From Cynergetics Do you know the answers

It's better to be a big fish in a little pond than a little fish in a big pond.

Big fish always eat little fish.

I know that answer to this one. But not the first one help.

Originally Posted by Joetrevison

It's better to be a big fish in a little pond than a little fish in a big pond.

Big fish always eat little fish.

I know that answer to this one. But not the first one help.

Nope.

A big fish in a little pond will soon starve to death when it's used up all the little fish.

It's better to be a big fish in a big pond.

Originally Posted by Bozo

Nope.

A big fish in a little pond will soon starve to death when it's used up all the little fish.

When that happens you expand the size of the pond..

all the best,
Doc

Greetings Joe,

Originally Posted by Joetrevison

It's better to be a big fish in a little pond than a little fish in a big pond.

Disagree here. Big fish are a larger target and the little fish LEARN how-to exploit the big fishes weaknesses. Also little fish learn how to eat what the big fishes leave behind.

Remember bigger fishes are only IN the pond, but they cannot CONTROL the size of the pond or the amount of water in the pond.

If the pond dries up big and little fish die. Both depend on the pond being full of water.

Originally Posted by Joetrevison

Big fish always eat little fish.

Only when little fish are not paying attention. Also little fish do grow up to one day be a big fish.

Woody Quiñones
The Promotional Guy

The little fish is faster and survives and does eat the stuff the big fish leaves behind.

Now lets belate that to business. Little business can do stuff quicker than big business with all its layers of people.

If I want to do an ad I just call the newspaper up, I don't ask anyone.