BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 10:02 AM

PS If something erroneous or false is written down it is not slander it is libel. Yet another error.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 10:09 AM

when shot down Carroll?

Give me an example please

Tell us all once again that the Curragh Mutiny which wasn't was an act of military aggression

Tell us once again that the 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill never got Royal Assent because it had been kicked out by the Tories and the House of Lords

Tell us once again about Lord Kitchener being forced to resign

There are myriad examples of you shooting yourself in the foot and being "shot down" as you put it.

Classic in your last post whereby you accuse Keith A of lying then state immediately afterwards that he was not actually lying.

You are great at flinging out baseless accusations yet seem terribly reticent when it comes to providing examples when requested to do so - don't worry Carroll you are not the only one on this forum guilty of such behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:12 PM

How many do you want
No heavy artillery in Dublin
Wealthy pre-word War One Liverpool
Democratic Britain in the early 1800s
The obscene profits on ceramic poppies
Te withering away of the State being part of Marxist doctrine.
I asked you for a link to your claims on the weapons sizes - and answer came there none.
Your habit of going into purdah whenever you are challenged is well-known - and you never - never link your claims.
You make your pronouncements then do a runner, which is what I said
We all make mistakes, but nobody actually makes things up..
The Home Rule Bill was actually kicked out in July 1916 by the Redmondites in Parliament because it had been altered, making Partition permanent, and was eventually accepted at gunpoint in 1922 after two years of War of Independence - that forced acceptance led to a further year of Civil War.
I asked Keith if he had any problem with this fact - he demurred -perhaps you will be more forthcoming
The Curragh was a Mutiny according to the dictionary definition of the term - a threat to obey orders, whether the carried out that threat is immaterial - the defied a Government order, which is why it was, and to an degree, it is known as The Curragh Mutiny.
You were given this but you seem to have retired to you room in a sulk.
Yours in anticipation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:12 PM

How many do you want asks Jom:

No heavy artillery in Dublin

There was no heavy artillery in Dublin Jom the 18 pounder mentioned is a piece of field artillery. As you know S.F.A. about artillery please feel free to do a bit of research. Heaviest naval gun was even smaller. Those are the facts Jom. If you wish to dispute them then come back with some substantive and verifiable detail.

Wealthy pre-word War One Liverpool

The period 1902 to 1919 was one of major expansion and along with that went wealth and job opportunities.

Democratic Britain in the early 1800s

1832 is hardly the early 1800s but none the less the Reform Act brought in that year was a significant stepping stone on the path to Parliamentary reform the democracy we now enjoy.

The obscene profits on ceramic poppies

This was one that you got amazingly wrong the poppies I believe raised millions for the six nominated charities. It was you who got the costs wrong, it was you who made the claims that they were made for profit. Please consult the Royal British Legion for the real facts about the ceramic poppies - but as usual you won't be arsed to actually get to the truth.


Te withering away of the State being part of Marxist doctrine.

Completely lost me on that one

I asked you for a link to your claims on the weapons sizes - and answer came there none.

What weapons, what claims? When was this asked of me? In context with what?

The Home Rule Bill was actually kicked out in July 1916 by the Redmondites in Parliament because it had been altered

What you state there is a Parliamentary impossibility. The Redmondites were not in power and as that is plainly true then they could not enact or repeal anything that already had Royal Assent.

The Curragh was a Mutiny according to the dictionary definition of the term - a threat to obey orders, whether the carried out that threat is immaterial - the defied a Government order, which is why it was, and to an degree, it is known as The Curragh Mutiny.

What order was disobeyed or defied? None was ever given that is why even in the link that you yourself provided it clearly stated that "The Curragh Mutiny" was not a mutiny at all.

Now come on Jom tell me when you have "shot me down"

Still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 02:32 PM

Jim,
Don't know about T -you claimed to have responded to all my questions - you have responded to none.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that telling porkies

No it is not, because I believe that I have answered.
As I asked you before, please say what you think I missed.

