Archie: Believe me when I say that I didn't want this to turn into a big deal. I know you and have had many successful dealings with both you and many other posters to this board. In your post you say: " It's not about money. It's about offering a true reflection of CONTINUED membership from a certain time period reference.".....I have to disagree because if someone was absent from the club for say, ten years and paid all the back dues, this is not a true reflection of CONTINUED membership. As I stated in my last post, there either should be an elimination of the policy of reactivating old member numbers or a cutoff point stating how long a member can be inactive before giving them the old number back. This all started because of the insinuation that non-members are not as trustworthy as members...that's all. I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I apologize if I ruffled any feathers....believe me, this was not my goal.