We could also tie all this in w/ other things that differ from the pilots to production? My pet theory has always been that the Original Conies were just "Cruisers" not "Heavy Cruisers" and as such, did not originally go on extended missions in unexplored territory? This could explain a lot, the more hazerdous nature of five year missions not only justifies the lower bridge, but also the switch from merely lasers to Phasers, and the higher crew compliment as well, it might even explain why the ship(s) became more colorful, if we assume this would be of psychological benefit to crews on long missions?
Hm. I'm not sure. It's possible. I'll have to think on that. I'd always thought that the Connie was the first 'heavy cruiser' but I guess it could work as having it not be until halfway through it's life.
Thing is "Heavy Cruiser" is a naval function of gunnery, really... so she would be better armed than a Cruiser...
Perhaps Heavy Cruiser was the most peaceful-sounding euphemism that Star Fleet could get away with when they ran the design past the bean-counters at the Federation Council. In Star Trek III, the Klingons called the Enterprise a Federation Battle Cruiser...
Keep in mind that terminology can be expected to change somewhat over the next 300 years, and everything in Trek need not be based directly on the modern US navy.
My thoughts too, ancient. Backtracking slightly, talking in CRA's thread made me start thinking about the TMoST cross section and just how viable it is as a source. I don't want to re-hash what's been said before with a whole new thread because I know Shaw and aridas have made pretty thorough analyses of it (and perhpas will chime in), but maybe it would be worthwhile for us to re-examine that drawing, and perhaps the one Jefferies prepared for Phase II, in the same context we've been looking at the FJ plans, and perhaps juxtaposed against them as we were doing? What does everyone think? (And tin_man, do tell me to shut up if you want to, since this is your thread. )
Tin_Man, Blast it, I didn't get home in time for Old Time Radio to start on Saturday. That's an episode of the Lone Ranger you guys owe me. 8) > Question for any/everyone? Is the general consensus that > the circular briefing room from the pilots was under the > taller bridge and was removed when the dome was lowered? > Thereby explaining why we never saw it again. That's what I've come to believe. It explains the "overhead" structure in the middle of the room, and perhaps the reason for the struts around the room. Essentially you're looking at the bottom of the conn "well" in the bridge. The overall size and shape seem approximately right. As to why they revised things this way, while we can put down reduction of the overall dome to improvements in sensor technology, explaining how and why Deck 2 got 'waporized' is more difficult. Praetor's suggestion doesn't ring true to me because its only a few meters difference (as I interpret it) and if you're helmsmen is getting that close to things its probably not going to matter (not to mention you need a long talk with the navigational deflector operator). So a functional confabulation is in order. One possibility was that the protruding bridge didn't work as well with the upgraded warp engine design, at which point we are looking at the overall size of the warp bubble, warp field flow issues, symmetery and other technobabble. The way I look at warp drive, decreasing the volume of the bubble would increase either efficiency, speed or both. This is a small change but it might make a difference, such as getting the ship over one of those TNG type "whole warp number" transition issues (i.e., Warp 6 vs Warp 5.95). Which I detest, BTW. Praetor's suggestion that its common to have bridges overlapping a deck and that this may be for protection is certainly possible, but we have to consider that if this is being done -- and debris or weapons fire impacting the bridge are the issue for this design feature -- then why isn't the bridge completely sunk or better yet buried deep within the hull (as the CnC of a modern naval ship would be)? While I don't mean to be seen as bashing his explanations, and they aren't insubstantial, I struggle with practicality pointing us in this direction also. Alternately, it could be a deflector grid or forcefield field strength to distance limitation that caused the change, i.e., increasing the protection of the bridge but not in terms of a physcial barrier -- but again that's just a confabulation. The real reason is that the old design didn't look as refined, at least I think that would be a consensus, but its hard to see this as the reason engineers would go to such drastic lengths to change a fully functional design. Whatever the reason, either it was necessary to eliminate the extra deck height (far beyond revising the dome) or the contents of Deck 2 were replaced with something else (presumably technological devices) that did not require the full deck height. We could speculate on what these are (emergency batteries, life support, propulsion/fuel systems for the "Officer's Manual's" ejectable command pod, etc. but we really don't know. As is, and as depicted in TMoST, Deck 2 becomes at best a partial deck, and perhaps only a crawlspace. This deck will be discussed further in another post.
