"My case was that not all historians agree with Jim."
Your claim is that the majority of historians My case was that not all historians don't agree with Jim. agree with Jim - stop lying
In fact, the revisionist view of history has been in the minority since the 150th anniversary of the Famine which inspired a fresh look at the events and is now debating the causes.
"It is not one of my interests. Sorry"
Then you have no right to drag out this thread as you have and you certainly have no right to insult those of us who do have an interest - sorry.
"It is not my view, never has been and never been claimed."
You have made that claim numerous times - sorry
""The professional historians who are, overwhelmingly do not agree with you and Coogan"
"Do not put things in quotes and ascribe them to me if I never said them."
Has this been posted by a troll then.
or this
"whose history is "80 years out-of-date" and the majority of modern historians who have claimed the old version to be false"
or this
"We are told that revisionists have long been the majority"
"The majority do not and have not for over eighty years."
or this
"The majority do not and have not for over eighty years."
or this
"Should we believe a Wiki entry "The vast majority of historians place the murderous outcome of the famine firmly at the door of the Whig Government" that directly contradicts what the actual historians actually state?"
or this
"The majority are revisionists and reject that."
"We are told that revisionists have long been the majority."
Or this
You have had the facts on historians. Most do not support your version of events.
Or this
There is debate and most historians now do not find Britain culpable.
Or this
"So, does anyone deny that there is historical debate, and right now most historians do not find that Britain can be held culpable?"
Or this
As does the direction to Irish (and NY) schools to teach that Britain was culpable even though it can not be justified in the opinion of most historians.
Or this
Musket, I have no opinion but I note that most historians do not apportion blame
Or this
Yes there is. Most historians.
Or this
Why decree they teach a version of events that most historians do not support? The result in Ireland has been that many people, like Jim, are unaware that the issue is even disputed.
Or this
Jim, you are still posting at great length a version of events that you conceded is not endorsed by most historians!
Or this
Yes, but as you agreed, most historians deny culpability. You are posting vast acreages of a minority opinion.
Or this
From he in response to another of your lies
"Jim, you are still posting at great length a version of events that you conceded is not endorsed by most historians!"
By the way - where on earth have I ever conceded that my view is not endorsed by most historians"


"My case was that not all historians agree with Jim.
Later it emerged that most do not."
Anther lie - it as emerged that over the last twenty years the revisionist view that let Britain off the hook has been re-examined and the revisionists are now in the minority - you have been reduced to only 2 examples of British historians to make your case.
Perhaps if you stop lying, those of us who are genuinely interested in the subject can continue, if we should so wish
Jim Carroll