55 replies to this topic

[2F-001]

A curious encounter, for sure (to use racing parlance), but nothing there struck me as being especially shocking. His domestic arrangements, whilst not really to my taste (even if I could fund such) are not, I believe, unusual enough to be bemused by, are they?
Some of Max's responses certainly gave me pause for thought, though.
Interestingly, the interviewer concluded that she gained no insight into his persona at all. Perhaps the interviewer and I both need to read it again!
That John Cleese image does get in the way now though!

[D-Type]

The article is on the FT website here. But you need to be a subscriber to drill down to any of the articles referenced.

Interesting reading, He clearly outmanoeuvered the reporter, who seems to acknowledge it.

Edited by D-Type, 06 February 2011 - 21:14.

[Roger Clark]

The article is on the FT website here. But you need to be a subscriber to drill down to any of the articles referenced.

Interesting reading, He clearly outmanoeuvered the reporter, who seems to acknowledge it.

You need to register with ft.com, but not to be a subscriber.

Edited by Roger Clark, 06 February 2011 - 22:04.

[kayemod]

You need to register with ft.com, but not to be a subscriber.

I think that's right, you can get free but limited access by registering, for full access you have to pay.

[Twin Window]

I don't need to see the FT interview to determine that the person in question is a thoroughly unpleasant individual.

And that's not exclusive amongst the founders of March either. Not by a long way.

[Roger Clark]

I think that's right, you can get free but limited access by registering, for full access you have to pay.

The point is that you can read the Mosely interview without subscribing.

I certainly can't imagine why anybody would want to pay to read it.