Go back
consecutive year splash...

consecutive year splash...

General

Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

they be honoring those who continue to play, year after year...
they put up roman numerals to indicate how many years...

and then they revealed that they do not know how to write roman numerals...

i got nine years, as shown by this - VIIII...

HA!!!

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Originally posted by @rookie54
they be honoring those who continue to play, year after year...
they put up roman numerals to indicate how many years...

and then they revealed that they do not know how to write roman numerals...

i got nine years, as shown by this - VIIII...

HA!!!
that's just the long way

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @rookie54
they be honoring those who continue to play, year after year...
they put up roman numerals to indicate how many years...

and then they revealed that they do not know how to write roman numerals...

i got nine years, as shown by this - VIIII...

HA!!!
now we have roman numerals police????? what about the square root of minus 1 ?

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

If it is not clearly individually numbered rosettes, rather than a literal Roman numeral as you see it, then a redesign maybe required...

Edit: I accept that 9 does look a little awkward though.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @lemondrop
that's just the long way
9 = IX

-VR

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @very-rusty
9 = IX

-VR
google is your friend

Vote Up
Vote Down

The Roman numeral for 4 is IV
but almost always on a clock face it is IIII

that is the Useless Fact of the Day

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
The Roman numeral for 4 is IV
but almost always on a clock face it is IIII

that is the Useless Fact of the Day
Quite. And the Romans themselves, historically, did write XIIII. IX is a "modern" invention. "Modern" in scare quotes because the Romans themselves invented it, just slighly later (AFAIAA "only" in Republican rather than Regal/Etruscan times) than when they started using IXC
M being an altogether later invention from (}) )
.

Therefore, anyone who claims IIII is wrong, is simply a modernist barbarian - so there.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
Therefore, anyone who claims IIII is wrong, is simply a modernist barbarian - so there.
finally!!!
i have wanted to be barbarian for the longest time...
i mean, i got bohemian straight away, but, barbarian has been a challenge...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
Quite. And the Romans themselves, historically, did write XIIII. IX is a "modern" invention.
VIIII