General Discussions about LUGNET : 2000


Administrative / General / 2000

Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned? Here are some possibilities: - One possibility is simply to start at 1 and count upward on a first- come, first-serve basis, one number at a time. (I think this might be what ICQ (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Sanjay D'Souza

You could end up with a bidding war similar to personalised car licence plates. Numbers like 1, 13 and dare I say it 69 may raise a lot of interest. Then again this could be a good thing if people are prepared to pay for these numbers via an auction (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) LOL! :) BTW, I realize from your final paragraph that you weren't 100% serious, but it's worth reiterating something anyway for anyone following along... The ID#'s won't be transferrable, so whatever number you pick is with you for life. In (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Nick Goetz

Along the lines of the community map, I suggest starting each of the numbers with some type of classifying attribute. In other words beginning all member numbers with the year of birth, or year they started reading rtl, they year they signed up to (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) I wonder if that opens up to too much variation and confusion. No one can ever change their ID# once it's been chosen, so the more variation or flexibility there is, the more chance there is for frustration when someone's tastes change. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Ben Roller

(...) <snip> (...) I have several suggestions: 1) Why not just make the numbers internal to the system so that we never see them. That way we could all be given any old number and the part that we would see would be a username of some sort. I'm sure (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) Because of URLs that contain them. (...) I've yet to see a username-system that (a) handles collisions in a reasonable way if the usernames are system-assigned, or (b) doesn't lead quickly to garbage if the usernames are user-chosen. --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Awright, maybe it's worth taking a major 180 here and taking a closer look at non-numeric member-id's (i.e., usernames). Personally, I think usernames are nothing but a major source of headaches once a user population grows (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Ed Jones

(...) I totally agree. (...) Hey watch the AOL bashing :') But since you brought up AOL usernames - AOL allows the cability of 5 different screen names for the same account. This allows familys to have a name for each memebr of a family. Not to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) One and exactly one ID per person is the foundation principle. I suppose there could be such a thing as family or group discounts, but each person has to receive their own membership. The membership is what handles data on a person-by-person (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Mike Stanley

(...) Not sure where I stand on all this or if it really matters to me, but I thought I would mention this. All (or most, anyway) of my current login names that I actually have to type on a regular basis are cjc. Yeah, I like the initials because (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Well, the nice part about this is that, unless you have cookies completely disabled, you won't ever have to type your username. So if your username is something other than "cjc", then it wouldn't be a constant frustration to switch back and (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Selçuk Göre

(...) More than you think upto now I think..:-) What about profanity in other languages than English? Lugnet is a multi national community. One example: a simple and innocent looking abbreviation "ats2", which could be both read as its spelling (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Wow. Well, at least if someone uses "ats2", it'd have to be logically formed from their name, so it would be clear that they weren't just doing it to be rude/offensive. (...) They're not a problem at all from an internal coding standpoint, but (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) OK, I see the confusion now... Sorry for being ambiguous. When I wrote: "Anyway, here are some examples that do seem gray to me and may need careful attention...(these have all been disclosed publicly on LUGNET by their owners)" in: (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Selçuk Göre

Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) unrelated (...) weren't. (...) I've already get it. But the confusing phrase was not this one, it was: "Those are all fun names, of course, and these people could all *certainly* continue to use these (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Oh. YES, *that* is *really* ambiguous. I see how anyone could read the wrong thing in that. Oops. OK, let me reword that to say what I actually meant to say: "Those are all fun names, of course, and these people could all certainly continue to (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Selçuk Göre

Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) example: a (...) as (...) the (...) If the individual would be from Turkey, the latter would be true, even if his name would "ahmet tayfun sipahioglu", since it is a common joke..:-) (...) Oh, that old, boring (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Wow, four names in the family that all start with "se" -- excellent! Do your mother and sister have middle or other familiar names to distinguish between them? (...) Well, internally, there you're "selgore", but only I see that. Externally, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Selçuk Göre

Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) Actually my sister's name is "Zeynep Sema" but she never used his initial name, so when we visit parents all together, there is always a funy chaos across the names..:-) (...) I prefer using a first name (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

OT: DLI (was: Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more?) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Wow! How was DLI? I almost went there. I blew the DLAB out of the water (but I still don't know how...what a confusing experience that was) but a clerical error at the MEPS in St. Louis screwed up when I could start my enlistment and then I (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Patricia Schempp

Univeristies do the username made from name thing all the time. Maybe you could look at some of those systems. Of course they all do it differently, but I'm so dang used to pschemp, I would want to use that. It beats the schempppat I got at another (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Greg Majewski

