Do you mean post works which SLP haven't published?Hello!
I am a new member, and would like to clarify whether it's permissible to post updates and promos for non-SLP works on this site, in the forum or on one's user profile.
Do you mean post works which SLP haven't published?
We have no problem with that at all. The majority of works here are more for practice and thought exercise than stuff that SLP has published.
There is a forum for discussion of non-SLP published work, as long as discussion of those works is at least an attempt at a discussion rather than a posted-once-and-never-replied-to-again advertisement for a book, I think it's fine to say 'you can buy this here'.I think the poster also means if one can advertise AH books not published by SLP on the forum somehow?
This is partly what I was looking for; mainly I was wondering if there's a way to link the updates I regularly post on Twitter, Wordpress and Unbound.co.uk to a forum on this site, so that my work(s) can be discussed and critiqued as well as spread to a wider audience.There is a forum for discussion of non-SLP published work, as long as discussion of those works is at least an attempt at a discussion rather than a posted-once-and-never-replied-to-again advertisement for a book, I think it's fine to say 'you can buy this here'.
@MAC88
This is partly what I was looking for; mainly I was wondering if there's a way to link the updates I regularly post on Twitter, Wordpress and Unbound.co.uk to a forum on this site, so that my work(s) can be discussed and critiqued as well as spread to a wider audience.
Yes.Is posting a link to a TL you find great that is not posted here ore allowed.
That is to somethibg i count on.Be aware that among the readership here are some people with a bit of knowledge about certain areas of this subject.
My bad, i use different sources to get as much of events of a day in one post, seems some of them sins the war started are of to what happen in real life, thanks for noticing it and telling me it.I notice on your PB site re the Falklands for today's entry, you refer to the SAS capture of Mount Kent.
Um, no. Seriously, no.
No 2 Troop, K Company, 42 Commando captured it. Officer commanding said unit was one Lt David Flin, RM.
The SAS scouted it out, and reported Mount Kent was empty, and so the troops (some 35 strong, plus a few extra we dragged along) were helicoptered in. Imagine our surprise when we discovered that there was a half-battalion (maybe 300-400) Argentine troops actually there.
The SAS did not capture it. They reported it empty. It wasn't. 42 Commando captured it, despite the useless SAS recon. When we moved forward for the assault on Mount Harriet later, the SAS then occupied Mount Kent.
The SAS PR machine, of course, was always working overtime.
Take my word for it, the SAS did not capture Mount Kent. I should know. I was there when it was taken.
Mutter mutter mutter.
Bloody Special Author Service, useless waste of space.
Thanks for your time to spot it and correct the mistake.Which rather suggests that, amazingly, Wikipedia is not entirely reliable.
I was there. That Wiki entry is wrong. Of course, that then moves into the question of history as it happened, history as it got reported, and history as it got remembered.
The SAS, having done their recon (badly) got taken back to a nice warm place where they could prep for another recon (probably equally badly) and - importantly - file their reports which made their way into the system. Meanwhile, No 2 Troop, K Company, 42 Commando - the guys who actually did the heavy lifting on Mount Kent, were continuing to slog their way through the god-awful peat bog of that God-forsaken place, preparatory to doing patrolling around Mount Harriet, prior to an assault against it. We were rather too busy to file official reports.
Not that I'm bitter, you understand.
Well, still thanks for taking time to respond and having read it, it means much to me.No idea. I can talk about Mount Kent and Mount Harriet.
You're not really going into the descriptive parts of it, so the general: "What's it like to walk about a peat bog carrying 100+ lbs of equipment with the wind blowing straight off an Antarctic winter?" question, which I can comment on isn't that relevant. (Amazingly, the answer to my rhetorical question is that it's not as much fun as you might think it is. Marine Jackson in particular, who had got married the day before we set off, expressed the view that, on balance, given a choice between being on honeymoon in the West Indies with his pretty new wife, or being Down South, well, he came to the conclusion it wasn't a close decision).
Air war, naval stuff, bits I had nothing to do with, I know no more than anyone else.
I think that many people believe what is in Wikipedia must be truer than what is written in other places by people who know what they write, but that is what i think, when i create something i try to find as many sources as i can, but some times even they are wrong.No problem. Now you've got the fun choice of selecting between History as it was, and History as it has been recorded.
It's actually a tricky one. Put it in as it was, and you'll get people saying: "You're wrong. Wikipedia says you're wrong." Put it in as it's been recorded and accepted, and you're knowingly continuing a falsehood. You're in a no-win situation.
Good luck.
Mount Harriet is secured with two British dead and thirteen wounded. Argentine losses are ten killed and 53 wounded.
I only recall one Marine killed; there may have been another after I got casevaced out, but not to my knowledge.
Cheers. I knew of Watts; he'd gone down before I had. Smith must have been after me; he wasn't in my Troop, so I wasn't keeping such a close eye on him.
Wikipedia also says 2 British dead at the Battle of Mount Harriet.We've hit Mount Harriet in your TL.
I have views about the drawing. Not your fault, obviously. The phrase: "No," sprung to my mind.
We wore berets, not helmets. The reason being that we were fighting at night; since the Argentine forces wore helmets, we were able to tell instantly from the silhouette whether it was one of us or one of them, and react accordingly. The ground looks dry. It wasn't. God knows what those spotlights are. Those lines representing incoming bullets are curious. They don't look like that. I've no idea why he's got a half pack on. He'll have either taken it all off, or kept it all on. What are those starshells doing? We didn't use them; darkness was our friend. They used them, but not to illuminate their own positions. I've no idea what that chap is aiming at. You need to identify a bunker before you can bust it up.
Mount Harriet is secured with two British dead and thirteen wounded. Argentine losses are ten killed and 53 wounded.
I only recall one Marine killed; there may have been another after I got casevaced out, but not to my knowledge.
I note that Mount Kent took up pretty much a post, while Mount Harriet takes a single line.
Will be death before i can celebrate the 50 year part of the 100 year War.The Hundred Years War?
Well you might be right, i am already doing World War II in real time, so it might be a little bit to much to get another long war as a project that will last 4 years at least.Think positive.
The Great War; not a hope of getting it day-by-day. Not unless you can generate 100K words (minimum) per day. You've just got so much going on in so many far-separated but interlocking places; then there's the technological developments; the politics; the home fronts; the list goes on.
You really need something tightly confined in space.