Well Backwoodsman it all depends on whether a discussion is based upon fact or lies, or whether or not you yourself are interested in the truth. "Heads on backwards", "Huffing and Puffing" wouldn't be too bad if that is all it was, but these prats are using such lies and misrepresentations as justification for murdering people and planting bombs today not in the past.

For some reason Jim Carroll believes that the Irish Delegegation were threatened with invasion and coerced into signing the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6th December 1921.

Yet when confronted with the actual notes of that meeting that show no such threats were made and that there was no mention of anyone being under duress, who should I believe - Robert Barton who was actually there taking the notes of the meeting or Jim Carroll who just seems to make stuff up as he goes along.

The Prime Minister then asked again if the delegation was prepared to stand by the Articles of Agreement, as now amended, Oath and all. Only Griffith promised that he would.
The Prime Minister, of course, needed more than this: all must sign they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced. - apparently taken from The Damnable Question (pp 338-339) by Geoge Dangerfield, 1976

Number of things wrong with that, but Backwoodsman if you are prepared to accept inaccuracies and misrepresentations upon which to base any opinions all well and good read no further.

1) Arthur Griffiths was the Leader of the Irish Delegation

2) Now this bit just does not sit right:
The Prime Minister, of course, needed more than this: all must sign they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced.

What is he talking about of course they all signed it, and here are those signatures:

Anglo-Irish Treaty Signatures

I think that there is a word missing there it should not read:
"all must sign they did not" I think that should read, "all must sign, if they did not" - then it accords with what happened and with what Robert Barton reported.

3) As to laying the matter before the Dail. Griffiths and Collins travelled to these peace negotiations with plenipotentiary powers meaning that they could agree to and sign anything WITHOUT having to refer back to anybody - That is a simple matter of record and Jim Carroll denies this??

I am not at all surprised that ositojuianito should find this boring. Poor thing after years on the Provo payroll being fed drugs in part payment has been left with the intelligence and attention span of a goldfish, evidenced by him having to create a new membership identity everytime he logs on to send threatening or obscene PMs to members of this forum (ositojuianito today; formerly "Teriibus"; formerly "pornstar emilie"; formerly Nuala Massey (Fraud); formerly "Ivor Bell")

Poor dear would not know a true fact if he was smacked across the head with it. But hopefully in these recession hit times the portacabin with all those second hand computers won't be locked up so he can continue to type away as the methadone goes to work - don't worry chum you might be "clean" one day, but judging by the crap you come out with I rather fear that pigs have more chance of flying.