I’m in
I’m in.
I’m in
I’m In.
deleted
I’m in.
Yeah, I’m in.
Thanks for GAW.
I’m in.
The giveaway is over and a winner has been selected! Video to follow when I get home this evening. In the meantime, congrats, Mandrake50 for the win (post 95)!
WOW. Thank you very much!!
This is great.
Good Win—-Enjoy
Thanks for this giveaway. 
The winner posted twice—should be disqualified for multiple posting.
Congrats to the winner! 
Nah, he deleted the second entry before the draw.
Nice going, Mandrake50.
Thanks for the giveaway, Rusty Joe.
Congratulations, Mandrake50.
Congrats to the winner! 
Didn’t he double post?
I saw the double-post - and deletion of it - but the problem becomes that with this format, there is no way for me to delete a post and/or disqualify someone without doing the same to someone else who might accidentally do so. And if said disqualifying post is in the middle of posts, I can’t see a way to preserve the post # selection process from then on. Ultimately, a random.org selection takes the total number of posts and selects, irregardless of one particular person. So in this case, I put in 3-99 and a selection was made.
I don’t see a huge problem here. The selected number was actually prior to the additional accidental post. So, to me, we are okay. And in the interest of true randomness, I’ve let it stand.
Maybe there should be rules with more specific guidelines than we presently go by?
It might be a pain but keeping a numbered list of eligible participants in post #1 or #2 would solve any double post issues. For example, since you drew a # up to #99 it could potentially skew the randomness since you are increase the # of random #’s to choose from