 | | 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. (26 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. (26 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. (26 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 (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
