During my last entry I was ruminating over the fact that my personal offerings on this DB hasn't resulted in much discussion with other DB users, why this might be so, and some thoughts and observations about sharing of innormation. 

Four4me posted a comment that gave me better insight into what the reasons might be.  I'm paraphrasing his words, but you can read the entirety by scrolling down and clicking on the `Comments' tag.  I'll try to distill the essence of his thoughts.

"Rip that's real interesting what you said in this blog and many other posts. But really do you think that we have a symbiotic relationship with numbers, Or could it be possible that while you are just a new to the forum here.(some editing out here by me..jp) . . . .  Many of us have been sharing ideas for years and some of us have even made friends who communicate with each other on different pathways. Some people on lottery post have even visited other people in different states. Even more have PM-ed each other and have made joint efforts to try and out think some inert lottery balls.

Although the post required some study to comprehend, I gather from that reference to whether I believe we have a `symbiotic relationship with numbers', that Four4me is saying that while we have similar goals, we don't have a common cause.. No mutual effort going toward a common goal, but instead, individual and small group efforts to achieve a similar goal, more in a devil-take the hindmost scramble  (my words, not his).  Something roughly similar to treasure hunters, as I alluded in my blog entry, all searching for the same treasure, gleaning innormation from anyone dumb enough to share, but giving out as little as possible in return (except among the in-crowd). 

Four4me expands the allusion a bit further in his post, first by pointing out that I'm new here, which is true, and that there are `old-timers' who communicate by other routes and do share innormation (but mainly with one another ---by implication, not with newcomers. I read this, sharing with the clique members who have paid their dues:  "Don't share what you know with strangers," my old friend, Mel, would have put it, more succinctly.  But in this case, the word `stranger' is defined by how long a person has posted to the forums, instead of how many nights spent together listening to the night sky over the crackle of a campfire).

Four4me goes on to declare he's had some wins, which I don't doubt is true.

I don't have a problem with what he says.  As I explained in earlier blog entries, I've encountered the phenomenon before.  While I don't admire it and don't hold the people who subscribe to it in high regard, I understand it.

One of the least appealing facets of every DB I've ever visited was the tendency of cliques of users to lord their having been visiting there longer over the more recent arrivals, as though some virtue accrued with the duration of having visited there, and were sacred.  That attitude is easy enough to see here, as well.  Old-timers can behave in ways that would immediately label them trolls, were they recent arrivals, but they do so as members of an `in-crowd', and can actually solicit support from their friends in this behavior (and receive it). 

Of course, that's only a piece of what Four4me is referring to.  The underlying reference to the hoarding of `secret' knowledge, so frequently repeated in human behavior as to be expected, is also there.  It echoes the spinoff drumbeat posturing of many here over how adept they are at predicting numbers, how inept others are, what amazing fellows these posturers are, in general. 

If someone who's ever won a jackpot still hangs out here I tip my hat to him in horror, awe, and wonderment.  But a person who hasn't won, but who prances about proclaiming his ability to predict the numbers is only worthy of a shrug.

As I've said, I have no problem with this.  We humans tend to find ways to rhyme with ourselves in our inadequacies, and in this we've discovered yet another means of doing so.  The comparison between treasure hunters and lottery number aficionados appears to be a valid one, which is evidently what Four4me intended to communicate.  He succeeded, perhaps better than he intended.

I'll finish this with the observation that, if Four4me and his friends had discovered what they were looking for they wouldn't still be coming here.  When I do, I won't.  I'm not here to search for any new best friends with attitude.

Four4me, I appreciate the post.  If I've misread you here, I apologize.  Feel free to correct anything you believe doesn't do justice to your words.

Sooooo.  I'm posting these numbers here just to keep myself honest and to remind myself, should I be wrong, there's no disgrace in being wrong in public.  The disgrace would be in being fearful of doing so.  Of caring whether one might appear less in the eyes of men such as these:

I believe six of the following numbers will probably be on the MM draw Friday night. 

Distilled, they'd look this way:

Jack