How about people just use whatever they have been called in the past? As for new members and garbage names, you could have a submit area that sends chosen names to a special LUGNET email, where they then could be manually read, and the garbage names (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) That was a thought, but think about it from the censorship standpoint: On the legal side, when you start trying to filter out things that are offensive or vulgar or profane, you open yourself up to more scrutiny if you then accidentally miss (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Greg Majewski

(...) If you look at this situation from how it exists already, you will find that 99% of the internet's Lego community are civilized adults, the rest being civilized teenagers or whatever, so you don't really have to worry about "gray areas," at (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Oh, believe me, I *have* looked at it...! :-) Been seriously looking at this on and off for years... (...) The gray areas I'm thinking of aren't so much the offensive or vulgar things (although I'm sure there are some things which are both (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Greg Majewski

(...) Oh! Oh! I can explain this one! My last name is pronounced muh-JEH-skee, but people always say muh-JOOS-kee, which led to the nickname Juice for me. Also, my favorite color is orange which led some people to call me Orange Juice, which let to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Hey, that's a pretty great story! It's always fun to hear how nicknames come about. (...) Well, keep in mind, the goal here is to discourage (in a mechanical way) general "aliases" or "handles" or "screen names." You probably wouldn't be able (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Greg Majewski

(...) No, my father's first name is Michael and he is the one who registered our internet service. With my service, you can only have one "name," so it has always been Mmaje for me until I registered with Yahoo!, but even then when I posted to RTL, (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Robert Munafo

This isn't a complaint, just a suggestion. If you're going to try to spell phonetics you should adopt a technically precise notation. For example, you said: (...) It's not at all clear whether you intend your syllable "MUHK" to rhyme with "book" or (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Todd Lehman

(...) Excellent! OK, by SAMPA, it would yup definitely be /lVg" net/ (thanks!). (And, BTW, I had heard of a "glottal stop" before, but I never knew there was such a thing as a "nasal sonorant" or a "bilabial fricative"! I'm thinkin' TomMcD and (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Robert Munafo

(...) I don't actually know a sonorant from a fricative either, aside from what I can figure out by looking at the examples. But if Tom and Jeremy are into linguistics they probably already know more about it than we do {-; (...) You can use it if (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Fortunately, you don't expect me to pass this one up. (...) That's okay. It's a little-known fact that a sonorant is the high-pitched sqawking sound made by someone rapidly applying a rubber eraser to a pencil mark on a shaky metal table. (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

sonorants and fricatives —Todd Lehman

(...) LOL!!! I'm laughing so hard I can hardly breathe. God, what I would give for a daily word-definition like that by e-mail in the morning, or an "Ask Jeremy" box on a web page where you could ask what a word meant. :) --Todd (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Tom McDonald

(...) It's a "smart-ass thing" actually. (...) can (...) The first table-joint lubricant, made largely of walrus fat oil and safflower extract, was called "Dr. Numba's Anti-Sonorant Potion". Dr. Numba was an alias of a former carpet-bagger turned (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Jeremy Sproat

(...) Avid "Northern Exposure" fans might recall that a bilabial fricative refers to the state of mind one achieves while awaiting an answer from an Athapascan spirit while consming bilibiatho (1) blowing in from Inuit grounds. Cheers, - jsproat 1. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Tom McDonald

(...) Hostess Sno-balls are good example of the usage of this substance. -Tom McD. when replying, little wedge-shaped spamcakes make good climbing pitons. (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

phonetics —Todd Lehman

(...) Hmm. Y'know, you're right! -- I should've simply written MUCK. By MUHK, I was trying to get the "uh" sound. I'm no phoneticist! :) Anyway, so his last named is actually pronounced MUCK-ow, but we incorrectly pronounced it MOO-kow (or MUKE-ow), (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Steve Bliss

(...) I assumed Todd *did* mean 'MUHK' to rhyme with 'muck'. I didn't think about it at the time, but 'UH' doesn't look much like it should be pronounced like the sounds in either "book" or "fluke". Steve (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: Phonetics for "LUGNET" trademark and member IDs (was Re: member id's: simple numbers or something mo —Robert Munafo

(...) That's essentially the problem with colloquial phonetic spelling -- there are two methods. Some people (like me) use existing words whenever existing words are available: Todd: "TODD", Lugnet: "LUG-net", Steve: "STEVE", phonetic: (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

O vs WO vs AH —Todd Lehman

(...) Hey, how close is that to TWOD? (I gather that's the native-East-Coast way to pronounce it -- similar to BWOS'-tin. :) Where I grew up (Minneapolis) it's pronounced TAHD, but not quite the nasal TAAHHHD that they say in Milwaukee and Chicago. (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: O vs WO vs AH —John Bauman