Tin_Man, > We could also tie all this in w/ other things that differ > from the pilots to production? My pet theory has always > been that the Original Conies were just "Cruisers" not > "Heavy Cruisers" and as such, did not originally go on > extended missions in unexplored territory? This could > explain a lot, the more hazerdous nature of five year > missions not only justifies the lower bridge, but also > the switch from merely lasers to Phasers, and the higher > crew compliment as well, it might even explain why the > ship(s) became more colorful, if we assume this would be > of psychological benefit to crews on long missions? Lets leave the laser to phaser issue off the table. The franchise and fandom have been struggling with the issue of retconning lasers into phasers since "The Cage", and I keep going back and forth over the fence. Assuming the cannon is correct, its likely to be a technological change fleet wide, in my opinion. An "upgrade". Getting back to the base question, my own viewpoint is different. When launched in the 2240s the Constitution class is the best ship the UFP can make. It is intended to be the workhorse of the next generation of starships. Compared to most existing starships it is larger, better armed, faster, and better able to conduct scientific work than all but specialized vessels (science or tactical). It is intended to be the "heavy cruiser" type of this new generation of starships, but compared to existing starships it simply outclasses them. The situation is similar to naval vessels of the age of sail, where the capital ships were all called "ships of the line" and distinguished by "ratings". As a ship aged, and newer, larger, more heavily armed ships were created, what was a first rate ship of the line would gradually move down the ranks. And over time the rating systems changed, and weren't even the same between nations. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ships-of-the-line http://www.royal-navy.org/lib/index.php?title=Types_of_Ships-of-the-Line http://www.greatgridlock.net/Sqrigg/shipline.html Initially 1701 was a "Cruiser Class" before it became a "Starship Class" (and so its commissioning plaque reads). At this point the producers hadn't latched on to the idea of following naval tradition and naming classes after the first launched ship. In the ST:TMP Gene Roddenberry wrote that the revised Enterprise was the equivalent to a battleship (so much for FJ being too militaristic). With its advanced technologies and 18 phasers it certainly would do very well in any wargames as a "pocket battleship". Yet by the time of ST:III, its obsolete and ready to be decommissioned. So, if anything, upon their birth revolutionary new starship classes are best viewed as "super ships" able to almost everything better than their predecessors, but time and technology quickly catches up with them, and without (and eventually even with) significant technological upgrades they quickly become obsolete and disposable. Except for the Excelsior class and the venerable Klingon D7, of course, which have really amazing life spans -- you should do so well.
Vance, > Thing is "Heavy Cruiser" is a naval function of > gunnery, really... so she would be better armed > than a Cruiser... Actually, Heavy Cruisers were initially armored cruisers (CA). This line of thinking continued on with "battlecruisers" which were not so much gigantic cruisers with bigger guns but stripped down battleships with less armor. So, in traditional naval terms, "heavy" is more a measure of defensive systems and size rather than weaponry. In Treknological terms, modern military usage is more or less used, but heavy and light have come to be used to indicate size for the most part. Not that there is perfect consistency, since there is little to no organization of "professional Treknologists". Part of the issues is what did TOS mean and what did GR mean "starships" to be? For all the talk of the lack of militarism, we continually see it as a core value when all else fails. The model of Starfleet is not Jacques Cousteau, it is Horatio Hornblower and Charle's Darwin's Beagle, IMHO. I see Starfleet of consisting of two broad types of vessels: dual-purpose (as I call them, for defense and research) like 1701 and specialized. Now specialized vessels break down into various types: survey, scouting, escorts, tactical, etc. But this is never shown in Star Trek, how dare I suggest this (some might ask)? Star Trek depicts the peaceful (but by default expansionistic) UFP surrounded by hostile empires. I don't think they could survive without specialized vessels to deal with tactical issues. If some country (Canada, for example) attacked our civilian ships tomorrow we wouldn't send Bob Ballard to defend our shipping. In Star Trek, 1701 would be in that fight, but its also designed to do many other things well. Its a Heavy Cruiser, not a "battle cruiser" -- jack of all trades master of none -- in that sense. I don't expect Starfleet to have a large percentage of tactical vessels, and I would guess it relies more on dual-purpose vessels and specializes more on the scientific end. Even Franz Joseph's Federation Class Dreadnought is not as heavily armed as one would expect a 50% larger ship to be, and as such was never really intended as "militaristic". But I do accept starship diversity, different tools for different tasks, and from your own work I believe you do as well, perhaps in spades.
