Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:27 pm
Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:39 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:03 am
CWisgood wrote:17, 64 and 81
Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:33 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:47 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:56 am
Dyl wrote:Because they'd be too obvious, as evidenced by how quickly they were guessed?
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:11 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:35 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:39 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:44 am
okamotosan18 wrote:You know we didn't get one today, right?Still in Turn 55.
Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:22 am
Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:02 pm
Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:37 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 10:37 pm
Dyl wrote:Because they'd be too obvious, as evidenced by how quickly they were guessed?
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:42 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?