Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:00 pm
#263, I joined the day after Tom and dAN, coming up on my 3 year anny.
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Where are you in the "joined date" list?
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:08 pm
I am #271.
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:54 pm
Well, if you put it that way...I'm off the charts too.danlo wrote:Since I joined on the EZboard w/MsM I'm off the charts (got the congratulations letter from AARP the other day....
)
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:54 pm
Caesures?Marvin The Magnificent wrote:1482--page 30
This isn't as fun as the posting one...how can I be expected to catch up with other people?
I'm 1022.
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:42 am
134 - Day after Sev, day before Fisty. 
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:23 am
#258 How interesting that I've never known or cared about this statistic before.
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:20 am
dlbpharmd wrote:coming up on my 3 year anny.
Same here
I'm #249 8/17/03Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:38 am
aTOMiC wrote:How interesting that I've never known or cared about this statistic before.
#540. 2nd August 2004. Just passed my 2 year anniversary.
--A
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:23 pm
I'm number 486! There were less than 500 members when I joined!
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:14 pm
Figured that out yourself, eh?
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:25 pm
What a coincidence! There were less than 500 members when I joined too.Nathan wrote:I'm number 486! There were less than 500 members when I joined!
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:53 pm
Yeah, but there were more than 500 members when you commented on it.
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:31 am
Nathan wrote:I'm number 486! There were less than 500 members when I joined!
Actually, there weren't less than 500 members when you joined. Not technically anyway. However, now there were less than 500 when you joined. Don't blame me if that's confusing.
See, although you're 486 on the list now, if you look at your profile link, you were actually the 800 and somethingth member to actually join. Just like I was the 921st, despite being #540 now. I assume that the subsequent purges have re-ordered the list.
--A
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:30 am
That's kind of a kick in the nuts...
However, if we just change it to "active members" I can have it both ways.
Edit: What? I see no such number on my profile page... Is it some kind of moderator thing?
Edit again: OK, I'm stupid, I know what you mean now.
However, if we just change it to "active members" I can have it both ways.
Edit: What? I see no such number on my profile page... Is it some kind of moderator thing?
Edit again: OK, I'm stupid, I know what you mean now.
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:36 am
Actually, if we change it to "active Member" you're probably even higher up the list.
--A
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:21 am
I'm 379.
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:32 am
Pffff. It's quality, not quantity!
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:02 am
luckily I have both.
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:42 am
263 on the 13 Sepember 2003, two days after dlbpharmd and dANdeLION.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:00 pm
Wow, just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more boring, too.Avatar wrote:Nathan wrote:I'm number 486! There were less than 500 members when I joined!
Don't blame me if that's confusing.
See, although you're 486 on the list now, if you look at your profile link, you were actually the 800 and somethingth member to actually join. Just like I was the 921st, despite being #540 now. I assume that the subsequent purges have re-ordered the list.
--A