123 users

• 123 users
  Posted by Lexington on 02 Nov, 2007 02:48
• i can never really think of good names for threads (fell free to help here, dp)
  but i was thinking: i bet we could get 123 users to all be signed in at once and beat the previous record of 122 that was set years ago. i say we try to do it on january 23 (1/23) of 2008. c\'mon that would be cool right?
• 
  
• #1 Reply
  Posted by peaches626 on 02 Nov, 2007 02:52
• face.  put the bong down.  go to bed.
• 
  
• #2 Reply
  Posted by Klout on 02 Nov, 2007 02:55
• Quote from: peaches626;166970

  face.  put the bong down.  go to bed.

  
  :lol: textbook call out
• 
  
• #3 Reply
  Posted by davepeck on 02 Nov, 2007 09:37
• Quote from: Lexington;166969

  i can never really think of good names for threads (fell free to help here, dp)
  but i was thinking: i bet we could get 123 users to all be signed in at once and beat the previous record of 122 that was set years ago. i say we try to do it on january 23 (1/23) of 2008. c\'mon that would be cool right?

  
  wait, so you did this instead of going to the good time boys show last night?
  
  
  
  
  
  really?
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  
• #4 Reply
  Posted by FrankZappa on 02 Nov, 2007 11:57
• well, his little sister was busy.
• 
  
• #5 Reply
  Posted by Spacey on 02 Nov, 2007 12:11
• it has to be organic, planning it is just wrong.
• 
  
• #6 Reply
  Posted by jocelyn on 02 Nov, 2007 17:32
• Quote from: FrankZappa;167018

  well, his little sister was busy.

  
  :lol:
• 
  
• #7 Reply
  Posted by FreeSpirit on 02 Nov, 2007 18:53
• Ok, it\'s a good (or better yet, interesting) plan, but i think it might seem a little too "forced" if you actually TRY to beat the old record...
  
  Maybe this record will someday be won by coincidence, not by planning!
• 
  
• #8 Reply
  Posted by jocelyn on 02 Nov, 2007 19:08
• Hopefully...
• 
  
• #9 Reply
  Posted by skalnbyc on 02 Nov, 2007 19:15
• I\'m pretty sure the record of 122 users (yes, Leith, I could use the search function and find an old thread about the superlative ) was an undeserved stat for the board.  
  
  From my recollection, there was some Google search agent (bot?) listed as dozens of unique users, and there was some skepticism on the part of .info management that the record was really being broken.
• 
  
• #10 Reply
  Posted by jocelyn on 02 Nov, 2007 19:37
• I believe you are correct.
• 
  
• #11 Reply
  Posted by Klout on 02 Nov, 2007 19:46
• true record = 25
• 
  
• #12 Reply
  Posted by Todd on 02 Nov, 2007 19:58
• I thought it had to do with the posting of a BT.
  
  Edit:
  I was wrong. The first record breaker of 95 was due to a STG error. That\'s the one I was referring to. The latest record was discussed here.
  
  

  Quote from: davepeck;44726

  wish i was online to see what was up.. i find it odd, considering that you have to be a member and logged in to see the forums. i\'m guessing maybe the google bots just went nuts or something, cause that\'s a pretty high number..

  
  Zurflue wins the rubber chicken.
• 
  
• #13 Reply
  Posted by FreeSpirit on 02 Nov, 2007 20:46
• Quote from: Klout;167157

  true record = 25

  
  :lol: so, pretty much the same 25 users who are on here every night...
• 
  
• #14 Reply
  Posted by Klout on 02 Nov, 2007 22:21
• 20 users, 3 google bots and two guys offering xanax from canada through the mail. its a pretty heady scene.
•