Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 02:51:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
413 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Ed Jones writes:
> 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 "programmed" to a direct link to the
> CLSotW archives. And just so there is no misunderstanding, yes I was CLSotW
> Number 1 but Todd should have Number 1, I would use the Number 35 (my second
> win - I had to look up the number). Multiple winners could only choose one of
> their CLSotW numbers, the other would be available to "oldtimers".
I like that idea! It gives me a chance at some nice numbers: 44 and 100 :)
--Bram
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