You have denigrated the entire Irish nation and refuse to qualify your attacks

I have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 05:17 PM

You have so! Nyah Nyah!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:23 PM

Yes, Keith, 2014. Yes you did quote from the Guardian article. Later, presumably hoping we wouldn't bother checking, you blatantly misrepresented it, putting words into Wheatcroft's mouth that he never uttered, let alone meant. You twisted and turned, you told us you were only "speaking generally" and you did not recant or apologise. Further, your ally Teribus (who actually went a bit quiet on you, having realised what you'd done) eventually came out and gave you his very lukewarm support. If I make a mistake here I acknowledge it to the forum and, if necessary, apologise. In every instance, that makes it go away, I've found. The fact that you won't ever do that speaks volumes about your reliability and honesty. The whole sorry episode didn't exactly reflect well on Teribus, either. This is not throwing muck. This is stating the truth of the matter that you refuse to acknowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 07:17 PM

"The empower has no clothes! unlike your good self Steve, I do not pontificate on subjects I have little knowledge of."

Nonsense. I don't know how many times I've put my hands in the air and admitted that I'm no historian. I don't "pontificate" on substantive matters of history, though I do reserve the right to question those self-professed experts hereabouts who've read a few hardbacks, watched a couple of series on the telly and who think they know it all. Unfortunately, you included. Let me just remind you again that you can, to some extent, blind people with science, what with all the technical stuff (I could probably lose you in a heartbeat on plant anatomy and physiology, using every big word in the book), but you can't blind people with history. It's accessible to all people of reasonable education (people who may not be history PhDs but who are not fools) who are perfectly capable of looking things up and who refuse to simply take "authoritative" statements from the likes of you, Keith and Teribus at face value (sorry to embarrass you by bracketing you with those reprobates: I promise never to do it again). From hereonin, I shall be watching carefully for signs of your pontificating on things I perceive that you know little about. And you know what I'm like.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:42 AM

No Steve.
I quoted the passage in full, and the discussion of it continued for two day with constant referring back to it.
Of course I did not quote the whole passage every time, because everyone knew what it said.

You were desperate to get something on me, you had no knowledge of the history we were discussing (as now!) so you tried to make something out of nothing.

You just claimed, "we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Often?
You have to go back to 2014 to find an example that is not an example anyway!

Your accusation was just an empty smear, because you have nothing else to offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:46 AM

" It's accessible to all people of reasonable education (people who may not be history PhDs but who are not fools) who are perfectly capable of looking things up and who refuse to simply take "authoritative" statements from the likes of you, Keith and Teribus at face value (sorry to embarrass you by bracketing you with those reprobates: I promise never to do it again)."

Ah but that is just it Shaw - You who according to your own words haven't read anything - while you may be perfectly capable of looking things up you NEVER ACTUALLY DO THAT.

As stated previously:

1. You are too damn lazy to look things up and check the information being given. Which means that you are just out for an argument and there is absolutely no point in engaging with you in the discussion.

2. You have in fact looked things up and found the information provided correct but have not the honesty or integrity to actually admit it.

By the way when it comes to pontificating lad - you take the biscuit.

Yes we do all know what you are like Shaw we've seen the pattern before - you are now in the "lets get this thread closed" mode.

Wittering on about some pedantic rant you went into two years ago FFS is that really all you can come up with? I'd say that you really do need to get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 02:49 AM

Rag,
PS If something erroneous or false is written down it is not slander it is libel. Yet another error.

Yes it was.
I tend to think of these exchanges as conversations not correspondence, but an honest mistake.
I am often guilty of them, but never lies like when you "quoted" some historians but altered their words to reverse the meaning.
I would rather lose a debate than stoop to such tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:12 AM

Talking of not responding to point Teribus I posted a few questions a day or two back to which you have not responded I suggest there is a difference between being indiscriminate and being accurate and asked:

Can you tell us the percentage of your practise artillery firing was accurate:

1. From the first shot.

2. Overall.

3. Would your figures have been achievable in 1916.

On another issue we were all asked to be polite to each other, thus I am calling you Teribus, I am calling Keith, Keith. I have noticed both you and he still refer to me as Rag or Raggy neither of which are my pseudonym and you still refer to Jim as Jom. I can easily revert if I have too.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:20 AM

Rag, we all abbreviate long names, and I will continue to do so.
Keith is a massive abbreviation of mine.

