“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

There seem to be three main branches here, or possibilities. There could also be a merging of three into one.

Now. The three-into-one has one inherent weakness, and strong organization would be needed or the venture could be severely weakened. The weakening element would be largely concentrated in the choice of one individual within the organization as a focal point.

However there could be a complete turnabout, I believe in procedure; and if so oddly enough in the light of present circumstances, you would be the man to whom they would turn. There is something it seems that you should follow up. A conference with three men, perhaps in April, is involved.

You can be too conservative, not following up sufficiently your intuitive understanding of the business. There is one man important in the three-in-one merger, and the best man has not yet been found.

Two mergers would seem to represent your best opportunity, two rather than three, and you could maintain excellent control here. One element therefore would be dropped, and it would prove in the overall not as effective as it would seem—one could be a liability, and might need to be discarded even if at first included. Two mergers would be much more effective.

(The merger material also applied, and Tom explained how he had been thinking of the second possibility suggested by Seth, the merging of two rather than three. Elmira and Syracuse banking facilities would be merged, with the Utica branch left out; according to Tom this would be a better arrangement, etc.