"One more time, I am not debating history with you."
No you most certainly are not
"I just thought that both sides should be put."
Far from adopting a neutral, 'Devil's advocate' stance you have rejected with contempt and accusation anybody who has put forward the established facts of the famine.
You decided on a line at the outset and you stuck to it without producing a single scrap of evidence to back up your claims - your stance throughout has been to absolve Britain from blame, pure and simple - and your flag-waving nationalism has been pointed out to you by several people.
"Not all historians agree that Britain should be blamed."
Not true, otherwise produce one modern (or earlier) historian who has shown, or claims to have shown that:
Russell didn't reverse Peel's humane policy by locking up the food supplies in warehouses so as not to upset the markets.
That there wasn't enough food to feed the Irish population throughout the famine and that the greatest number of these were at the height of the suffering 'Black '47'
That thousands of ships carrying enough food to feed the starving didn't sail out of Ireland headed for British markets.
That the Home Secretary's introduction of a land tax didn't open the doors to the mass eviction of of over 300,000 families
That the homes of those evicted were not destroyed by the armed police and soldiers who were supplied by the British government to facilitate the evictions.
That those evictions were a major cause of the deaths and led to people dying without shelter and protection from the elements as well as from hunger.
That the man put in charge of food distribution didn't regard the Irish with contempt and declare openly that "the famine was God's punishment for the sins of the Irish.... or any other action or inaction by the British government that turned what started out as a natural disaster into a massive crime against humanity - probably the British Empire's greatest
None of these facts are in dispute, the only differences among historians is whether it was a deliberate act of genocide, ineptitude or cold, economically driven politicking.
You have not produced "another side of the argument" to "censor" or "suppress" - nobody disputes any of these facts, and you have ignored all but one of them which you put up a feeble defence for and have now reverted to your 'radio silence' on.
"Apart from defending myself from your abuse, my whole contribution would fit on one page."
Patently not true (want me to do a word count of our personal dispute here - happy to oblige?) - our inevitable arguments centre around accusations you have made against anybody who has opposed your - non-information - out--of-date, republican, revisionist, nationalist.
It is doubtful if your knowledge of the subject would fill a quarter of a page, but this hasn't stopped you from making over a hundred postings and dominating this thread with vaccuous nothings.`
Jim Carroll