Messages

[Just admit you didn't read it]

Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

Your post quoted everything. 

This isn't too hard. I responded to easy tiger's post, with my post.

Your post then respond to mine. But we are supposed to know, without any indication that you also responded to one other post, and only one, contained in the list of quoted posts, without telling us which one it was.

Even better you left the bold sentences intact, so it looked initially that you might be referring to them, but as none of them came from me, that didn't make sense either.

Yes it did.  Including easytiger's post.  It took a while but we got there in the end.

The indication was that I said "both" statements.  Since you had only made one, logic would dictate that there may be another somewhere out there in the ether.  And in fact, just to make it easy for you, I left it in the very next line above your statement.  If that wasn't enough, they were the only posts in the thread I quoted since my previous post.  You didn't read it and gave a smartarse response based on that.  But as it was in fact you who had been remiss, you are now left looking a little silly.  Oopsie.

Oh I know how it works.  My post quoted both your post and easytiger's.

I only referred to you directly in the second part of the post.

Just admit you didn't read it so as everyone can move on from this.

[And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'. Some facts may be uncomfortable. They are still facts.]

Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.

Fanatical adherence to dogma is the bane of modern society.

Are both these statements facts or opinions?

And again muppet, can we please have less of the ad hominem attacks.  It's getting tiresome.

First of all it is one statement.

Secondly, it is clearly an opinion.

Thirdly I was thinking of ISIS, the NRA, and any terrorist organisation you can think of, the Catholic's reaction to clerical abuse, etc, etc. Look at what is gong on in the world.

It isn't all about you.

I clearly quoted both you and easytiger.

It isn't all about you.

[And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'. Some facts may be uncomfortable. They are still facts.]

Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

More opinion by a closed mind.

Fact - over 60% of the "people of the north" didn't want any hand act or part in a free or home rule All Ireland
Fact - the anti Treatyites were opposed to the Oath of allegaince and the fact that the proposed Irish Free State would be a self governing British Dominion rather than an Independent Republic. That's what the Civil war was fought over - not the Status of the North Eastern 6 Counties.
Question - how was a ramshackle army of half trained and badly armed guerillas going to invade and overcome a well armed similar army of Unionists and the army of the biggest Empire in the World?
Opinion - Many thousands of lives would be lost and we would have ended up with a "Southern Ireland" of either 23 or 26 Counties with a local devolved administration as proposed by the Brits' Government of Ireland Act 1920. We would all still be British Citizens and would all be only entitled to British Nationality.

Unless you can provide sources, your two "facts" are also opinions.  I don't believe a survey of the anti treatyites was ever conducted asking why they were fighting?

As for your question, the same "ramshackle army" had got things that far.

You opinion I'll counter with a fact.  Many thousands of lives were lost, but only in the north of course.

[And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'. Some facts may be uncomfortable. They are still facts.]

Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Not based in reality so not very good.

Fanatical adherence to dogma is the bane of modern society.

Are both these statements facts or opinions?

And again muppet, can we please have less of the ad hominem attacks.  It's getting tiresome.

[And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'. Some facts may be uncomfortable. They are still facts.]

Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

i think the basic argument here Franko is that you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Fact - the Dail voted by 64-57 to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.

Opinion - those who voted yes were "treacherous cowards".

No matter how much you'd like to, you still can't change the fact that the former is a fact and the latter is an opinion. Fact.

And now, back to the reality based universe...

How about that for a reality based universe?

Point of order- blue shirts only came into existence in 1933/34.
If the treaty hadn't been accepted by the Dàil what were the few hundred volunteers armed with an assortment of guns going to do exactly?

Who knows.  But they chose to ditch the people of the north and save their own hides.  'Freedom to win freedom' was never going to work and anyone with an ounce of political wit would have seen that.  3000 odd deaths in the troubles sorted that one.

And the comment on arguments being 'fact free'.  Some facts may be uncomfortable.  They are still facts.

And as for your point of order, it's more a colloquial term.  Muppet mentioned 'paddies' earlier on.  Could you tell me when exactly that grouping was formed?

[Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole]

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.    Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

So in the choice of "an immediate and terrible war" or the "freedom to win freedom" you would have chosen war?

No. 1
That phrase was never used.  The man who Lloyd George was supposed to have said that to has confined this and his negotiation notes do not record it.

No. 2
The 'freedom to win freedom'.  Don't make me laugh! That turned out well for the people of the North didn't it?

Even taking those two statements at face value, I most certainly would have voted no.  1 year previously the British had created a deliberately gerrymandered parliament in the north to ensure that the pro-British people would always have a ruling majority over their Nationalist neighbours.  If their actions over the previous few centuries wasn't already enough, would this not have made it clear to you what their intentions were towards the 6 counties?  They ensured that 'freedom to win freedom' would only ever be a pipe dream. The blueshirts knew this full well, but still they sold it to the people.

The facts are what happened.

What you, I or anyone else think of those facts is opinion.

If it looks like a duck...

[Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole]

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.    Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

Let me get his right.

You think because you call someone a treacherous coward, it is a 'fact'?

The facts are not in dispute.  That's how they behaved.  It may be unpalatable for you but it doesn't change what happened.

[Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole]

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.    Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

Yes you 'treacherous coward', or maybe you meant voter?

So, if the vote had been no, do you think everything would have been all sweetness and light? Do you think the Brits would have said, oh bollox, we never thought you would outflank us with a brilliant no vote! You ingenious Paddies, now what the f*ck do we do? Maybe we won't ask the Black & Tans this time. Maybe we will ask Franko.

Nope, I meant treacherous coward - this might be the third time I've said that.  Sometimes it's not hyperbole, it's just a fact.

And no, I didn't say it was all going to be sweetness and light.  It obviously wasn't.  But the blueshirts way around this was to say "feck it, we'll leave the people of the north at the mercy of the British forces, we'll be grand down here in our new dominion".  Treacherous cowards.

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

If all that was asked, as you put it, was simply ' Just tick a box', one or the other presumably, then how could you be a 'treacherous coward'?

If ticking one box meant more war, then no matter you viewed it, it was hardly as simple as 'Just tick a box', was it?

Why always the over-simplification on one hand when it suits, and the hyperbole, 'treacherous cowards' on the other, again when it suits? It sounds like Paisleyite rhetoric that isn't supposed to be questioned, just followed.

Indeed, I'm the one with the hyperbole.    Coming from you who has accused me of asking people to "go off and die" for me and using "Paisleyite rhetoric".  I'm beginning to think you actually are doing this on purpose because there's no way someone could be stupid as not to realise the double standards you are employing.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?

I thought you weren't allowed to do that?  I though that made you "no better" than the oppressors?

The oppressors who, incidentally, your former comrades had joined forces with to ensure that the vote was embraced by the people.  This was the same empire who had ignored the democratic will of the people a few years previously and you are blustering about how this vote had to be accepted?  An outstanding bit of moral contortionism.

Oblige me here muppet, what way do you think you would have voted?

I am asking you, the one who bravely calls dead people treacherous cowards, why your people didn't fight?

But I am glad you agree with me that Irish killing Irish are no better than Brits killing Irish. And possibly worse.


As for the vote, today, knowing what I know, I would have voted no. But who knows how I would have voted then.

I would probably have been struggling to survive in the poorest part of the poorest country in Ireland. I would have hated the country that put me in that situation, but the thought of going off any dying for people who might call me a treacherous coward, probably wouldn't have appealed to me much. I might have thought of emigrating to get the feck out of the place. Just like around half of my ancestors who had come west to escape the crap in Ulster. Of course it is easy to forget any of the context today.

You must think you know me muppet?  I don't believe we've been introduced.  I'm not going to start detailing the actions of my people on this board, but what I will say is that, unlike a lot, I'd be proud of the way they behaved.  And you can throw out whatever mumbling platitiudes you like about 'dead people', I stand by my comments.

And again, nobody asked you to go off and die.  All was asked was that you didn't vote to split your country.

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.

Why didn't you fight?

The Anti-Treaty people would surely have joined you. Why didn't they fight in the 6 counties anyway?

I thought you weren't allowed to do that?  I though that made you "no better" than the oppressors?

The oppressors who, incidentally, your former comrades had joined forces with to ensure that the vote was embraced by the people.  This was the same empire who had ignored the democratic will of the people a few years previously and you are blustering about how this vote had to be accepted?  An outstanding bit of moral contortionism.

Oblige me here muppet, what way do you think you would have voted?

[constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko]

Franko's summary isn't far out at all. Dev made the situation worse by allowing the church have too much influence in everything.

Really?

You are happy to be one of these:

"those treacherous cowards who said 'ya know what, I'm sick of fighting the Brits, let's shaft these poor cnuts in the north and we'll get what we're after'."

Between Fearon's insistence on a homophobic Ireland and the constant abuse from eternal victims like Franko, my head is beginning to question my heart on the issue of a UI.

PS, I'm not sure if you meant it or not but the part in bold is brilliantly ironic. 

Thank you. It was quite deliberate.

And as for the ad hominem, are you also being ironic, unless 'treacherous cowards' was meant as a compliment. 

Yeah, sure it was! 

The treacherous cowards comment obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the 26. There were, after all, a huge portion of decent people who had the backbone and principles to say no to the Brits' plan.  But if the cap fits...

Not everyone?

What is the criteria to be one or the other? Should they have wanted to die for you?

Nope, not die. Just tick a box.

So people who don't vote as you want them to are 'treacherous cowards'?

No, no. The treacherous cowards comment was reserved for those who voted to cut their fellow Irishmen loose to achieve their own aims. Yep, that was treachery and cowardice.

This is the problem with democracy. When you lose, you have to accept it. Or else you find a way to win the next vote. You could of course try to shoot and bomb your way to what you want. But then you are no better than your oppressors. In fact I think you would be even worse, as you are killing your own.

The anti-treaty people didn't even show up for the next vote, ceremonial as it may have been. But with the original vote so tight, surely it was worth trying to persuade the 4 TDs necessary to reverse their votes?

Oh, the vote was accepted, the blueshirts and the Brits joined forces to make sure of that.  As for the north, feck them, sure we're alright.