Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:27 pm
Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:39 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:03 am
CWisgood wrote:17, 64 and 81
Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:33 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:47 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:56 am
Dyl wrote:Because they'd be too obvious, as evidenced by how quickly they were guessed?
Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:11 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:35 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:39 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:44 am
okamotosan18 wrote:You know we didn't get one today, right?Still in Turn 55.
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:22 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:02 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:37 pm
CWisgood wrote:Dyl wrote:Because they'd be too obvious, as evidenced by how quickly they were guessed?
Good point.
*wonders if the number 81 came from 180, the sum of all Lost numbers ( I think)*
Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:37 pm
Dyl wrote:Because they'd be too obvious, as evidenced by how quickly they were guessed?
Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:42 pm
No, I didn't.theonlysaneone wrote:Dyl wrote:Because they'd be too obvious, as evidenced by how quickly they were guessed?
Dyl, you've already been the beneficiary of that once. You didn't think I would use them again, did you?