Would you have been spooked if both the numbers said 656 or 654? Just as likely, but just not 'stigmatized' numbers :)
Tim Bennett
2 | 10/13/2009 5:54:27 AM
Alan
I think it has been proven somewhere that the number (if calculated correctly) was not 666 but 626 or 616 (I don't remember which).. But you have nothing to worry about...
Alan Lepofsky
3 | 10/13/2009 7:29:07 AM
Hans, no 656 nor 654 would have bothered me.
So outside of the fact that the number was 666, just the coincidence that both my Twitter and LinkedIn account numbers were the same is pretty odd.
mdmadph
4 | 10/13/2009 8:32:53 AM
What do you have against the Roman emperor Nero?
Michael Kobrowski
5 | 10/15/2009 3:28:26 PM
Well, it is October, so no surprise there.
Maybe I should use this opportunity and let you know that if you ever stop by Central Indiana to look up my wife and my side business: :-) www.unseenpress.com
Would you have been spooked if both the numbers said 656 or 654? Just as likely, but just not 'stigmatized' numbers :)
Alan
I think it has been proven somewhere that the number (if calculated correctly) was not 666 but 626 or 616 (I don't remember which).. But you have nothing to worry about...
Hans, no 656 nor 654 would have bothered me.
So outside of the fact that the number was 666, just the coincidence that both my Twitter and LinkedIn account numbers were the same is pretty odd.
What do you have against the Roman emperor Nero?
Well, it is October, so no surprise there.
Maybe I should use this opportunity and let you know that if you ever stop by Central Indiana to look up my wife and my side business: :-) www.unseenpress.com