Praetor, > Backtracking slightly, talking in CRA's thread made > me start thinking about the TMoST cross section and > just how viable it is as a source. Well, that's been one of the recurring themes I've been dealing with. Originally, the TMoST diagram was it -- the only semi-official depiction of the interior layout of 1701 (except for the largely ignored pressure hull diagrams). > I don't want to re-hash what's been said before with > a whole new thread because I know Shaw and aridas > have made pretty thorough analyses of it (and perhpas > will chime in), but maybe it would be worthwhile for > us to re-examine that drawing, and perhaps the one > Jefferies prepared for Phase II, in the same context > we've been looking at the FJ plans, and perhaps > juxtaposed against them as we were doing? From looking at Dave's work, unless some compromises are made (some of which I will suggest in another post, which are minor changes), it seems difficult to reconcile details of Phase II with TMoST. They are different -- maddeningly different -- when they really shouldn't be. Both seem equally viable to me, and they both contradict each other. The interesting things is why FJ chose to ignore much of the TMoST diagram, but that's another long discussion, and I'm out of time for today. The other discussion is why MJ ignored his TMoST in doing Phase II (which may have been discussed in some other thread I need to be informed about).
Here is the FJ cross-section compared with Dave Shaw's Preliminary 1st Pilot cross-section: Overall fit of the primary hull isn't bad, but the saucer deck is misaligned. The secondary hull is more problematic, in shape, size and orientation. Comments are welcome.
How to stuff a turkey, the Star Trek way: (Please read all notes before commenting, any inadequacies in this diagram may be discussed there. Forgive any grammatical errors, it was a couple of long nights.) --- Procedures followed Aligned drawing: Rescaled drawings by overall length of FJ cross-section (ship = 2420 pixels). Positioned drawings. Top/Bottom of DS (Pilot) saucer approximately matched FJ. Deflector shaft matched. Dave Shaw's (DS) Deflector Dish is the larger Pilot version so size is not matched. Length of secondary hull matched. Primary Hull Discussion: Preliminary assessment was actually good, particularly for the primary hull. However, there were significant alignment issues that pointed to serious underlying problems requiring a piecemeal rehabilitation of the plans. De-integration of components and reassembly solves part of the problems, particularly in the saucer, but not all. Lowered outer saucer decks (6+7) to match DS plans. Lowered mid-upper decks (4+5) to match DS. Positioned "pod" decks (2+3) and modified to approximate DS configuration. Further work would be required to fine-tune this. Positioned Bridge (1), repositioned turbolift alcove to match DS. Bridge somehow seems smaller in overall diameter DS's version. Bridge could be lowered partially, and would better match production configuration. Current configuration could work for Pilot versions. Current "deck" the bridge bulge rests on is somewhat higher than DS and should be reworked. I decided to retain FJ's deck 2. DS's plans do not include it, and from the diagram its easy enough to imagine it "gone" and the deck having a high ceiling. I probably should have adjusted the position of deck 3 slightly to better match DS, but I was concerned about making the FJ plans into a hodge-podge of minor edits in this area, and with this initial drawing the intention is to demonstrate what is possible. Its conceivable that Deck 2 existed in the pilot versions, was removed in production (or replaced with the partial deck shown in TMoST), and/or was removed by the time of the proposed Phase II refit. As such, over time, both FJ's interpretation (slightly amended), MJ's from TMoST, and MJ's Phase II drawings could all correctly show the disposition of Deck 2. But some may see things differently. Repositioned lower saucer decks to match DS. I am concerned that Deck 7 is now effected by the undercut, but as DS's plans lack this feature I cannot evaluate the issue. I think mainly cargo areas outboard of the transporters may be effected but it is unclear. Effectively removed Deck 8 (marked in blue) as hardly anything was left of it (goodbye "life quality facilities"). Eliminating lower decks would not solve