Todd Lehman wrote in message <37a0e8e2.108331275@...et.com>... (...) Is the east coast you refer to the upper part of maine? I never heard it pronounced like that. (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: O vs WO vs AH —Ed Jones

(...) Ah, a great mystery of life has become revealed. Now I understand Todd's attraction to LEGO. Being from Mininoplace, he naturally took to minifigs. :') (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Anders Isaksson

Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet <377fa446.2704266@lu...et.com>... (...) Yeah, and don't forget other languages! What's perfectly clean in English, may be an insult in another language (no examples will be given), and vice versa. As a side note (I (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) That's another reason to restrict the member-ID's only to representations of real-life names...that way, if something happens to be obscene in another language, it's obvious that it was based directly on someone's name, and not obscene on (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Larry Pieniazek

Need to read more but seems to me that any mechanistic scheme needs an escape clause. if we go with letter IDs, then have the automation be relatively harsh and inflexible, but allow appeal. I know, I know, you don't want to be the decider, because (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) That sounds like a great idea. (...) We could do that. BTW, what do you mean by "appeal"? Someone recevies a "didn't pass" message and voluntarily says "Hey, I'd like to appeal that decision?" That's kind of neat, because, perhaps ultimately (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. (...) I meant that it would go to a relatively small board, self selected, but with your veto on membership, that would make the call. Form-of-Government-wise I'm more of a republican than a democrat(1), I think putting these questions to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) That makes sense. I have always favored constitutional republics over pure democracies as well. (...) If it's avoidable. (...) I meant, because of all the help you gave last summer and before that and after that, I'll help make sure that you (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Cool. Yes, seems like a good idea. It may be several days after you start it that I get to post to it, though. (...) Marxist. Especially Harpo, he's quite underrated. (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Chris Moseley

Larry Pieniazek wrote (...) "I want dvbnik" "that doesn't appeal to me" Moz (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I was basically goig to write the same note, but wanted to read through the thread first. I should have figured Larry would come up with this answer. I too would volunteer for such a duty (and not be offended if you didn't want me). (25 years ago, 6-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Chris Phillips

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <377F7B94.54831B27@v...er.net>... (...) <snip!> Todd, Maybe I've been watching too much "Law and Order", but... I understand your reluctance to shoulder the huge (!) burden of policing the member name space for (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Charles Seyferth

Did I really need to quote? I'm sure most everyone knows what's going on. Anyway, here's a possible sollution that I'm keen on (please hear the newbie out....) I sign up for a membership and, since the system advances member numbers (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Naw, in this case, quoting probably doesn't add much, because you're posting something almost totally new. (...) Well, the member-ID's are unique -mainly- for URLs on the outside, but also for system-database purposes on the inside. In the URL (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Ed Jones

(...) Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm reading above, the Member IDs really serve no purpose other than a system ID, similar to a Unix address. They won't be used as an identifier for posting to news/discussion groups. They will be (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Very well put -- Yes, that's about it! As far as I can imagine right now, they'll only appear in URLs. I'm *sure* there must be some other place that they'll pop up someday down the road, but my crystal ball draws a blank on that one today. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Ed Jones

In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: Uhhh, one us is having server troubles. None of the URLS listed below are working. "The requested URL /people/bobklim/ was not found on this server." (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Heh heh. No, they're not supposed to work; they don't exist. I meant that it boiled down to a choice between *format* A and *format* B, where the two formats were shown by example rather than parameterized. Sorry for the confusion. --Todd (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Ed Jones

Ah, got it. Sorry I'm so used to you providing these great sample pages I just automatically clicked on the links. But I do see the delemna with jsut numbers. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Patricia Schempp

(...) Yeah! now I'm a pschmep. (sound effects) > schmep schmep schmep. Heheh. sometimes I hate my last name. :) Patricia Schempp pschemp@clemson.edu (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Todd Lehman

(...) Oops, sorry about that! I guess my fingers automatically typed "...schme..." for some reason. Maybe because there's a William Schmeckpeper in the online LEGO fan world. Anyway, sorry for not paying closer attention... Glad you have a sense of (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —James Brown

(...) Actually, I don't see that as much of an issue. As an example, my e-mail address shows up as "galliard@shades-of-night.com", however, the actual POP box I am assigned is "shadesofnight03", which has yet another designation for netnation (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Chris Moseley

James Brown wrote (...) Sounds good to me. Moz, Chris, "hey you" and whatever else falls my way (25 years ago, 6-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: member id's: simple numbers or something more? —Greg Majewski

(...) Just a thought, but how about in a chat? If LUGNET had a chatroom down the road, the members would probably use their member name as a screen name. Greg citrusx__@yahoo.com (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Michael Cortez

