I take it we are not going to get an explanation for your extraordinary behaviour regarding your accusations - nor am I going to get either a qualification nor an apology
Fine - you have lied and you have walked away from that lie - must check how many penalty points that constitutes.
And now you are going to tell us that you never lie - another lie.
"You told me there was no such person"
Bump - another one - I doubted that she was one of your "prominent historians" as I had never heard of her and asked you for a link.
"Not a historian then, so we can't add her to your elusive-enough to be non-existent list of "qualified historians"?"
I then immediately wrote, correcting my ignorance of her, "Don't bother with that link Keith - I found her and she seems to have taken a line that you have described as 80 years out-of-date - a republican revisionist maybe."
"She changed her view between writhing the HI piece and publishing her book."
That is a total fabrication - she had written four books on the Irish famine between the years 1994 and 2002 - her piece in History Ireland was written in 1995.
I don't suppose you'd care to show us where and why she "changed her mind" so radically - no - of course you wouln't; once more you are making up "facts" to cover your own idiocy.
She did not "change her mind" - everything you, I and everybody else here have produced of her statements are perfectly consistent
Her original statement, as has been pointed out, referred to the Peel Government's response to the famine - there's never been a dispute about that; as Alan Conn pointed out:
"The excess mortality in that period can, fairly and squarely, be laid at the door of the Lord John Russell's government"
She was right in her first statement and she continues to be right.
You are manipulating researched historical facts to disguise your total ignorance on this subject.
One minute you are extolling Kinealy's virtues, and then, when you find her findings don't fit your argument, she becomes a dithering moron.
It is despicable that you should malign your main source of information by accusing her of of having "changed her mind" and to lay the blame for your having used her name on another member of this forum.
You say you are not a historian, yet your attacks on Kinealy and other writers/historians seem to indicate that you are not even willing to learn from their researches.
Are there no lengths to which you will go to absolve yourself from being wrong?
Jim Carroll