Re artillery, in Dublin in was used in the direct fire role.
The gun was pointed at the target and fired using its sights.
A building is an unmissable target. They would have aimed at the actual windows being used as fire positions.

Look at the pictures I linked to of Liberty Hall and YMCA.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:42 AM

So let me get this right professor. There's a ship moored on the River Liffey that you are saying could fire directly into windows behind which the rebels were placed in Sackville Street.

If I were you professor I would check that with Teribus, I think he may advise you otherwise.

I've attached a nice photograph and an interesting paragraph or two about the ship just for you. You may want to notice the reference to incendiary shells, but there again you may not.

HMY Helga

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:46 AM

"I would rather lose a debate than stoop to such tactics"

Brilliant.


OK lads, form an orderly queue, no pushing at the back.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 03:54 AM

Which means that you are just out for an argument and there is absolutely no point in engaging with you in the discussion.

Yet you do constantly engage with him in discussion. Seeing as this is a folk music related site I will quote a song.

Who's the fool now?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:24 AM

That 'explanation' Steve claimed to have been definitive at 0636 on the 24th, claiming it was 'my problem' if I didn't follow it, appears to have been less than satisfactory to others as well as me - vide eg Keith & Teribus ½-doz or so posts back. Perhaps his thinking in this particular instance has been a trifle less than of A++ standard in that hyaline clarity that we have all so uniformly come to expect of him --

teeheeheehee behind the ☞

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:50 AM

"By the way when it comes to pontificating lad - you take the biscuit."

Well, how typical of this fellow not to see the irony of his saying that! 😂

Pedantic rant? Well, it was no rant. It was a patient dissection of Keith's outrageous misrepresentaions of his source, which unfortunately for him I also happened to see, in which he persisted over a period of weeks, which exposed him for the unreliable fraud that he is. Pulling someone up for claiming that his source said something that was blatantly neither said nor meant is not pedantry. Perhaps you should look the word up. And you clearly didn't go back to check - it wasn't "two years ago," it was less than eighteen months ago. I think your historian friends would be embarrassed by your poor attention to detail, and it certainly doesn't encourage us to take anything you tell us at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:55 AM

Michael, you should have recognised by now that things I say that Keith and Teribus don't find satisfactory are never going to make me lose a wink of sleep. As for you, I've spent enough time on that matter and as far as I'm concerned I've explained it as much as I'm prepared to. Now find something else to get your dentures into, why don't you. End of.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 04:59 AM

Thanks for the Link Raggy (Term of endearment) but readers of stuff on the internet should not believe everything they read, incendiary shells apart here is another glaring error from the link you supplied:

"Ravaged by sniper fire, machine guns, nine-pound guns from Trinity College and 18-pound shells from the gunboat the Helga, the insurgents were forced to abandon the GPO and set up headquarters in 16 Moore Street."

The guns mounted on HMY Helga were 12 pound QF guns firing fixed ammunition. According to reports she fired on Liberty Hall and on one of the bridges which he hit with her opening fire, Liberty Hall a building used to print James Connolly's newspapers was also used up until the start of the rebellion to make bombs, grenades and bayonets for the Volunteers. As both Liberty Hall and the Bridge were located on the river Helga would have been firing on direct line of sight. The 18 pounders referred to were Army Field pieces. The Helga would not have carried incendiary ammunition as it has no naval gunnery application.

As to addressing your questions Raggy, would it make even the slightest bit of difference if I did answer them? Been down that route with you before and found it pointless, in any case they were all rather irrelevant having no relation to what was being discussed. By the way indiscriminate fire is when you just blaze away in a general direction for an indeterminate time with no attempt made to identify or hit a specific target. Targeted fire is when you identify, aim and correct if need be to hit a specific target, for a specific purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:11 AM

Steve, I had already quoted the passage in full, and deceived no-one about what Wheatcroft said.
I had no need to. The whole article supported my case.

