Subject:
|
Re: 21 Australians
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:33:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
558 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.au, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> Peter White wrote in message ...
> > We're up to 21 official Lugnet members now with Darren and Frances • officially
> > clocked in. With Lugnet's newish front page, the stream of new members • seems
> > fairly constant. I wonder who will be member 666 ?
>
>
> Feh! When I applied for membership I effectively requested 666.
>
> For "Membership number range[s] you wish to exclude:"
> I specified: "[1-665,667-1000000]"
>
> But no, LUGNET wouldn't play ball... so I'll be a bit miffed if they hand it
> to anyone else ;-)
I wished I had, AFTER having my number allotted.
But I'm glad I didn't ... now.
I wonder how many others have requested 666.
pete.w (member (666 divided by 2, then 11 subtracted))
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 21 Australians
|
| (...) I wonder how many have also requested the number 1701. :) When I used to play MUSHes, that was always one of the most sought-after room numbers... :) Later, David Drew (24 years ago, 5-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 21 Australians
|
| Peter White wrote in message ... (...) officially (...) seems (...) Feh! When I applied for membership I effectively requested 666. For "Membership number range[s] you wish to exclude:" I specified: "[1-665,667-1000000]" But no, LUGNET wouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 5-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
