Rocket suspended (was 'Warning to Rocket - Straighten up your act')

EDIT - On 4/8/04 at 1:40 am, this topics title was modified from Warning to Rocket - Straighten up your act to Rocket suspended (was 'Warning to Rocket - Straighten up your act'). - Adminnemooseus - END EDIT
----------My impression is that your postings have been pretty consistently devoid of real content. Most recently, I was looking at your contributions at
"10 cubits across and 30 cubits around".I suggest you look at the Forum Rules, and decide which ones you are violating.Stick to the topic, and get some relevant discussion into your messages. Also, you've started at least a couple of dubious topics. Lay off that also.This is a official warning. A suspension comes next.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-08-2004]

See message 1.AM

How long is an official warning effective for?

Since the goal isn't to get you to lay low and then resume business as usual but, rather, to effect a permanent change in your posting habits, I imagine the warning is forever. Otherwise, what would be the point?If you're having trouble understanding exactly what you're getting sanctioned for - and with Adminnemooseus that has a tendancy to happen - I imagine he'll be glad to elucidate...

Since the term "dubious" is subjective it's hard to understand exactly what it is he doesn't like...and worse it's applied in a general sense which is even trickier...I'm generally dubious...that sounds pretty bad!I figure I'll save us both the pain. Being perceptive as I am...an open ended warning is simply the first step in a goal thats been set already...it's like..."I've got you in my cross hairs, do one more thing I don't like!"....you might as well go ahead and pull the trigger.

Hi, Rocket!Adminnemooseus would have to provide any specifics. I thought the information about the aircraft carrier was pretty interesting, especially that the flight deck is almost twice as wide as the beam. Whatever's reply takes the discussion in a raft of new directions, including long lifetimes, giants, and iron in the pre-iron age, all worthy thread topics in themselves. It'll be interesting to see if the discussion can stay focused mostly on the ark itself.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

problem is the original topic was about a round container to hold water and the measurements of it for diamter and circumference (10 to 30) to show that the value of pi was not known.and not about the ark at all.

The point was...how can Pi, measured out to 3 decimal places have any value in a measurement system that can (and likely is) off by inches?...the dimensions of the ark are an example,it can't be right.

I think he's being a little over zealous.

Looks like I misunderstood the topic. Adminnemooseus was perhaps concerned about drifting off topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Good idea...I'd start a thread like that with a post that is presumptuous enough to pretend to know
who the guilty parties are...I like this Hitleresque approach, seperate the HI-IQ intellectuals from
the lower intelligent of the species...intellectuals shouldn't have to deal with people that "think" they
have something important on their meger level...I'd start the forum of "The pillary of resident
geniuses"...with your post. That way we'll know you're serious.He posted message number 53 at 12:34 am...my warning came at 12:34 am while he was on the very same thread as this post the evidence is circumstantial, but bears close scrutiny...I'm smarter than I look....I did a little checking to see where he was just before the warning came out. Apparently our gracious host is entertaining the idea of the seperation of their guests into wheat and chaff and I gave an opinion of it that met with a cool reception.Enjoy!
The chaff.

I don't have time right now, to get into this much.I suggest that any and all look at the various Rocket messages, in the message 1 cited topic AND elsewhere. My impression is that the content relevant to the topic is pretty thin. Many are off-topic disruptions, that others unfortunately are too willing to follow up on.If need be, I guess I'll try to get back to citing specific topics and messages. But that's going to have to wait for tonight.Maybe Rocket would like to cite a topic and message, of what he thinks is one of his more significant statements so far.Adminnemooseus

Well how hard can it be?...Click on my name and it lists all my posts...you want "one" of value? They're ALL of value to me. I'll get you one that "you" would like.

Heres one, I got tons more;
"Not only that, but if god does exist, who created him? Isn't the age old argument that someone "must" have created the universe. Well, then it stands reason, if the universe can't just have "always been there"...then neither can god just have "always been there". It can't be one way and not the other, and it can't be both ways."So you are saying by this that you didn't draw you conclusion to warn me from actually reading my posts....you just saw a couple and assumed they were all that way.

I am glad of your appearance at the site. But do realize that God always being there is only relevant if he is under time. Unlike the universe, he is not under time. Therefore, "always been there" or "not always been there" CAN be applied to the universe, but NOT to God. That is how I see it anyway."A thousand years is as a day to God"keep posting though, I like you.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-07-2004]