1981 remembered

[lynchbhoy]

Yer some laugh alright - a unionist/loyalist masquerading as a taig and you serve up that pathetic 'response'  !

As for that Cain sihte - well having read some reports myself and spotting their blatant innaccuracies ( or spin/bias whatever you want to call it) it showed that the report was not true to fact/reality.
Since then others have commented on here and in real life that the report/database is seriously flawed and innaccurate. So it's not just me.
Eg in relation to various Hunger strike 'tales' - cain's details are very wrong and having two ex hunger strikers and members of the family of a deceased hunger striker as my sources ( as well as my own memory) - well I know what I'd trust!
Are you to apologize to me now?
Unlikely given your lack of honour!

Why would I apologise when you've just repeated the offence? You've repeatedly termed the Cain database as 'discredited', when it seems that your only evidence for this is that 'others have commented' on it. You talk about 'blatant innacuracies' (sic) but don't say what these are or explain why they are inaccurate. You seem to think that just because you think something or say something, it must therefore be true. Like I said, some neck.

That sums you up really ... No class as well as no honour !!!!

[Maguire01]

As for that Cain sihte - well having read some reports myself and spotting their blatant innaccuracies ( or spin/bias whatever you want to call it) it showed that the report was not true to fact/reality.
Since then others have commented on here and in real life that the report/database is seriously flawed and innaccurate. So it's not just me.
Eg in relation to various Hunger strike 'tales' - cain's details are very wrong and having two ex hunger strikers and members of the family of a deceased hunger striker as my sources ( as well as my own memory) - well I know what I'd trust!

Any chance of specific examples of inaccuracies or spin?

As I have said already - reports from the hunger strikes littered with glaring falsehoods from when I scanned through some of their stuff. Eg Brit gov not negotiating, men in comas when they weren't , decisions supposedly being made for the hunger strikers by the IRA army council etc etc and way more than that - those are just the bits I can be bothered to remember - and that's only the innaccuracies regarding the Hunger Strikes.

Again, that's all well and good that you're convinced, but it's all still a bit vague for me. As it is, it's your word vs the work of Universities. I've also never seen any other criticism of its credibility. You can see why I ask.
If for example, you could contradict specific content... it shouldn't be hard to quote specifics if it's so 'littered' with examples.

So will you give it a rest now and listen to folk who may know a bit more than your good self on such topics ( with the greatest of respect maguire)

Greatest of respect? If only you weren't so condescending and patronising. I must bow to your great knowledge... and not even question it apparently.

[Minder]

Lynchboy doesent really do specifics or sources when countering an argument.

[lynchbhoy]

As for that Cain sihte - well having read some reports myself and spotting their blatant innaccuracies ( or spin/bias whatever you want to call it) it showed that the report was not true to fact/reality.
Since then others have commented on here and in real life that the report/database is seriously flawed and innaccurate. So it's not just me.
Eg in relation to various Hunger strike 'tales' - cain's details are very wrong and having two ex hunger strikers and members of the family of a deceased hunger striker as my sources ( as well as my own memory) - well I know what I'd trust!

Any chance of specific examples of inaccuracies or spin?

As I have said already - reports from the hunger strikes littered with glaring falsehoods from when I scanned through some of their stuff. Eg Brit gov not negotiating, men in comas when they weren't , decisions supposedly being made for the hunger strikers by the IRA army council etc etc and way more than that - those are just the bits I can be bothered to remember - and that's only the innaccuracies regarding the Hunger Strikes.

Again, that's all well and good that you're convinced, but it's all still a bit vague for me. As it is, it's your word vs the work of Universities. I've also never seen any other criticism of its credibility. You can see why I ask.
If for example, you could contradict specific content... it shouldn't be hard to quote specifics if it's so 'littered' with examples.

So will you give it a rest now and listen to folk who may know a bit more than your good self on such topics ( with the greatest of respect maguire)

Greatest of respect? If only you weren't so condescending and patronising. I must bow to your great knowledge... and not even question it apparently.

If its not enough for you then that's fine.  Nothing patronizing in it at all. You either know or you don't.
You either have proper credible sources or you don't. I'd not be relying on claptrap like cain.
Do yourself and get off yer ass and check out from other sources - pick any story or topic from it and you can be guaranteed to find contradictory versions.
Then come back to me. ( and tell me I'm right!)

[Main Street]

McCreesh family deny British claim
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1231/1224309675206.html

Apparantly the claims made by the British in that document are sourced from a  credible (cough) source, a prison officer.
But once it's in black and white, Maguire et al, would be swallowing it wholesale

'British state papers released under the 30-year rule allege that, five days before he died, McCreesh indicated a willingness to accept nourishment, but that his family advised against such intervention.'

