Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Josh
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (14)
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices"
- Adam Smith
Deserves to be front page D.T., Times or Mail.
Your audience is too small and laughing at the 'alarmists' may be the way to go.
Well done Josh.
It's worth speculating how the Great Delusion will finally end.
A good metric of it having reached its end might be that it eventually becomes the butt of comedian jokes.
It's the end of the world,
SHHHHHHH!
don't let anyone know
Looks a bit chilly, did somebody set the AC control to "real"?
BUBBLE BUBBLE, (not much) TOIL (for them) AND (lots of) TROUBLE (for us)
Wouldn't you think that - as climate scepticism is a sign of madness, greed and psychopathic tendencies, whereas climate change belief is pure and saintly ........ believers would want us all to see and admire their deliberations on our behalf.
Odd that.
Thing is, the missus reads the Mail like ''compulsively'', and the thought of it 'terrifies the living ****!
I'm confused; is this about the chatt'ering or the chatham'ering classes?
I tried this for the first time: The post without a title about nothing
I still want to know:
Who decides if a meeting can be conducted under Chatham House Rules..?
What parameters must be met..?
If it turns out that these in fact were not met, can the Chatham House Rules be waived retrospectively..?
Perhaps you missed the answer to your question that I posted on the other thread. It really is very simple and people are beginning to confuse two quite separate issues - the Chatham House Rule concerning attribution and the holding of meetings in secret.
The CHR is a convention that the participants at a meeting agree to. It simply means that when subsequently discussing the outcome in public none of the comments made during the meeting will be attributed to specific individuals. It does not require that the meeting itself be a secret, nor that the outcome or discussion must be secret, although secrecy may be ANOTHER condition of attendance.
There are no specific parameters and the meeting can be about any subject at any level. The requirement for CHR is usually stipulated by the organiser of the event and participants have the option of taking part under CHR or not attending.
It is possible, although not usual, for the rule to dispensed with during or after the meeting if all the participants agree.
Very droll. The BH website is one of the most reliable "thinking" blogs I have come across. Any humour I have seen is just as good. This cartoon is yet another example.
Arthur Dent - thanks for that - I did indeed miss your earlier post.