"Pretty rich, coming from someone with your diabolical record of puerile behaviour."
We are all prone to becoming abusive at times - no one here apart from Teribus permanently talks down to people as he does I suuggest you work your waty down the Easter Week thread, then try the W.W.1. threads
Then the Homs thread
Then the famine threads.
I can give and take with the rest of them, but when virtually posting is delivered with sneering contempt it wears a little thin.
I do not accept being permanently talked down to by anybody - not on a forum what is supposed to be a friendly and informative exchange of ideas.
This guy has been requested to stop - both of us were requested by Joe to lay off the name-calling - I did, this guy seems incapable
Go nad look at the threads I've named and come back and tell me it'snot the case, if it isn't I'll be happy to apologise.
"Blow-In Newcomers"
Which was a humorous (I though) comparison to your claim that Ireland had no right to a United Ireland becaue it hadn't been so prior to the Normans and it was aimed at your claims that the Protestant Unionist who were deliberated planted by Britain, who evicted the Irish to make room for them, yet had a right to demand the partitioning of Ireland - the irony of your argument doesn't appear to have sunk home yet.
Neither does it seem to have occurred to you that I am a blow in - I've been referred to as a blow-in (in a friendly way) and am happy to be regarded as one because that's what Pat and I are - even have a tee-shirt with it on somewhere.
You are grasping onto a passing comparison I made to score some sort of a point - I have never begrudged anybody living here - just those who threaten civil War if their demenads of partition weren't met.
I am not Irish, but my friends, neighbours and relatives are, so when you describe the Irish as gullible, hate-filled and brainwashed people who have no concept of their history and only demanded independence because they were conned into doing so by foreigners, it is them you are insulting - you compound your insults by refusing to persistent proof of your racist claims. Nor did I go to an irish, or even a Catholic school - but again , may family, many of my fiends and neigbhours dis so and their children still do - so when you describe the Irish as "brainwashed for generations to keep hate alive" they are the ones you are describing. The irony of your claims is that you might prove have proved them by providing an example of how that hate manifested itself - neither of you will.
I have no intention in taking up a subject you have already fouled up with your bad behavior - I was happy to debate elsewhere until you refused to desist with your behaviour.
"Shall I throw it in the bin with all the others?"
you could try answering it for a change.
"sources and quotations all given with an accurate dateline and chronology -"
Simply not true - you provide virtually no links, you actually refused to do so aying the facts were there if we care to look them up for ourselves.
A coule waved vaguely at rule books and Government documents, not tying up with anything you claimed, and your "chronology" was one that had been put up earlier to prove the opposite that is about the sum total of your links - though you are very welcome to prove me wrong.
"Really Jim? Care to give us some examples of that."
I have done, over and over again - all dismissed as "made up Carroll shit" or "irrelevant", despite the fact that every single one was linked or sourced to actual research without exception.
Your entire technique was to simply deny what didn't suit - you classic was to misquote a linked book that you didn't even understand the purpose of, let alone its contents.
I have "invented" nothing everything I claimed was carefully linked - virtually nothing of our was - easily provable one way or the other if you wish to do so.
I have no intention of making this a John Ford-like western streert brawl, wandering from thread to thread and leaving a trail of wreckage behind us.
I was prepared to continue with this on the original thread until it proved useless by using Keith's technique of rehashing subjects that had long been established (couldn't help but notice that you have resurrected he murder of the Rebels, condemned by the army and the British authorities as being illegal and so above board that the details a still inaccessible a century later, contrary to the British laws on disclose).
That sort of repetitious dishonesty becomes mind-numbingly pointless after a time.
As I said - bring your proof and I'll happily withdraw my accusations, otherwise, let's allow these people to get on with discussing her maj
Jim Carroll