You just had nothing else to offer in reply.

Rag, your link was to something published by the Collins Society.
Did you expect any objectivity?

The Helga also fired only at visible targets. Liberty Hall actually and it did not burn down.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:15 AM

"As to addressing your questions Raggy, would it make even the slightest bit of difference if I did answer them? Been down that route with you before and found it pointless, in any case they were all rather irrelevant having no relation to what was being discussed. By the way indiscriminate fire is when you just blaze away in a general direction for an indeterminate time with no attempt made to identify or hit a specific target. Targeted fire is when you identify, aim and correct if need be to hit a specific target, for a specific purpose"

Yes Terriblossom it is pertinent because both you and I know that lobbing 12 or 16lb shells about in a built up area may not just kill and maim the intended target but that innocent civilians can also be killed and injured.

They may not even hit the intended target which is the reason you refuse to be drawn on the subject.

I do note identify, aim and correct, in other words the "target" is not necessarily the only thing damaged. That is indiscriminate in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:21 AM

Another link for you and territowelling, professor.


Link

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 05:51 AM

Rag, from your link,
"On the 26th of April, positioned on the Liffey, she raised her 12 pound artillery guns over the Loop Line railway bridge and fired at her first target Liberty Hall, the Head Quarters of Citizen Army. Her shots were less than accurate and her shells destroyed much of the surrounding buildings and beyond. She also targeted the GPO and Bolland Mills which Eamon De Valera had occupied."

Has anyone but Ann Robinson(?) suggested that Helga fired at GPO?
She provides a pictire of Liberty Hall after the rising which shows it holed by shells but not burned, and surrounding buildings damaged but not "destroyed" as she claims in the text.
So not very reliable.

Here again is the essay by a curator of the National Museum of Ireland, published in the leading journal of Irish History.

"Subsequently the Helga II gained an undeserved reputation for playing an essential part in the Rising. (Most of the damage to Dublin's city centre was caused by fire, particularly at premises like the Irish Times warehouse and Hoyte's Druggists and Oil Works, rather than by shelling.)"
"On 25 April 1916 the Helga sailed from Dún Laoghaire to shell Boland's mill, and on the following day fired over the loop line railway bridge at Liberty Hall. In total the Helga fired only 40 rounds during the Rising, and it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the fire from her guns."
http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/tss-helga-ii/

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:00 AM

Another Link

This one is brilliant terribombast, the gunner aboard the Helga missed the intended target with about 10 shells. So much for aim, correct etc .

Professor, you possibly don't know Dublin very well but look up the relevant positions of the Liberty Hall and Percy Place.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:12 AM

"I do note identify, aim and correct, in other words the "target" is not necessarily the only thing damaged. That is indiscriminate in my book."

Thankfully "your" book means S.F.A., and is based upon total ignorance and confirms my initial reaction to your idiotic questions and that you actually have no idea between the words deliberate targeted fire and indiscriminate fire. And WOW what a barrage eh? the massive total of 40 shots fired over a period of six days - good heavens that averaged out would mean an incredible one shell every three-and-a-half hours, and by the way didn't one of your pals state that Liberty Hall was abandoned by the Rebels early on? Wonder why? I'd call that a successful engagement wouldn't you (Can't think why I ask, after all you according to that book of yours wouldn't have the foggiest notion).

By the way the first shot fired by the Helga was targeted at a bridge which it hit, but then you would have known that had you bothered to actually read up on it, but there again you and your pals never do.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:12 AM

Dentures, Steve? Why, despite my vast age, the teeth in my 〠 are still my own.

What was that you were bawling someone out over a few posts back, about checking facts before making assertions? Proper old biscuit-taker yr·dear·ole·self when the fit comes on you, innit!

teehee·ad·∞ n'all'tha'..................

☺☺☺☺≈M≈☺☺☺☺

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:24 AM

& I'll decide for myself when it's "end of", tanx v much justa same, without any unsolicited arrogation from so impertinently pre-emptive an organism as your·goodself, my good man...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 06:28 AM

Ah I get it! Deliberately targeted fire is when you try to hit a target and miss. Sod the consequences of that action, we TRIED to hit the target. We failed miserably but at least we knew what we were trying to do when we missed the target.

