"You assert it has swung since then. Any evidence?"
Kineally is the undisputed leading expert ion the subject - there is no argument as to her work and there is no serious opposition to Tim Pat Coogan's claims in The Famine Plot, apart from your two British historians.
An interest in the subject was revived shortly before we moved here and has still not abated - there has been a shift from dealing with the Famine as a natural disaster to one of a political one.
Prior to the anniversary commemoration there were two in-depth books on the famine, Mrs Woodham Smith's 'The Great Hunger' (as you say, a revisionist one, which criticised Britain's policy on all those subjects you refuse to respond to, but did not apportion full blame).
The other is entitled, 'Paddy's Lamentation - Ireland 1846-47', by Thomas Gallagher, which dealt largely with the effect that the famine had on British-Irish relations.
This is what Gallagher had to say about Trevelyan.
"Sir Charles Trevelyan remarked in 1846 that "the great evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people. " He then turned not to "popery" or to the "idolatry" of the Roman Catholic Church but to God Himself, that Great Disposer of Events, whose intentions were as unfathomable as they were holy and unassailable, and attributed the famine to Him. Since the Almighty had willed it, the English government would be presumptuous indeed to attempt any rash or precipitous solution. The Irish problem and overpopulation were, in his eyes, one and the same, and "being altogether beyond the power of man, the cure had been applied by the direct stroke of an all-wise Providence in a manner as unexpected and as unthought of as it is likely to be effectual. "
Later, in 1848, he admitted that the matter was "awfully serious, " but added, "we are in the hands of Providence, without a possibility of averting the catastrophe if it is to happen. " By then, though another half-million Irish had died, what Trevelyan perceived as catastrophe had still not happened. Obviously prepared to see the entire population wiped out, he said, "We can only wait the result. " He even went so far as to pity the Irish for not appreciating the hopelessness of their situation: "It is hard upon the poor people that they should be deprived of knowing that they are suffering from an affliction of God's providence."
All other books dealt with the effects of the Famine. particularly emigration, but nowhere is there any dispute about the disastrous effect of British policy on the Irish people - not even from the revisionist camp.   
You quote for historians as a "majority" - two based in Northern Ireland and arguing the revisionist line, one who sets out to exonerate Sir Charles Trevelyan and Cormac Ó Gráda, whose field of expertise was Famine in general, and whose claim to fame was pointing out that the Irish were forced to revert to cannibalism to stay alive during the period.
This is from a summing up of his book.
"
The Irish Famine of 1846–50 was one of the great disasters of the nineteenth century, whose notoriety spreads as far as the mass emigration which followed it. Cormac O'Gráda's concise survey suggests that a proper understanding of the disaster requires an analysis of the Irish economy before the invasion of the potato-killing fungus, Phytophthora infestans, highlighting Irish poverty and the importance of the potato, but also finding signs of economic progress before the Famine. Despite the massive decline in availability of food, the huge death toll of one million (from a population of 8.5 million) was hardly inevitable; there are grounds for supporting the view that a less doctrinaire attitude to famine relief would have saved many lives. This book provides an up-to-date introduction by a leading expert to an event of major importance in the history of nineteenth-century Ireland and Britain.""
"As I keep telling you, I am not able to discuss the history with you."
You are discussing history with me, despite the fact that you have not read anything on the subject, you have no knowledge on it and you are not even interested in it
It is sheer, breathtaking arrogance that you should go on for the length of time you have and made the dismissive and insulting statements that you have on something that you admit you know nothing about, nor are interested in finding out about - this is sheer insanity.
If you claim there is a majority absolving Britain from blame - it is up to you to prove there is.
The revisionist claim was basewd on two books and very little else - now there are several dozens available on all aspects of the famine
"Suffice that the historians know everything you know"
Then quote them on my arguments instead of hiding behind your self confessed ignorance and disinterest.
"I deny supporting any particular view on the famine."
Deny away - you have been presented with a list of examples of that support- making your claims open lies.
As you now appear to be out of the closet in your claim of a majority, I assume you are withdrawing your denying ever to have claimed suuch a thing
"My denials were the truth. Your accusations false."
Get a grip Keith - especially on reality.
You cannot hide behind historians you have not read, despite your attempts to do so on everything
Jim Carroll