to apologize for being non existent for a day or so. Sometimes my digital soul becomes weary and I need to breathe the beautiful outdoor air in order to revive it.
What truly makes me smile is seeing the conversation on A Media Circ.us continue even in my absence. I smile knowing that there are passionate thinkers conducting meaningful discourse, where there otherwise might be none. It is fascinating, uplifting and humbling to know that you can be a small instrument in providing a forum for such conversation.
I am back in action tomorrow
Jul 04, 2007
Well..that’s a warm and responsive post Adam. I know the mindstate of which you speak. I am sometimes busy for days and then suddenly I almost can’t think and need to shut down for a day or so..and then off I go again. Be well and don’t bring back any squirrels!
Jul 05, 2007
I am back, no squirrels!
Jul 05, 2007
Awww..nuts! *grin*
Dec 28, 2009
Everyone want to be right, dead right.