PMM
|
Edited Jan 30, 2012, 01:00
Re: Sorry folks, that should read "scree alteration".
Jan 30, 2012, 00:49
|
If you go into these posts via head heritage, rather than through TMA, you can edit them.
The url for this post for example is http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/tma/topic/64792/threaded/822376 At the top right, next to the title, if it's a post you've made, you should find an "edit" link. This allows you to change both title and body of post. It does not allow you to delete the post entirely, and if anyone has replied, unless they've made their own title, the heading of their post will be "re:" and whatever the title of the post they were replying to at the time they replied to it.
Hope that helps :)
Edit:
So to change the specific thread with the typo, click this link...
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/tma/topic/64787
|
rockhopper
|
Sorry folks, that should read "scree alteration".
Jan 30, 2012, 01:40
|
|
My mistake. Sorry for the typo, and any confusion caused.
|
rockhopper
|
Re: Sorry folks, that should read "scree alteration".
Jan 30, 2012, 10:05
|
|
Thanks for that. Just tried but got no edit link. Next stop, secretarial course!
|
PMM
|
Edited Jan 30, 2012, 10:32
Re: Sorry folks, that should read "scree alteration".
Jan 30, 2012, 10:27
|
Oops! My fault. You're logged into TMA. You wouldn't be logged into HH. Your TMA login details work with both sites, but logging into one doesn't automatically log you in to the other.
If you're not logged in, the site doesn't know it's "you" that made the post, and so doesn't give you the option to edit it.
Still, I think any comments made about "aleration" are poking gentle fun, rather than any real confusion. :)
|
rockhopper
|
Re: Sorry folks, that should read "scree alteration".
Jan 31, 2012, 01:51
|
Thats all way above me, but ta for the feedback. On a more serious note, this paper(edited for brevity on this site due to 10'000 character limit) was rejected by the Waterford archaeological and historical society for being "too controversial"(!)
My experience with Irish academics, and this may hold true elsewhere, is that if it does'nt further their own careers, then they block any attempts for others to proceed. i was told by one leading member of the 'establishment' who actually came out to see this, "dont push this any further...and don't expect archaeologists to come down here and help you. They never have and never will." With which this particular individual got in its car and drove away.
Once they begin the ascent of the greasy career pole, they lose all sight of why they are on it in the first place. But I'm sure the state pension will compensate for this lack of ethics.
|
TheStandingStone
|
Re: Sorry folks, that should read "scree alteration".
Jan 31, 2012, 10:34
|
|
rockhopper wrote: Thats all way above me, but ta for the feedback. On a more serious note, this paper(edited for brevity on this site due to 10'000 character limit) was rejected by the Waterford archaeological and historical society for being "too controversial"(!)
My experience with Irish academics, and this may hold true elsewhere, is that if it does'nt further their own careers, then they block any attempts for others to proceed. i was told by one leading member of the 'establishment' who actually came out to see this, "dont push this any further...and don't expect archaeologists to come down here and help you. They never have and never will." With which this particular individual got in its car and drove away.
Once they begin the ascent of the greasy career pole, they lose all sight of why they are on it in the first place. But I'm sure the state pension will compensate for this lack of ethics.
It's the same in other fields too. I'm in a different field, in Ireland, but still history related and the same thing goes. Anything controversial gets pushed aside. They just want people producing reworkings of the same old stuff and simply refuse to engage with anything that challenges that.
|
