All very readable stuff. However, the following passage inevitably attracted my attention:
Now, suppose you wished to write an article claiming that a chess federation had potentially been defrauded of a sum of money on account of its President's relationship with a dubious individual - and relating your efforts to have this published in the Sunday Times.
Would you, regardless of the excellence of your breakfast, go out of your way to draw the reader's attention to your relationship with a dubious individual who was obliged to resign from a chess federation following allegations that he had defrauded that federation of a sum of money - allegations published in the Sunday Times?
[Andrew Paulson index]
[Ray Keene index]
[Nigel Short index]
I think the inclusion of the phrase <> may have had a certain nudge-nudge, wink-wink quality about it on Nigel's part.
Post a Comment