According to the last link I put on the gunner TRIED about a dozen times and only actually hit the target once.

Brilliant that, gives me faith in everything you bullshit about. Back to the drawing board Terribombast, go and play with your toy soldiers again.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:10 AM

I was speaking metaphysically when I referred to your dentures, in order to draw more attention to that great age you endure which seems to have the unfortunate effect of making you flog dead h End of again End of again

And Keith, you can repeat a lie a thousand times but you will never make it true. Your reputation is in tatters. Who do you think you're kidding?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:12 AM

Yikes! Ill try again.

I was speaking metaphysically when I referred to your dentures, in order to draw more attention to that great age you endure which seems to have the unfortunate effect of making you flog dead horses. End of, yet again.

And Keith, you can repeat a lie a thousand times but you will never make it true. Your reputation is in tatters. Who do you think you're kidding?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:13 AM

Call the apostrophe police!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:14 AM

"No heavy artillery in Dublin"
You've been given s link that says there was and the firemen's log books put the damage they were dealing with down to heavy artillery - you wwere given evidence of all this.
You may, of course, know more than they did, but, in your inimitable fashion, still omit to supply a link to any of your claims, so we have to take you at your word - I don't.
"Wealthy pre-word War One Liverpool"
Again - no link.
The period was one of mass poverty and deprivation - don't need Government supplied figures for this one My parents were born in the early 1900s and my grandparents on both sides, spoke of their situation regularly.
Both Liverpool and Dublin were massively poor citied - the link I provided from Queens Uni. in Belfast specified as a reason fo volunteering for WW1 was the poverty and mass unemployment (alonng with other reasons).
But again, you appear to know more and again, you provide no linkd.
I provided a link to a University study of pre-war conditions in Liverpool - ignored and contradicted without proof of your own.
"Democratic Britain in the early 1800s"
The period of "reform " you mention saw the most controversial land enclosures in history, The Poaching Wars, the transportation of The Tolpuddle Martyrs for attempting to set up a Trade Union, the Highland Clearances were in full swing in Scotland, evictions of tenants forced many of them to emigrate to Canada in their hundreds of thousands, pretty much the same as with Ireland and the mine and mill owners were taking advantage of the mass emigrations to drive down wages and to stop the rise of the new Trades Unions.
Half the adult population of Britain had no vote and attempts by women to change that situation gave rise to police violence, imprisonment, forced feeding and humiliation - women only got the vote by agreeing to join the British campaign to decimate Britain's youth on the killing fields of Europe in WW1.
A democratic heaven, you might say!
"The Redmondites were not in power and as that is plainly true then they could not enact or repeal anything"
I didn't say they were capable of either - I said the described the Treaty they had previously supported as a "betrayal" because it had been altered to make partition permanent.
Stop distorting what I say.
The obscene profit in ceramic poppies was presented as a linked fact.
"No it is not, because I believe that I have answered, as I asked you before, please say what you think I missed."
You have now had it put up and you still haven't answered any of them
Britain attempted to introduce compulsory conscription in Ireland in 1918 - what part of that fact do you have a problem with?
Had Ireland not opposed British rule, there would have been no reason whatever that it should have been left out of the bloodbath - why should they have been left out while the rest of British youth was being slaughtered?
"The British parliament passed the act before the rising,"
And altered it in July 1916 to make the partition of the six counties permanent - it was originally intended that these counties (originally the whole of Ulster, but altered when it was realised that this would give the Catholics a majority in the North) would be partitioned until a year after the war ended.
Even the Parliamentary Irish rejected the re-written treaty - Redmond described it as "a betrayal"
The Republicans who took part in the Rising did so because they realised that Britain had no intention of ratifying any treaty that did not meet its own interests.
You have been given all this before, what part of this do you have problems with; if none, why are you raising it again and again and again.....?
Britain was finally forced to concede a form of Independence, at the threat of an alternative of "a signature or war", which lead to immediate Civil War in the 26 Counties, built in financial, political and land-owning injustice, inequality and hardship for the Catholic third of the six counties, and a near-century of unrest and bloodshed.
What problems do you have with any of this?
The Rising did not have the support of those in the immediately vicinity, (I told you this years ago), but there is no indication whatever of how the rest of Ireland felt - they were never asked.
It doesn't matter anyway - within a matter of months the Rebels had the complete support of the Irish people, a support which led to a full-scale war of independence which ended overall rule in Ireland by the wealthiest and most powerful Empire the world has known being kicked out ignominiously by poorly armed irregular fighters.
The Rising has since been considered the turning-point in Irish history by the Irish people as a whole.
You, who have stated you know nothing of Irish history and have never read a book on the subject, have taken onto yourself to describe the Irish people as a whole as gullible and misled in their beliefs and written-off that fully accepted Irish turning point with contempt - what does that make you Keith?
You said earlier that "we can finish this."
Your stated contempt for the Irish people and their knowledge of their own history wil never be "finished" until you withdraw your appalling statement or qualify it - it verges on racism to suggest that an entire nation is gullible enough to have been misled by propaganda on its own history and that you, with your declared ignorance and disinterest, know more than they do.
If anything, your stated contempt has been written into the history of this forum in your own words."
You have to provided answers to these question, you just keep repeating the same denials, as you still are - you claim you have answered them - this is simply untrue.
I have specifically asked if you have any problems with the facts I provided - are they true, did I make them up - If you have answered any of these and provided proof - where are your answers - not here?
I have asked you over and over again if you believe the Irish people to be stupid and ignorant to have been so fooled into supporting the Rising and in your own words "murder in cold blood" - if you have answered, where have you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 07:24 AM