the problem as this would not satisfy the shape of the hull. Also on that deck are the the large portion of the primary hull's 'ship's computers', some life support machinery, water tanks, and all three primary hull emergency transporters. The contents of these might be shifted, at least in part, to the next two decks to increase their deck heights. Conceivably, the recreational facilities on this deck could be replaced by deeming several saucer small cargo holds as "holodecks" thereby allowing them to be gyms, restaurants, parks, theaters, bowling alleys, etc. but effectively these would service a lower number of people. The recreational areas have counterparts in the secondary hull. There are 'ship's computers' surrounding the "emergency bridge" on Deck 7 (which seems to correspond to the Auxillery Control seen in TOS), so we could leave these as all that are necessary. Alternately, splitting up the ship's computers to several areas of the primary hull could be a good idea (again, reconfiguring small cargo holds), but ultimately this makes them harder to guard against boarding parties. Conceivably a slight readjustment of the remaining lower decks would correct deficiencies in them and eliminate all that remains of Deck 8. FJ's lower Navigational Sensor was too small, so I removed it from the plans (DS version remains). [Is the version on the DS plans a pilot version or was it the same through production?] Repositioned FJ's Interconnecting Dorsal, causing five of six decks to be closely aligned to DS. Removed most of top deck. One deck would need to be removed and others somewhat repositioned to match DS (discussed further in Conclusions). Secondary Hull Discussion: The dorsal (back) of the secondary hull differs, with FJ's gaining a small amount of deck height in the top deck in the front, and losing deck height in the top most decks to aft. I have not modified this as it would take major reworking, and the implications are pretty clear as depicted (i.e., critical areas don't appear to be impacted). The overall height of DS's hanger bay is smaller. The top of the hanger doors protrude somewhat more aft. Modifying the alignment of FJ's secondary hull upward slightly would alleviate some of these problems forward, increase them to aft, misalign the deflector dish, and remove what alignment exists with DS's deck arrangement. I left the Main Deflector unmodified, as FJ's is meant to depict a production version while DS's plans show a Pilot version. Left FJ deck 15 (forward part needs to be raised, aft part lowered). If DS's version of this deck were somewhat lower, the entire deck could be lowered and while ceiling height would increase forward it would solve much of the discrepancies in the rear, but would probably impact the aft section of FJ Deck 16. Left hanger area untouched (overall fit isn't bad, Areas around the upper but aft portion of the hanger bay requires significant reworking and these details are already demonstrated by DS's plans). Lowered FJ Deck 16 to match next DS Deck, gained in height. Removed FJ deck 17 (botony high-bay, crew quarters, shuttle observation gallery untouched as all alterations stopped at hanger bay areas -- some minor deck realignment might be necessary, but it was a complicated area not amenable to easy reworking). Repositioned FJ Decks 18+19 to match DS deck(s) 16a/b, both increase in height. Basically I conceive of the hanger decks and the engineering section here as being two decks tall while the port and starboard sections could be split into two decks. If this is upheld as a valid choice, the decks should be relabeled as 16 & 17. These were the key decks, based on their potential relationship to engineering and the hanger deck, to understanding how to position the remaining decks. Lowered FJ deck 20 to match next DS Deck, gained in height. Removed FJ deck 21 (goodbye swimming pool, food & beverages... and the bowling alley -- sorry CRA). Lowered FJ deck 22 to match next DS Deck, gained in height. Raised FJ deck 23 to match next DS Deck, moved it further back in the hull, and it still gained in height. Separated rear section and raised it further to match ventral curve of secondary hull, but its still not a good fit (needs reworking), in part because this deck actually gains some floorspace. Removed FJ deck 24 (mid-deck of tractor beam, cargo). Relocated (unnamed, unplanned) bottom hull section to