Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

See site

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/treachery.htm

It lists agents executed in WW2, nothing fits your description

But as with all conspiracy theories, negative evidence is usually not enough

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

Thanks Richard

Hi Nick - sarcasm uncalled for! If I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked, would I? OK - so now you tell me that it is BS. Fair enough!

I think you are just bitter because we thrashed your mob in the test series!

Cheers
Brian

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

I think there's more to it than that, Brian.

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

Hi guys

Why's everyone picking on me?

I only asked a question!

Cheers
Brian

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

Well Nick, if that's your justification, it must have escaped your notice that derision ("contemptuous ridicule or mockery") is insulting by definition. What exactly would have been so difficult about saying "Sorry Brian, this story is nonsense"?

This goes for everyone: there is absolutely no need or excuse for attacking somebody simply because they ask a question.

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

Brian,

Stephen asked a legitimate question which I do not think you have answered. Please state your source or I will lock this thread due to personal attacks.

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

John

I believe it was stated on a video documentary that I recently watched. But does it matter? I simply, out of curiosity and for need of further education, asked a plain and simple question that, although everyone else seems to know the answer to, I didn't!

However, if the Forum has reached such self-importance that one has to produce evidence/explanation for every question asked, then count me as a disappointed ex-Forumite.

Brian

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

Brian, having an idea of the source is often helpful in answering a question, simple as that. If your source turns out to be X, then another person might know that X got the story from Y.

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

Dear All,

Eighteen entries and nary a serious answer. Like Brian, I'm disappointed. Yes, knowing the source of Brian's information could be helpful, but by now demanding it is in poor taste, as he's certainly been spun in the wind far too long. John, your threat to close the forum on the least of pretexts is extremely out of place.

Rather, someone attempt to provide an answer to his question.

Five ultra Nazi officers and a KZ inmate gather in a room at Auschwitz to decide the final solution to the Jewish problem. Each officer goads on the next to a more outlandish solution, until they move all the way from displacing them to eastern Europe to gassing them there at Auschwitz. Do you think anyone is even going to listen to the Jew who has the most at stake?

As I said, someone actually answer Brian's question. He didn't ask to be dissected.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Rudolf Hess May 1941
 

Brian,

We've messaged off board so I guess I assumed more familiarity than what there obviously really is between us and as such, I took it if I said something that could be construed as negative, you'd handle it all right. I'm still a little stunned that typing the sound effects of somebody walking down a corridor and slamming the door behind them counts as an "attack"... But hey, my bad, won't happen again. In contrast to "other Nick" (the Super Moderator), I take derision as:

Act of treating with contempt, act of treating with disdain

Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/derision

...I can't find the words insulting or insult in either of those but since I obviously hurt your feelings, I apologize unreservedly in front of all these witnesses. I stand by the sentiment (see below), but regret the hurt I caused. SORRY.

And no, the situation can't be blamed on being bitter about cricket (my best GUESS as to what you were referring to). I totally own what I said because sport on television is for me, about the most boring thing on the planet. Your side won? Nice, happy for you. I guess I was busy re-arranging my sock drawer.... It's also why I have kept this post free of all references to whingeing bloody poms or other racist overtones that might remotely imply that I have any interest at all in televised sport.

If the situation requires any further clarification from my part: I consider myself to be a forum contributor who specializes in what really did happen or, on the basis of one side's records compared to another's, MAY have happened with regards to Luftwaffe victory claims. Any "what if's" or patent BS stories (...and it has to be said, your very own words implied that you yourself did not entirely believe it. Up to you to own that, by the way...) earn my derision as per the above definition, not Nick Beale's with which for reasons that should be clear, I respectfully but fundamentally slightly disagree with.

Once again,
Sorry.

Nick