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