Just an ickle hint, dear ole Steve -- Check on distinction between metaphysics and metaphors... Or it'll be a Marvell if you don't get Donne...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 08:03 AM

I have often heard that people become child-like as they get on in life, especially in their later years. Is this why they sometimes revert to child-like speech and behaviour. I have to say it is rather tedious and doesn't say very much for their intelligence really.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 08:15 AM

I note your recent sense of humour bypass surgery, Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 09:09 AM

☺

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 09:48 AM

Steve, I was repeating a truth not a lie.
Wheatcroft believes what I believe, his whole article supported my case, and I quoted the whole of the passage in question.
My reputation stands. No-one has ever found a lie of mine. I would much rather lose a debate than sink to that.

Do you have anything else on me?
You said "often."
Not true is it Steve.
A lie.

Rag,

According to the last link I put on the gunner TRIED about a dozen times and only actually hit the target once.

The writer asks us to believe that instead of engaging the rebels, those gunners blazed away at a flag pole!

Also that the shells somehow braked and fell into the Liffey!

Also that the Helga returned fire at the gun, invisible as it was among the buildings, which would be impossible.

He reports many other things he would have no way of knowing.

It is a good story, but much of it is fantasy.
A soldier's yarn, or a composite of many such yarns.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:14 AM

I find the concept of winning or losing a debate with people you do not know or care for, on an internet forum that does not matter, quite absurd. While most people like to discuss things in a lively way and are prepared to give and take a little, there are others just want to win at any cost. Therein lies insanity and the root of most of these arguments. There are also those who like to fan the flames but when they get their fingers burned they run off crying to Mummy. It takes all sorts I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:17 AM

Jim, an 18 pounder is heavy in that you would not want it to run over your foot, but it is not "heavy artillery."
It is a field gun.
http://www.dennisstinton.co.uk/artillery-ww1

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:18 AM

Idiot. The shells that fell into the Liffey came from their own troops returning fire.

Are you capable of reading anything without getting it wrong.


Don't bother to respond to that I already know the answer.


Now just ask yourself where the shells that missed the flagpole exploded?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:33 AM

No Rag. You need to read it again.
According to the story, it was shells from the one pounder, fired up at the flag, that landed in the Liffey.
That gun has a range of 4 500 yards, over 2 miles, and fired at a high angle that is how far they would go.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:36 AM

"Steve, I was repeating a truth not a lie."

