Random.org says #47, so the winner is BSBG!
Congratulations BSBG, PM me your address and I'll try to get it sent ASAP.
Now to ask for a little feedback from the participants. Which type of giveaway seems better, the "First response" or "Random winner". Personally, I enjoy the time I get to think "maybe I'll win" more than the dissapointment when I don't in a random draw. I really hate the feeling of seeing something I would have liked to try for and it's already gone. But I would like some feedback from everybody else as to which way they would prefer next time.
My guess is the no's entered were #2 to #69 or whatever No's you would like to draw from,so no!#1 would never have been drawn.I agree that random winner is just fine. One question about the means of it though. If the random # is 47, wouldn't the 48th post actually be the 47th entry? Since post #1 was actually your announcement, not an entry.
Or if the random # generated had been 1, that meant you were the winner, Donshock?
But either way, congrats to the winner and Merry Christmas!
That's exactly how it was done. That's why I phrased it the way I did, there always seems to be this confusion when you say something like "the third person to reply." I wanted to use the closest "post number" since that allows for the thread start being post #1 and other issues like duplicate time stamps, or that the winning number may have just been a comment and not an "I'll take it."My guess is the no's entered were #2 to #69 or whatever No's you would like to draw from,so no!#1 would never have been drawn.
congrats BSBG and merry Christmas.
Update:
Random.org says #47, so the winner is BSBG!
Congratulations BSBG, PM me your address and I'll try to get it sent ASAP.