(...) I like the idea of auctioning them off. Set the start price at $0.00 for each number, if no one counterbids within say a week they get the number. All numbers withing the range the database can handle are open from day one. So if you want a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) As long as they weren't fixed-end-point auctions, right? :-) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Richard Dee

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 03:37:55 GMT, Michael Cortez uttered the following profundities... (...) Give any proceeds to a children's charity, perhaps. One whose focus might involve the constructive and educational benefits of Lego. (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Mike Stanley

(...) That might be an admirable goal at some time in the future, but one of the goals that some of us have right now is to make sure Lugnet becomes a self-supporting venture so Todd and Suz can keep doing it and we can keep enjoying it. So I'd say (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Mike Walsh

How about letting people get a member number based on their favorite LEGO set. Although I am sure that certain numbers (4558, 6399, etc.) would be much sought after. You could auction them off to raise money for LUGNET. This method would be (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Derek Schin

Mike Walsh wrote in message ... (...) I love this idea. And you can combine it with the old-timer privelidge--if multiple people want the same number, it goes to the oldest R(or A)TLer. And if someone pisses you off, you can assign them a Time (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) I wonder how (technically) you would really settle any disputes over who was "older." Maybe you'd have to let each party find (on their own) and demonstrate their oldest post. But someone may have lurked for 6 months and participated privately (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Richard Dee

On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 02:10:37 GMT, Derek Schin uttered the following profundities... (...) There can be only one....number one. Todd! (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Mike Stanley

(...) I care. I was born in 69. I'd like 69. Whatever scheme you adopt that allows me to get 69 would be good. I'm sure everyone would agree. (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Julie Krenz

(...) Oh, absolutely ;-) 22(1) (1)Julie - born on the 22nd of Dec. (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I suspect a lot of us feel that way. But about ourselves. I already said I want #2, though. (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Kevin Loch

Forget that, I want the highest possible number. 32767? 65536? 4294967296? No I got it: 31337! How about rank by number of website hits, or GB of data transfer? KL (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Tom McDonald

(...) I don't necessarily agree that we should just pass out incremented numbers when we have the ability to do otherwise. (...) What if a temporary newsgroup was made where people could hash it out amongst themselves, with impasses settled by (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Frank Filz

(...) Or be at the right place at the right time. I grew up at 1 Thoreau St. Concord MA (of course we also ignored the town when they changed the house numbering from sequential numbering to being based on distance from the start of the street, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) I think they're missing the first year or so of RTL and the first two years or so of ATL. But even if you could go back and check those definitively, what do you do about people who lurked for along time first (and maybe still participated, (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Why are lowest numbers tied to history on the on-line LEGO community anyway? I mean why RTL, ATL? I think of LUGNET as a phoenix of sorts, with a fresh new beginning. Why not just assign them serially to people important to LUGNET and forget (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Mike Stanley

(...) I agree with this. I've been around longer than some, not as long as others. I'd probably rank among the earliest people to use Lugnet, and probably be in the top 100 posters, I suppose. I see Lugnet as something that has brought back some (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Terry Keller

(...) Why not just make this whole thing moot and just assign numbers in a random or pseudo-random lottery? Have each person apply for a number, and have a server doohicky spit out a random number from an available pool. I think we're attaching far (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) Well, if they're still generally increasing slowly and the randomness comes from a small pool of lowest-available numbers rather than a large pool of, say, 32-bit integers, then that would certainly work too. (...) This is something I've been (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) Whoops, I think I accidentally didn't not make a double-negative there. --Todd (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Steve Bliss

(...) Well, short of slurping all the old ATL and RTL posts, and automatically assigning lugnet id's based on the oldest post from each e-mail id, it sounds pretty reasonable to me. As long as you randomized the exact numbers after the selection (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Paul Foster

(...) Do you still have AucZilla I records, that goes back a ways to a number of early Lego people. (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Patricia Schempp

I think for continuity's sake, the numbers should all have the same number of digits. Having some with on, some with two or three would be confusing. But I guess you could always do the 005, 083 thing. Hmm...who gets 007? (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Sanjay D'Souza

Who gets 007?...easy....the person who can do the best imitation of Bond Here's my attempt.... "The name's Bond.....James Bond..." How's that?....I challenge anyone to beat that. Sanjay Patricia Schempp wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Tom McDonald

Now, here's mine.... "You know you're the only woman in my life, Moneypenny..." Do I win? Mine had more words in it. -Tom McD. when replying, note that Q never made plastic explosive that looked like spamcake. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) That would be nice, but the only way to guarantee that all the numbers have the same number of digits is either to start at a really, really high number and ignore all lower numbers, or pre-fix the number of digits at something large -- (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Ed Jones

