1
: 25 May 2006 03:53 | Comments (11) | Report a problem
erm… 87?
25 May 2006, 04:31
no no no. although its one way to take it. why are you awake?!
25 May 2006, 04:34
MXIVCL
25 May 2006, 05:04
why must people overesticomplicate.
2.
25 May 2006, 07:45
4
25 May 2006, 09:27
8
25 May 2006, 09:47
42 – it's always 42!
25 May 2006, 11:52
in that case, I then submit the next 5 numbers in sequence: 23 16 15 8 4
25 May 2006, 23:11
–3
26 May 2006, 04:00
oooh, minus' (minuses?, minus's? – stupid maths isnt meant to be words). – 4 then.
26 May 2006, 05:54
26 May 2006, 16:48
11 comments by 2 or more people
[Skip to the latest comment]erm… 87?
25 May 2006, 04:31
no no no. although its one way to take it. why are you awake?!
25 May 2006, 04:34
Mathew Mannion
MXIVCL
25 May 2006, 05:04
why must people overesticomplicate.
2.
25 May 2006, 07:45
4
25 May 2006, 09:27
8
25 May 2006, 09:47
42 – it's always 42!
25 May 2006, 11:52
in that case, I then submit the next 5 numbers in sequence: 23 16 15 8 4
25 May 2006, 23:11
–3
26 May 2006, 04:00
oooh, minus' (minuses?, minus's? – stupid maths isnt meant to be words). – 4 then.
26 May 2006, 05:54
26 May 2006, 16:48
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.