I agree,
I think we should have numbers. Not as a form of Hierarchy but just to give members an idea of how long other members have
been members eg If someone asks a question about something, some members MAY think, "We covered that problem about XX months ago, why bother answering it again?".
If a member number was attached to their name, as in our STOC numbers, it would give people an idea of their length of membership and either answer the question or refer them to a certain post etc.
I can see where Tipsy's coming from, I've had a 'Regimental Number' for the past 39 years, but so long as you're not being referred to as simply '5874' I can't see any problem. And by the way, I'm not advocating being referred to, as in my case, Roper5874, that was a name of my choosing. Most members are aware that my name is Dave and refer to me as such or they call me roper.
Is it really that important? I've NEVER received an answer on STOC referring to me as a 'Newby' or told to shut up because I've only been a member since Breakfast time. Other members have told me that, this or that was resolved/answered, previously and steered me in the right direction.
FURTHER:- I don't think Diesel or Streak should have numbers, they should be numberless as, to my knowledge, they both had an equal part in getting this great group of
loosers like minded, fantastic people together, so I think that the numbers 1 & 2 should be vacant.
I am TRULY sorry that I will not be able to attend the Inaugural Get-together ( BROCK's not the only person going to Thailand at that time ) but I sincerely wish you all the very best at the gathering and hope that I will be able to attend the next one.
Take care all,
Dave