BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916

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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:21 AM

Another link for you and territowelling, professor.


Link

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:12 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 - 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: 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 - 02:42 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: 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: 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: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 05:17 PM

You have so! Nyah Nyah!

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 09:59 AM

Quite right Bridge - no go tell the Spartans

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 09:55 AM

"Will you now give an example of untruths "
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
You have denigrated the entire Irish nation and refuse to qualify your attacks -- not lying as such, but certainly evasive dishonesty.
Terrytoon doesn't usually lie as such - just makes prononcments and retires into silence when shot down......
Sorry, but you did ask (and I didn't mention your posting under a false identity!!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:41 AM

Dick, of course it is true that any act of parliament can be overturned by another, but in practice it does not happen, certainly not within a couple of years.

When the bill was being passed Britain had no intention of becoming involved in any war between Germany and France, so it was assumed by all involved that it would come into force at once.

The people of Ireland were content to get the war out of the way first and then have the peaceful transition of power that everyone except believers in blood sacrifice wanted.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 06:32 AM

Steve, if you are going to throw muck at members, saying you can not believe a word they say, you should be prepared to justify the accusation.
Really you should not attack a person at all, just what they actually say.
You were given examples of someone else's false statements, who you chose not to attack.

Will you now give an example of untruths from T and me?
If not you should withdraw the slander.

Wheatcroft.
You accused me of dishonesty because I only partially quoted him, when I had quoted the passage in full just 2 days before.
So there was no deception and no dishonesty at all, and that was back in 2014!

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 04:17 AM

Why don't you just become a member, HiLo, then you can tell me which point I am missing?

Is it the point that we should not be hoodwinked by glossy history books in shops or the point that we should only believe glossy history books in shops?

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 03:45 AM

Good Soldier Schweik - 24 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

The 1914 Irish Home Rule Bill received Royal Assent on the 18th September 1914 - that having been signed meant that it would be put into effect, the fact that the country was at war delayed that implementation - those are the clearly established facts and they are a simple matter of record.

The matter would not go back to the Commons or to the Lords, it is British Parliamentary procedure today as well as back then that the Lords only get the chance to "amend" Bills proposed by the Commons for three readings after which they go through irrespective of what the House of Lords thinks - again that is well recorded fact to anyone who knows anything about the British Parliamentary system.

The above being true means that having received Royal Assent in 1914 and under a separate Parliamentary Bill which delayed implementation until after the war, then Irish Home Rule was a done deal as far as the Westminster Parliament was concerned - no matter of opinion enters into it. Implementation of Irish Home Rule was in fact the first thing the elected Government turned its hand to after the 1918 elections - again clearly established fact that can be easily checked, it is a matter of Parliamentary record.

Steve Shaw - 24 Apr 16 - 08:18 AM

" we often find we can't believe a word you say."

In that case why don't you check what is being said? You never have come back with any facts to counter what has been said, which leads one to believe that you either didn't check, or that you did check and found the information given correct? The other alternative is that you are just arguing for the sake of it based on perceived personalities - I think that it is the latter that is in fact the case.

But just for the record I have never supported any political party in my life, I have however seen the damage to our country wrought by them and am perfectly capable in forming my own opinion as which ones have been the worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 03:09 AM

I was hoping this thread could be kept in the music section, since so many songs sprang from the Easter Rising. Alas, this thread has deteriorated into the usual squabbling, so I have to admit defeat.
I kept the music posts in the music section, and moved the rest to BS.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:50 AM

We were talking about history Joe God, you just don,t get it do you? I think it is both a shame and a disgrace that you have so much power to control debate here. you yourself engaged in this fairly civil discussion relating to history. not all of YOUR posts have dealt exclusively with the Easter rising.
I do wish two things, restore what you have deleted and and stop being so hypocritical.
I do not expect this post to last , but I hope it remains long enough that others may comment

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 01:11 AM

The last ten messages or so had nothing to do with the Easter Rising, so I deleted them. Keeping this thread in the music section is an experiment, to see if we can have civil and on-topic discussions of controversial topics here if they are related to music. I undeleted most of the messages after I moved the thread to the BS section.
-Joe Offer, Music Editor-

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:59 AM

Of course it should read "emperor". , sorry !

