Neanderthals v Humans

close
more_vert
Harryshill H
Harryshill Nov 4, 2012 19:26:52
Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:
In what way is it ‘irrelevant’? In what way does this thread not ‘have legs’?

Restarting a thread that has diversed (substantially) from the original theme of a thread seems completely (and preferably) legitimate to me.

If it had the 'legs' to continue it would, regardless of whether people went off subject or not, but it hasn't and in fact you would prefer to lock it (I prefer locked as that's a better description) rather than it continued that way.

But that's just my opinion and others will think as they may. For myself, I have said my bit and have no wish to argue about something that at the end of the day I have no control over. It's your prerogative.

L Littlestone
Littlestone Nov 4, 2012 19:40:13
Replying to Harryshill

Thank you.

Yes, it is the (thread’s) originator’s prerogative to close a thread if he or she so chooses (that’s why the option is there) and there's absolutely no difficulty starting a new thread from the original (a couple of clicks will do it) if people want to.

Meanwhile (and to clarify things as you seem to be having a little difficulty keeping up with the crux of this thread) I asked originally if, “...they (Neanderthals) might not have been the ‘builders’ of some of our ‘simpler’ stone structures.” That’s the topic (and thanks to those who have addressed it).

The topic Scots/Picts/Celts/Romans/Saxons/etc, interesting as that might be, doesn’t belong on this thread (nor even on TMA I’d venture to suggest) but who knows, perhaps you’d like to start a thread under the title Scots/Picts/Celts/Romans/Saxons/etc and see whether or not it survives the TMA remit?