 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) [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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
| |