match DS plans, modified forward part of section to integrate with Deflector surrounding. The "bottom hull section" might be able to house all or most of the contents (cargo) of deck 24 with a partial deck height. The tractor beam assembly may be shortened in height but still exists. Raising and lowering of decks in the secondary hull will effect the floor plan as the topology of interface with the external hull changes. "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The engine pylons attach aft of FJ's position, repositioned. Pylons are slightly narrower than DS. The warp nacelles are slightly lower, thicker, and somewhat longer than FJ's versions (unaltered at this time). How did that happen??? Repositioned pylons. --- Conclusions: When all is said and done I believe that most of the (remaining) saucer decks are (at least fairly) near where DS has placed his. The missing deck 8 and the probably reduced Deck 7 are major concerns. All other primary hull decks are kept intact, most unaltered, with the command "pod" being the most changed (and still somewhat uncorrected). FJ's saucer has 11 decks (excluding sensor domes), DS's has 8 -- the cross-section in TMoST has 8.5 which probably could be considered a full 9 in the Pilot configuration (with a more elevated bridge in a taller dome not obstructing deck 2), and Phase II has 8. If the Pilot saucer was considered by MJ to be 9 decks, and the sensor domes were counted as well, this would explain where '11 decks in the saucer' originated as a concept. Somehow this was not updated when the production version of the model changed. FJ's Interconnecting Dorsal is somewhat smaller than DS's, and his deck spacing doesn't match. FJ's Interconnecting Dorsal has 6 (6.5?) decks, DS apparently has 5 in this drawing -- TMoST has 7, Phase II has 5 (not counting the one partly sunk in the secondary hull. Considering that the Interconnecting Dorsal is probably about the most easily replaced major component of the ship during a conversion I would strongly recommend considering reverting to a TMoST configuration for a TOS vessel rather than Phase II. If Phase II were to have implemented an intermix shaft to the impulse engines this might explain the reconfiguration of the Interconnecting Dorsal. The most troublesome issue is that FJ's secondary hull has about 10.3 decks while DS's plans have about 6.5 decks (or 7.5 by my slight revision of partially splitting 16a/b) -- TMoST and Phase II have 8 (more or less, counting oversize decks as separate decks could leave TMoST with 10 and Phase II with 9, to play devil's advocate). Removing three decks here is at least as troublesome as removing one in the saucer and perhaps more serious, but is mitigated somewhat by the nature of most of the facilities on the decks that had to be removed. While the overall secondary hull volumes are probably not that much different, because of the way humans inhabit living spaces (more as surfaces than volumes) this is a much greater difference in available floor-space for all facilities. It not that one choice is right or wrong its that its a difference that has severe implications for laying out deck plans. But it is impossible to transform FJ's floor plans to DS's reconstructed plans without throwing four full decks out at a minimum (not to mention other necessary alterations). Now we know why the crew was only 203 in The Cage!!! They hadn't refitted to the superior FJ design. 8) Overall, FJ's design could be interpreted a significant improvement on the original Constitution class (i.e. Achernar class), produced approximately twenty years later with more advanced technologies making differences in how space could be allocated possible. This is obviously the retcon explanation I have repeatedly mentioned -- a get-out-of-jail free card. Admittedly, ceiling space would be at more of a premium, but there would be far more floorspace available. If, for example, the M/AM reactor were half the height in TOS (even if twice the width) there would be no need for the tall engineering deck. Conceivably FJ's Deck 16 could house the entire warp core as it is depicted (as "Warp Engineering"), but this would involve a considerable miniaturization of the core. This propulsion arrangement is one step closer to what we see in ST:TMP -- at least in terms of placement -- and the length of warp plasma conduits certainly would be reduced. The vast