"You have only read books that tell your chosen version of events."
You have no idea of either what books I have read or what my 'version of events' might be again, you are diverting the discussion away from the balls you have made of it.
You cannot possibly be influenced by the "findings of historians" if you have never read what those findings are - you have proved that over and over again
My "vast tracts" have largely come from Kinealy, who a fellow Mudcatter introduced to this forum, followed by Neilson - both used by you to support your case and both blown up in your face.
How ****** dare you claim to know what I read, and how dare you suggest I am selective in my reading you dishonest little shit
Have I read any "revisionist" historians - I introduced Cecil Woodham Smith into this discussion - you wrote her off as "revisionist" - Tim Pat Coogan "revisionist republican.
I have always read as widely as possible on any subject that interests me - it's you who "selects" what you never get round to reading.
Try Robert Kee, Cathal Portair, Grieves Barder, Mansegher, Percival, Gallagher - even Marx and Engles... an entire spectrum of writers giving dozens of points of view in Irish history
and the dozen more I have on the shelves here - not counting the countless library books I've borrowed down the years.
You apparently don't even bother to read your own posts - you are apparently suffering from a sever bout of studied illiteracy on every singly subject you choose to foul up with your ignorance.
Now go and read a book
Jim Carroll