What Error? Is this not what we have been pointlessly circling about for some 20 odd posts. Yes, this is my view and I have supplied endless examples of why that is my belief.

Post5 line 2 refers specifically to, "prior to and during the war", to the exclusion of Post 2 line 1 which occured after the war.

You will have to excuse my brevity, as I am at present also trying to transcribe a 13441 person Family tree, and I still have much to do.

Got any German - possibly Masonic - sounding surnames in that there family tree of yours Seno?

There are a few Masons no doubt, although I have no pictures of old rellies giving secret masonic signs, but the blood lines are 7 parts Northern English (Cumberland, Northumberland and Durham) and one part London Jew, of indeterminate ancestry.

There are plenty of skeletons coming into the light of day.

Now you know why I'm tight with a quid.

och no, I think we're related man?

Heaven forbid.

Although I must say that I have found more surprising relations, e.g. "The First man hung in Wise County Virginia". Many of his male kin probably should have been on the scaffold with him, but they just kept shooting the posse's. Don't believe me,... try Googling "Talton Hall" and he's only the tip of the iceberg.

Seno, looks like I owe you an apology.

The guy below has come forward and says he was helped to escape by Vatican nuns after WWII.



The nuns say they are not ashamed and would do it again.

But of course, "Der Katholische Kirche has vays of making zem talk"

Ach du lieber! zose nuns are our best Sturm Troopers, vot else vould you expect from vimmens!

Heil Humbug!

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Another reason to NOT rely on Wikipedia... Edinburgh university will toss out your paper if you list Wiki as a source.

Aye, thats probably correct, wiki is not regarded as being peer reviewed. At the University of St Andrews we are strongly advised not to include in scientific papers or informal lab reports etc any web based material which includes wiki

Bulldogg and Jequirity, the reference to Wiki that I posted was only one of a possible 4000+ that I offered, which for the most part are in agreement. It just happened to be the one I quoted because it was on top of the heap.

One must always bear in mind that universities produce "experts", and if you put 20 experts in a room and give them a a problem, you will probably get 30 completely different answers, each with a huge explanation of why all of the others are totally wrong .

The biggest thing to remember with Wikipedia, just like every other source of information, is to keep an open mind and always questions it's validity.
Wikipedia is no less reliable than say some news anchor from CBS, a reporter from the New York Times, or a scientist on Greenpeace's payroll, yet somehow those three are all considered reliable sources and Wikipedia is not. Hell at the end of 97% of all wikipedia articles are sources where the author(s) found their information, and most newspapers, magazine articles, journal entries and news reports are political BS anyways. Why is a person with a political agenda more reliable than an internet site that is merely a comprehensive collection of information on almost any subject? My biggest issue with not allowing Wikipedia is a source is that it shouts at the student "You're a [cen] idiot who can't decide on their own if information is credible or not!" It's a slap in the face to tell me that I can not, on my own, decide if a piece of information is credible or not.