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 25 Apr 16 - 12:12 AM

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

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 08:00 PM

Well you might as well be telling me that I can't comment on Liverpool matches because I haven't actually played for the first team. Absurd.

You will not find me commenting, ever, on the quality of historical sources. Why not? Because I don't read any, that's why. I don't step beyond the bounds of my very limited knowledge. Prove that I do, if you dare. But you appear to have this problem, thinking that I'm not able to extrapolate from my scientific background, which requires a good deal of automatic scepticism about everything I'm told, to any other topic. Well, I assure you that my grounding is quite sound. Unlike science, and unfortunately for those history buffs who would like to claim exclusivity, there is nothing technical about reading history. A non-specialist is perfectly capable of reading even the most testing historical tome with little difficulty, given a sufficient degree of curiosity and desire for background knowledge. So please don't come the "how many history books have you actually read, Steve?" bullshit. Irrelevant. If I glean that you don't agree, be very wary of ever saying anything about science at all. I just might be on your case, and you won't have a leg to stand on.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 07:07 PM

Name a few Steve! I am curious who you have read ?

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:57 PM

No, but you'd have to be far more saintly than any modern historian you choose to name in order to execute that study without all manner of bias creeping in.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:45 PM

Dave, with all " due" respect, you have a great gift for missing the point! you constantly go back to previous threads, please try and focus on the discussion at hand.
also , I will observe that "left wing " ideology is also rife with bias.
An ideology, left or right is not what the study of history is about, those ideologies are what politics and social science are about. just my take on it based on many years of close study.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 06:36 PM

That's entirely your problem. I did explain it to you.

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

"Get a grip" right back to you, Steve. Whatever the motivations or context, or whoever the "both of you" you apostrophise, your

"right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say"

will bear no interpretation other than that which I put on it, of dishonesty implicit in any "king-&-country" postulation. Can't see how you can deny it.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 04:37 PM

Not everyone is hoodwinked by glossy books in a shop.

Just those who insist that historians can only be taken seriously if they have books published in high street book shops by any chance?

Just asking...

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:34 PM

We're not agonising about your history, some of us. We're right with you. But denial and revisionism cast long shadows. That's what this unseemly tussle is about. Know thine enemies!

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: GUEST,Dr. Modette
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:24 PM

It's great fun (not!) watching a bunch of Brits agonise about our history.

Meanwhile, many thousands of us have been out on the streets today celebrating and commemorating those who died in 1916.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 03:10 PM

Oh, wasn't it Steve? -- then kindly explain what you meant by

"both of you with your obvious right-wing king-and-country bias, we often find we can't believe a word you say."

Michael, don't do this please. The comment you're taking issue with was inextricably connected to the bit you didn't quote about Teribus's twisting of my words. They do have that bias, both of them, vide their extensive posting history sycophantically defending those wax-moustachioed society toffs who sent millions to their deaths in the Great War. But my beef was with the twisting of my words. Get a grip, Michael, and don't waste my time.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:50 PM

Absolutely right, Dick.

"Perhaps you can remember an untrue word?
I think not, and certainly not from me on Wheatcroft or anything else."

That's completely untrue for a start. You must think we have very short memories. You completely misrepresented the man then brazenly denied it, and Teribus backed you to the hilt. I suspect it was more a case of his closing ranks than feeling enthusiastic about you.

Subject: RE: Easter Rising - April 24-29, 1916
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Apr 16 - 01:34 PM

"Do we know whether or not Ireland would have been granted Home Rule? Yes of course we do,"
this is just your opinion, but is not based on fact, the fact that a bill is on the statute book does not mean it will be passed or rejected, it is something we will never know., it is akin to predicting which horse will win a race or whether it will be a non runner. no one can predict the future