A statement issued yesterday (by the McCreesh family) said the document was "untrue" and "inaccurate" in its account of statements attributed to family members.

"The family have always been convinced that the situation was deliberately engineered by authorities in government and the prison service to break the hunger strike.

"Agents of the state abused the extremely vulnerable condition of a dying man for political and propaganda purposes. When their efforts failed they attempted to vilify the family. This episode stands as a testament to the depravity of the state at the time, and as a measure of the shameless depths to which government was prepared to go to achieve their goals."

[seafoid]

I remember watching Anything goes one Satuday morning in 1981 when the programme was suddenly stopped because there was a massive fire at the Stardust in Artane . The post fire corruption was very Irish.

[ardal]

Actaually heard the Hunger strike, 1981 and Brtitish papers being released on RTE the other day.

One thing they did get right was "remember that the British person involved wrote thes notes etc"

it took them a while but even rte gets it right once in a while

[Maguire01]

Do yourself and get off yer ass and check out from other sources - pick any story or topic from it and you can be guaranteed to find contradictory versions.
Then come back to me. ( and tell me I'm right!)

That's like telling an atheist to go and prove that God exists.

You made the claims, therefore the onus is on you to back them up - if you don't want to, that's up to you.

[Maguire01]

Apparantly the claims made by the British in that document are sourced from a  credible (cough) source, a prison officer.
But once it's in black and white, Maguire et al, would be swallowing it wholesale

I take accounts from both sides with a healthy dose of sceptecism, which is more than can be said for some. There are many accounts where the credibility of the source can be called into question.

I'm surprised you can't differentiate between this and requests for someone to back up their claims of that a database compiled by two respected institutions (University of Ulster and Queen's) has no credibility. It's not even as if i'm claiming CAIN to be 100% complete and accurate - just asking someone who claims the opposite to back up that claim.

[Main Street]

Apparantly the claims made by the British in that document are sourced from a  credible (cough) source, a prison officer.
But once it's in black and white, Maguire et al, would be swallowing it wholesale

I take accounts from both sides with a healthy dose of sceptecism, which is more than can be said for some. There are many accounts where the credibility of the source can be called into question.

I'm surprised you can't differentiate between this and requests for someone to back up their claims of that a database compiled by two respected institutions (University of Ulster and Queen's) has no credibility. It's not even as if i'm claiming CAIN to be 100% complete and accurate - just asking someone who claims the opposite to back up that claim.

Were you not invited to pick an issue which is given an account of on the Cain site and look up for yourself
the other versions. Why is it that the Cain version becomes the result of respected research, by default?

Heres one straight of the bat,
How on earth can a chronology be flecked up?   I mean all one has to do in a chronology, is put in a timeline
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/hstrike/chronology.htm

Thursday 18 December 1980
1980 Hunger Strike Ended
'The Republican hunger strike at the Maze Prison, and other prisons in Northern Ireland, was called off following the appeal by Tomás Ó Fiaich, then Catholic Primate of Ireland, on 17 December 1980.'

Now, factually you can write, that yes the first HS was called off following the Cardinal's appeal, but here in this chronology it is assumed the HS was called off because of the appeal, or that the appeal had a huge bearing on calling off the HS.
For example, if a chronology is to be done on the life of an individual, and it states
1980 car crash - broken leg - out of work for 3 months. 
We assume the person broke his leg as a consequence of the car crash and we assume that because of the injury the person was out of work for a period.

Now just a basic investigation of the ending of the first HS tells me that this Cain chronology is opinionated, poorly researched and misdirecting the reader.
You tell me that this is the work of two respected institutions?  It took me 30 seconds to find this.

[lynchbhoy]

Apparantly the claims made by the British in that document are sourced from a  credible (cough) source, a prison officer.
But once it's in black and white, Maguire et al, would be swallowing it wholesale

I take accounts from both sides with a healthy dose of sceptecism, which is more than can be said for some. There are many accounts where the credibility of the source can be called into question.

I'm surprised you can't differentiate between this and requests for someone to back up their claims of that a database compiled by two respected institutions (University of Ulster and Queen's) has no credibility. It's not even as if i'm claiming CAIN to be 100% complete and accurate - just asking someone who claims the opposite to back up that claim.

Were you not invited to pick an issue which is given an account of on the Cain site and look up for yourself
the other versions. Why is it that the Cain version becomes the result of respected research, by default?