conduit system seen in ST:TMP is not needed in TOS because warp plasma is not being fed directly to the phasers and impulse engines (normal lower power EPS conduits are being used -- less energy, more hydrogen). The downside, as seen in STII, to such a surface placement of the reactor system is that it is more easily damaged by external causes (as opposed to being buried in the center of the engineering hull). An important thing to remember is that thinking we understand TMP and TNG propulsion technology doesn't automatically give us a complete understanding of TOS engineering. Alternately, moving the warp reactor into the nacelles isn't as "silly" an idea as putting a nuclear reactor and all other necessary vessel systems (including weapons -- and the crew) into a not too dissimilar in size and shape 20th century submarine. Or, if one wanted to integrate a DS proposed reactor arrangement into FJ's plans, it would require removing some crew quarters on FJ's decks 18 & 19, removing the intervening deck plates & walls in the area where the reactor and associated spaces would exist, and running some sort of conduit system (one way or another) up to the pylons. The main implication would be adding some dual bunk beds in some quarters. None of these are impossible choices with the existing FJ deck plans. What is required is ignoring the ramifications of the Phase II refit plans. But as we have seen before there is conflicting canon information on where the TOS warp core is and what it looks like, just as there is conflicting semi-official information on deck layout. Without a clear correct interpretation there is room for personal choice. IDIC. Well, hopefully far less than infinite in this case. BTW, the "Inboard Main Propulsion Sheet", i.e., 'sheet 13' associated with the FJ plans is copyright 1978 by Geoffery Mandel. They are not FJ's, and I don't believe they were ever part of the "official" BoGP as published. I believe I remember them being sold separately. That's not to say that they aren't a good attempt at a TOS warp engine plan, and I think (off the top of my head) that they are roughly the same design as Everhart used in his plans (though I don't know who actually originated it). Its even got an "access crawlway" where the whole crew could pack into in case of a *real* emergency. Boy, that would be an episode!!! ... errr.... So, am I earning my keep? To quote Praetor, "comments?"
Hmmm... Wow! Just FYI... those diagrams are based on Jefferies original plans for the models. Of course the models are not exactly the same as the plans Jefferies made, but the 33" model was largely constructed in under two weeks and the 11 foot model was largely made in about three weeks (both based on these same plans). The reason that those plans are interesting (in my opinion) is that they give us a perspective on how Jefferies originally viewed the Enterprise, and why some of his later drawings didn't match up with the models seen on screen.
That sounds great to me Praeter, (the posting pics, not the shuting up part.) Like I said, if anybody has any Ideas just run with em! Whorfin, definitely earning your keep! Seeing your cool overlay makes me think it's time to unveil my crazy idea I mentioned upthread, I'm sure this is gonna make FJ and MJ both spin in thair graves, but here goes nothin; what if we just 'shoved' the interior of FJ's secondary hull back just a little ways? This would not only open up the space behind the deflector, but would shrink the hanger bay to the 'proper' size, and would have the added benifit of offsetting the turbo-lift shaft as MJ had it? I have no "in universe" justification for this, but if I survive the phasering squad then maybe I can come up with something.
Whoa, there Whorfin, slow down a bit! 6 posts in a row, in less than an hour, is overdoing it; please review the board rules regarding spamming. That many posts, so close together - and especially as lengthy as they are - can be daunting, if not outright obstructive to the flow of the discussion. We know you're eager to participate, and you have a lot to say - just pace yourself. And please watch for double-posting, as well - I deleted the duplicate post of your first volley, but you still left the thread with a massive tome to read through.
The only thing I like about FJ's designs is that he has the windows located higher up on the rim which seems more realistic.
