I would have thought I'd commented to you more than that. However, given that there are 261 people lower down on the list than I am, I won't worry about it. I probably talk to you on the phone more often than a whole lot of people on your list, and feel no need to document this to know that it is true.
I'm betting the meme can't count replies to friends-locked posts, and then there's the fact that we occasionally comment to each other in other journals we both read. Not to worry, in any case. We're doing okay.
There should be a Friday night mixer at some future SMOFcon where everyone must be wearing stylish pajamas to play. Maybe the price of the PJ's can be included in the SMOFcon membership, so everyone is guaranteed to have a pair.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-11 10:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-11 10:38 pm (UTC)It probably only sees public posts; that would account for at least some of the discrepency.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 01:09 am (UTC)Only 21?
Date: 2008-12-11 10:32 pm (UTC)Nate
Re: Only 21?
Date: 2008-12-11 10:40 pm (UTC)Re: Only 21?
Date: 2008-12-12 04:33 am (UTC)(And in other news, I've apparently been in the business world for too long.)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-11 11:10 pm (UTC)But, hey, who ever said LJ memes were for truth?
(Still merrily bah humbug-ing along ...)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-11 11:52 pm (UTC)(The merrily part is good....)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 12:44 am (UTC)As an aside I truly love the PJ's.
There should be a Friday night mixer at some future SMOFcon where everyone must be wearing stylish pajamas to play. Maybe the price of the PJ's can be included in the SMOFcon membership, so everyone is guaranteed to have a pair.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 04:05 am (UTC)(and improving my stats) : )
no subject
Date: 2008-12-12 04:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-13 02:30 am (UTC)