I can top that. Mine was 4. I was born in mid-'56, which meant that the number became meaningless, more or less. Thank goodness. Such a small number...
Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 5:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: numerology > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Miller, Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 7:00 PM > Subject: RE: poll > > > > 42 > > is not a good number, but it is better than my number, which was 6. I was > born in late '53, which should clarify matters. > > Dan M.