(...) [snip - does any bother to do this anymore?] (...) Well from what I've read so far, people do care. So let me throw out another possibility - CLSotW numbers - it covers the majoirty of "oldtimers", they already exist in LUGNET and could be (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) Heh heh, whoops, I guess I didn't make the uniquess aspect clear. :-) There aren't any circumstances[1] where someone would ever be able to change their number, once they've chosen it. The whole point of making unique #'s in the first place is (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Bram Lambrecht

(...) I like that idea! It gives me a chance at some nice numbers: 44 and 100 :) --Bram (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Larry Pieniazek

I care. I think you should hand out numbers in strict numerical order based on when you first started using Lugnet. That would make you #0, Suzanne #1 and me #2. I've always wanted to be a #2. (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) Which part of it -- I assume you mean the news part? By "using" do you mean posting to? I have to say, that option has a lot of attractiveness simply for its straightforwardness, objectiveness, and "ruthless fairness." But I didn't want to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. You said below what I am about to say: I was the first person other than you to post to the now no longer extant version of the news server... I can't prove it because all those posts were dumped and we started over, they all were test (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) Heh heh. OK, here's the fully story... Larry had a *very* positive impact, to be sure. Very important and helpful discussion. It's what he does for a living, too, basically (or did, I'm not sure). Anyway, I remember writing Larry afterwards (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Mike Stanley

(...) Yeah, well, I still want 69. <g> Barring that, I'd like the number I'd get according to the order people began posting to Lugnet, which I would imagine would be somewhere less than 20, maybe even less than 10. Lugnet IS new, and just like I (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

If I just joined, then what are memberships? —Todd Lehman

(...) Someone just wrote in and asked, "I just joined/registered with LUGNET, ... why are membership numbers being proposed?" This is a good question, and may well be a commonly wondered question at this point, so I'm posting the answer here and (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Tom McDonald

(...) After being away for the weekend of the 4th and coming back and reading through the dozens of posts on this, I just said "Whew, I gotta go on vacation longer so I can miss stuff like this more often" ;-) Todd, I've changed my mind about (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) LOL! I'd like to miss a few threads once in a while as well. :-) (...) After a week of cogitating on the complexity of all of this (especially with Selçuk's recent insights), I agree that at least for the time being, things will be much more (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Larry Pieniazek

(...) But I want #2 not #3 ;-) More importantly, what does "signed up" in this context mean? Given my circumstances, there may be no way, depending on when you set this up, that I can get in ahead 50 other people. I still think some sort of "who (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) Maybe "who posted first" could be a prioritizer in case of contentions. Oh well, still several days before anything needs to be put in stone. --Todd (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Ed Jones

(...) Well, I wouldn't call it a mountain, maybe a trash heap. :') But is it just me, or is this whole clamoring for "prime" numbers getting just a little out of hand. Who was the first to post? Who helped Todd the most? Yada Yada Yada Yada. Folks, (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Todd Lehman

(...) No, that's right. If people get the number they want, that's really great. But if they don't, I don't really care (much). But I *do* care (a lot) that people be given the choice to -avoid- certain numbers that they don't want. That is, I would (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Sanjay D'Souza

A far easier numbering system would be to use segments, ie an ID could be made up of subparts that could be used for future Lugnet marketing purposes, give aways and localised promotions. For instance the segments could include: Country of Origin, (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Tom McDonald

(...) Thanks for your MasterCard # Sanjay! :D (...) You mean some sort of unique integer based on the attributes of someone's profile? I could see that, but having considered this idea in my only real job- related database project of music involving (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Sanjay D'Souza

I agree with Ed on this one....if people start using arguments like who posted the first post or who argued the first argument or who boobed with the first blooper then things will really get out of hand. An easier option, one that will guarantee to (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Mike Stanley

(...) Sounds good. Go ahead and wipe my AucZILLA credit slate clean and lemme know where to send anything else. We'll just figure me not cashing that credit in as my however much Y I want to send in addition to X. (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Mike Stanley

(...) I'd kinda like a number that would make me seem like the slightly over-the-hill but still big-name actor who has a decent-sized role. You know, the guy who is always "and Name" at the end of the intro to the tv show. (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

Re: Allocation of member #'s —Tom McDonald

(...) You mean like Russell Johnson as The Professor on Gilligan? He'd have a number like 3.14159265... Or maybe like Lee Majors with a number like 6,000,000? Perhaps 51 for Ephram Zymbalist Jr. ? -Tom McD. when replying, some newer CD-RW's will (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)