How realistic is Nicholas Roche's Irish Independent diary?

Slideshowbob

Beasty wrote: »

George Best and Matt Busby

Thanks - I could only get as far as the 3rd chapter of that article before I had to stop.

By that point he had referred to:

1. Hugh McIlvanney as a ghost writer to Ferguson even though in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McIlvanney McIlvanney is in fact referred to as a co-author to Ferguson.

2. The writer refers to payment from Matt Busby for writing for him. This in turn would lead me to consider if NR has a ghost writer, is he getting paid and how much?!?

Beasty

Just to make sure the message gets across, this one is definitely with my mod hat on

The morals of this (including payment arrangements) are nothing to do with cycling, and off-topic

"How realistic is NR's diary" is the topic, and may be discussed here

Thanks

Beasty

oflahero

I can't believe I waste valuable seconds of my life reading phucking drivel threads like this.

petethedrummer

Slideshowbob wrote: »

This in turn would lead me to consider if NR has a ghost writer, is he getting paid and how much?!?

I think you're getting close to uncovering an enormous conspiracy here Bob. What do you plan to do with your findings?

Slideshowbob

petethedrummer wrote: »

I think you're getting close to uncovering an enormous conspiracy here Bob. What do you plan to do with your findings?

This

niceonetom

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Thanks - I could only get as far as the 3rd chapter of that article before I had to stop.

By that point he had referred to:

1. Hugh McIlvanney as a ghost writer to Ferguson even though in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McIlvanney McIlvanney is in fact referred to as a co-author to Ferguson.

2. The writer refers to payment from Matt Busby for writing for him. This in turn would lead me to consider if NR has a ghost writer, is he getting paid and how much?!?

Why don't you tell us who you're really upset with, Bob?

Most of us know already, but it'd be easier if you'd spare us the subtext and just come out with it.

This whole thread seems totally disingenuous. You're clearly not concerned with the accuracy of the column in the Indo, you're only concerned with its authorship. It's an axe you've been grinding for a long time now. Why? Did the nasty ghost man write something mean about you once?

Is there anything illegal about what the author(s) - either real or purported - are doing? Or are there some ethical press standards you can point to that are being breached here? And I just can't fathom why you think you not only have some right to know who the ghost is but also what he is getting paid! That's just fanciful, especially from someone who guards their own anonymity so closely.

petethedrummer

Slideshowbob wrote: »

This

I think you're getting close to uncovering an enormous conspiracy here Bob. What do you plan to do with your findings?

Beasty

OK I tried to avoid the thread degenerating further, but clearly failed. Rather than starting dishing out infractions, I think it's best just to close the thread

Thanks

Beasty