Heres one straight of the bat,
How on earth can a chronology be flecked up?   I mean all one has to do in a chronology, is put in a timeline
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/hstrike/chronology.htm

Thursday 18 December 1980
1980 Hunger Strike Ended
'The Republican hunger strike at the Maze Prison, and other prisons in Northern Ireland, was called off following the appeal by Tomás Ó Fiaich, then Catholic Primate of Ireland, on 17 December 1980.'

Now, factually you can write, that yes the first HS was called off following the Cardinal's appeal, but here in this chronology it is assumed the HS was called off because of the appeal, or that the appeal had a huge bearing on calling off the HS.
For example, if a chronology is to be done on the life of an individual, and it states
1980 car crash - broken leg - out of work for 3 months. 
We assume the person broke his leg as a consequence of the car crash and we assume that because of the injury the person was out of work for a period.

Now just a basic investigation of the ending of the first HS tells me that this Cain chronology is opinionated, poorly researched and misdirecting the reader.
You tell me that this is the work of two respected institutions?  It took me 30 seconds to find this.

100% correct MS.

its just that people dont want to accept that this thing could be fatally flawed (the sources coming from british reports on facts and that these 'academics' compiled it only prove it beyond all reasonable doubt imo - never trust an important job to an academic!!)

[Maguire01]

Apparantly the claims made by the British in that document are sourced from a  credible (cough) source, a prison officer.
But once it's in black and white, Maguire et al, would be swallowing it wholesale

I take accounts from both sides with a healthy dose of sceptecism, which is more than can be said for some. There are many accounts where the credibility of the source can be called into question.

I'm surprised you can't differentiate between this and requests for someone to back up their claims of that a database compiled by two respected institutions (University of Ulster and Queen's) has no credibility. It's not even as if i'm claiming CAIN to be 100% complete and accurate - just asking someone who claims the opposite to back up that claim.

Were you not invited to pick an issue which is given an account of on the Cain site and look up for yourself
the other versions. Why is it that the Cain version becomes the result of respected research, by default?

Thank you Main Street - you managed to do something that LB couldn't / wouldn't do. But as I said, the onus wasn't on me to disprove someone else's claim.

As for LB, it wasn't my unwillingness to accept that something was flawed, rather a willingness to understand why you considered it flawed - something which you weren't interested in properly substantiating.

[lynchbhoy]

Apparantly the claims made by the British in that document are sourced from a  credible (cough) source, a prison officer.
But once it's in black and white, Maguire et al, would be swallowing it wholesale

I take accounts from both sides with a healthy dose of sceptecism, which is more than can be said for some. There are many accounts where the credibility of the source can be called into question.

I'm surprised you can't differentiate between this and requests for someone to back up their claims of that a database compiled by two respected institutions (University of Ulster and Queen's) has no credibility. It's not even as if i'm claiming CAIN to be 100% complete and accurate - just asking someone who claims the opposite to back up that claim.

Were you not invited to pick an issue which is given an account of on the Cain site and look up for yourself
the other versions. Why is it that the Cain version becomes the result of respected research, by default?

Thank you Main Street - you managed to do something that LB couldn't / wouldn't do. But as I said, the onus wasn't on me to disprove someone else's claim.

As for LB, it wasn't my unwillingness to accept that something was flawed, rather a willingness to understand why you considered it flawed - something which you weren't interested in properly substantiating.

what are you whinging on about - I gave you three examples.....which is more than I would normally bother my hole for those other fcukwits.
However if you dont want to accept this or even bother looking into the fact that this database is riddled with errors (a lot serious)  then thats your own outlook. I'll not bother my hole again.

even have a think as to where the info came from and the group that compiled it (even if they were non political) - surely , with a bit of thinking 'outside the box' and away from all the other shpp, you will maybe realise the sources might not be credible or accurate and therefore the database (with possibly the best of intentions) may also not be credible (and myslf and plenty of others have found it isnt - and MS after a few mins has also spotted this straight away.

Your lack of knowledge here isnt your fault. But the rest.....

[Maguire01]

And once again you revert to the condescending and patronising.

And you didn't provide any examples - you made vague references without citing any specific content.

[Main Street]

Agreed Maguire, he's a lazy condescending cxnt 
Maybe we should be grateful that most of the Derry population don't take too well take to internetting and there's only a few desperadoes on here.


But Maguire, just because you are one the few people left on the planet (outside status quo 'intelligentsia') to have respect for the already much maligned and discredited Cain version of recent history,  does not mean that another poster has to give exact details in order to support his point. Cain's version is -d standard of history dressed up in a cap and gown.
It is already proven beyond doubt that the work of Cain is an insult to academic intelligence and history.
You can ask very politely for another to point out where a particular discrepancy may lie, but in no way does Lynchbhoy have to pick out the particular discrepancy in order to prove what is already known, that Cain sucks.