[Apologies if this message does double-post. I had to reset my DSL modem after sending the first time. I've checked and the post does not appear to have gotten through so I am resending it.] "You can't post the same thing multiple times on the board, or post the same thing over and over in a certain thread or forum, or continuously make posts that have no real content or relevance to what is being discussed. Spamming can even just be posting too much - as a general rule, don't post more than two or three threads in a forum within a reasonable length of time. Do not post more than twice in a row in the same thread. If you need to answer more than one person in the thread, please use the quote function." I'm not here to debate the forum rules, and I respect administration of them, however I will point out that they are somewhat vague (how many posts in how much time). I'm not clear on how using the quote function will somehow alleviate posting too much. I've personally never understood the nature of this rule, conflating spamming with on-topic posts, and leaving it undefined could conceivably allow rulings such as "you've made two posts in a week, your banned!" I understand if someone is flooding the list with hundreds of inane, off-topic posts each day the need to have this rule. Apparently, I'm doing something similar, which is not my intention. Here's the facts on my end. I live in a rural area. It takes about 45 minutes of redialing to get a 22k modem connection that is almost useless with today's webpages, even with graphics turned off. Currently, in attempting to transition to Linux, modem capability is not working, at least on any system reasonably secure from viruses and worms. So I travel to where there is a broadband connection and use that, saving webpages and taking them home, and I often writing replies offline. My access to broadband is limited. I may get it every day of a week or only a few. I may have only a few minutes access a day, or a few hours. As such, frequently have 60 minutes or less to take care of all my internet activity for the day. Out of which I have been giving TrekBBS a large share. But the fact is that I only have a limited amount of time to reply to the threads on a given day. If I have to wait for someone else to post before I can post another message, then typically I would only get to post one message per day per thread. I could, I suppose, include all my replies and any other contributions in a single post, but that really serves no purpose other than mashing it all together as the contents would be the same. This is my situation, and there is little I can do about it. If my manner of posting is causing problems, here is what I can do, and I am not being sarcastic in any way: A. Post once a day if I don't have extended amounts of time. I can either contribute or reply to a message (or make gigantic posts that do both at you discretion). B. Post once a day if I don't have extended amounts of time, making omnibus posts that reply to other posts and perhaps contribute originally. C. Continue what I've been doing. I might be able to spread posts out over a few more minutes (and on a really good day, maybe hours). Most likely, this will result in one post a day, at most two. It doesn't make sense to find other threads to post in because I am not allowed to post to the ones I can contribute to. D. If I can't participate satisfactorily to myself or the other contributors I can discontinue participation. I mention this because if I continually ignore questions or challenges people will get annoyed -- and reasonably so -- and as things stand this is a very likely outcome. E. You can understand my situation and within the vagueness of the existing rule allow me to continue as I have, and if anyone is bothered by the nature of my posts they can choose to not read them and ignore me. Please choose which of the above is the appropriate course of action. I apologize for the situation, but it is not clear to me that I am to blame. I didn't make any duplicate posts. The board software has been logging me off repeatedly after a brief period of time (5-10 minutes). I don't know why, but its very annoying. I make a post, I have to log back in, and it sends my message, and a single post appears (at least on my end). Now, if the BBS code is sending my message without telling me, logging me off, making me sign back in, and resending the message again automatically when I sign in, then the problem doesn't seem to be on my end and I can't easily fix it. What I know is that whey I logged off the board last no duplicate messages were visible in my browser, unless I somehow overlooked them. Honestly, I'm only hitting send once, what else can I do to solve the problem? I'm not trying to make more work for you, and would like to know how to detect and solve the problem. As to the length of my posts, I am only saying what I feel is appropriate. I'm trying to contribute what is meaningful. If people don't like my posts I'm not forcing them at gun point to read them and a mouse-click or two should get past them on the screen. If you as a moderator have a problem with the nature of my posts, then I am perplexed, because I don't see anything in the rules banning posts on the basis of length or indicating that posts must consist of only short replies. If this is an issue my only solution is to stop posting. Again, I am somewhat baffled. I guess (???) if my posts were spread out over 8 hours we would not be having this problem. That is simply not possible. I am frustrated that I am being left with a choice of hardly contributing or not contributing. But I will comply with whatever decision you make. Regards, Whorfin