18th June 2008, 12:01 AM
mirrors and smoke
you proffered the theory from which you took the defensive attack proposition
by which you are suggesting that the collective term consultant is an identifiable person.
And as for
its a gem, I suspect that it is recursive although colloquially in the words of the great sage the closest that I can imagine is the negative form of
Get of that without moving. Said as you strangle someone
I would also like to apologise that I mistook your almost perfect pr?cis of the Principal-Agent Problem with the cynics observation that the contract had a
In conclusion in what way are consultants the answer to the Principle-Agent Problem?
Quote:quote: In fact, since I was only expressing my experience of using the ICE Conditions of Contract; I was not really presenting an argument per se anyway.
you proffered the theory from which you took the defensive attack proposition
Quote:quote: I find that offensive.of
Quote:quote:this is starting to sound like an ad hominem attack
by which you are suggesting that the collective term consultant is an identifiable person.
And as for
Quote:quote:Nil nisi bonum, old chap. Again, another ad hominem attack
its a gem, I suspect that it is recursive although colloquially in the words of the great sage the closest that I can imagine is the negative form of
Get of that without moving. Said as you strangle someone
I would also like to apologise that I mistook your almost perfect pr?cis of the Principal-Agent Problem with the cynics observation that the contract had a
Quote:quote: measurable manneras a deep contemplation of it rather than a spontaneous and independent discovery by you but possibly reinvention is the consultants way. Have you heard of the wheel?
In conclusion in what way are consultants the answer to the Principle-Agent Problem?