Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 1999 01:13:58 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cjc@newsguy/Spamcake/.com
|
Viewed:
|
802 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
>
> Any opinions on how LUGNET member #'s should be allocated/assigned?
>
> All of this, of course, assumes that people actually -care- what number
> they happen to wind up with, and that they might prefer lower numbers
> over larger numbers...and this might not be universally the case.
>
> Does anyone care? The #'s will be lifetime-lasting.
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.
--
The pieces you want and nothing else - easy online bidding!
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Allocation of member #'s
|
| 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 (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general)
|
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