Did you or did you not say that AJP Taylor's book was fraudulent, according to Wheatcroft? YES.

Did Wheatcroft say that AJP Taylor's book was fraudulent? NO.

Conclusion??

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 10:51 AM

Yes Professor the 1lb shells were fired by British troops and landed in the Liffey just where the Helga was lying and she fired back with 12 pounders. Shells going all over the place but as teriblossom would tell us all very disciplined and fired with precision following exacting procedures.

My arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 11:21 AM

Dear Jom (A name he gave himself Raggy By the way - I rather liked it and retained the use of it)

This is heavy Artillery and the link below shows where it was deployed please use the link provided to show where Heavy Artillery was deployed in Dublin in 1916:

British Heavy Artillery 1914 to 1918

Now here is what was used in Dublin in 1916, they are Field Artillery pieces + a 12 pounder Naval QF Gun + a Naval 1 pounder Gun:


Naval 12 pounder


18 pounder Field Gun

Naval 1 pounder Gun - note shoulder rest



See the difference Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 11:52 AM

"This is heavy Artillery and the link below shows where it was deployed please use the link provided to show where Heavy Artillery was deployed in Dublin in 1916:"
Not again - you've had the statement based on the Firemen's logs.
I responded to all your points - as this seems to be the only one you want to challenge - I assume we have agreement on the rest.
"A name he gave himself Raggy By the way "
Another example of your small-mindedness - don't you find it a little pathetic to substitute typos for argument - which we are all prone to - you use my typo because your imagination doesn't extend to creating your own, Terrybyte - .
"I rather liked it and retained the use of it"
"Jom" - utterly earth-shattering -
Keith has not responded to one single point I have just put up - confirmation of his on-going claim of 'honesty'
Try again:
"26 Apr 16 - 07:14 AM"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 12:18 PM

Jim, a fireman may not understand the difference between heavy and field artillery.
There was nothing bigger than an 18 pounder in Dublin, and that is a field gun.

Steve, having given the full quote, I later conflated the two different disparaging words he used to dismiss each author into one.
No deceit. No change of meaning.
He rubbished both, and supported the findings of present day historians which was my case.

Rag, so I was right and the idiocy was yours.
An apology is in order.

The story teller said that the one pounder fired at the flag atop Bolands Mill tower from 400 yards.
Those shells would go far beyond the Liffey.

The story teller also says,
"the one pounder's return shot coming so close to hitting the Helga that the resultant explosion soaked their crew!"

There is less explosive in such a shell than a handgrenade.
The spray would not reach the deck, never mind soak the crew.
The whole yarn is fantasy.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 12:22 PM

Jim,
Keith has not responded to one single point I have just put up - confirmation of his on-going claim of 'honesty'

That is because I am not aware of any unanswered points.
I KEEP asking you put them to me.
Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 01:20 PM

Congratulations, Keith, for changing the English language in order to make "rather vulgar" mean the same thing as "fraudulent." While you're at it, would you also like to make "lie" mean the same thing as "truth?"

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Apr 16 - 01:44 PM

Some other bits from Raggy's link:

Dubliners cheered the British troops dragging the 1 pounder gun landed from the Helga into position to fire on the rebels.

Who was it that hoisted the flag on a top to deliberately mislead and misdirect fire thereby potentially putting civilian lives at risk - Eamon DeValera wasn't it Raggy? But as your link states - No lives were lost in the Artillery dual your link describes.

The link showing Liberty Hall shows that the gun-fire from the Helga wasn't too shoddy judging by the entry holes that can be seen.

Jom, as Keith A states Firemen probably had no idea what Heavy Artillery was, remember in 1914 the British didn't have any and unless the Firemen of Dublin kept themselves abreast of the changes being wrought in the army of Great Britain then there was no reason why they would know the difference - Sort of like you and Raggy they'd be clueless.

Now tell us all what Heavy Artillery Units of the British Army were deployed in Dublin on the 24th April 1916.

You have still to demonstrate where and when you have shot me down.