Woo hoo! Post number DCLXVI!

[Shake]

Hmm ... it just doesn't have the same ring here as it would on other boards*. Nor is it quite as appropriate here as on some other boards I frequent.

Nonetheless, this is my 666th post here, and I thought I'd celebrate it in the appropriate style! :demon2:

You may all go about your business now, there's nothing else to see here. These aren't the droids you're looking for. :r2d2:

*not that I don't like seeing the implementation of my idea for Roman numeral post count here; it fits the style of the board, IMHO

[livius drusus]

Yeah, I can't say the 666 post thing ever really did anything for me. A little contrived and a lot played out, imho. I guess it just get old very fast -- like 4 years ago -- for this IIDB oldtimer. :shrug:

That's one of the reasons I so adore your Roman numeral idea. It creates a whole new standard of postcount milestones, and some of them are words and names and stuff! It makes this English major/ancient Roman fetishist so happy.

Anyway, congrats on having posted DCLXVI times. I look forward to celebrating your next actual FF postcount milestone. :thumbup:

[Shake]

Alright, I'm gonna go ahead now and move past that post number. But something interesting struck me shortly after I made that post -- interesting to number geeks like myself, and perhaps a few others: notice how that particular number in Roman numerals exactly counts down the first six characters from greatest value to least.
500 - 100 - 50 - 10 - 5 - 1.

Other numbers counting up to this one in sequence would be: 1, 6, 16, 66, 166. Of course, the next one in the sequence would be MDCLXVI or 1,666. You, liv, are fast approaching the one after that in the sequence.

Anyway, I'm glad my idea has brought someone else some joy! Thanks again for getting it implemented.

[livius drusus]

Hey that is cool! I wouldn't say I'm fast approaching the next one in sequence, exactly. :blush2:

[Crumb]

MI :ptht:

[Shake]

Hey that is cool! I wouldn't say I'm fast approaching the next one in sequence, exactly. :blush2:
I would!

From your profile: 18.54 posts per day.

Nearly XX/day!

Yeah Crumb, I just noticed a few minutes ago when you were at M! Congrats!

[Ensign Steve]

But something interesting struck me shortly after I made that post -- interesting to number geeks like myself, and perhaps a few others: notice how that particular number in Roman numerals exactly counts down the first six characters from greatest value to least.
500 - 100 - 50 - 10 - 5 - 1.

That's really not surprising, as the Roman numeral system represents six as 5+1, 60 as 50+10, and 600 as 500+100. Not to rain on your parade. I got spanked pretty hard the other week when I said I thought base 10 was cool. :study: (aparently, it's not)

Yeah, I can't say the 666 post thing ever really did anything for me. Aside from being satanic or whatever, 666 is a good milestone because it is approximately two-thirds of the way to 1000. Some people don't make it to 1000 in the first week (I'm not naming names), so it's good to have other milestones in between. Although 667 would be closer to accurate. I think I might start celebrating 667 from now on.

That's one of the reasons I so adore your Roman numeral idea. It creates a whole new standard of postcount milestones, and some of them are words and names and stuff! It makes this English major/ancient Roman fetishist so happy. You're just saying that because it spells your name sometimes, and the rest of the time it spells "lix" and "dix" and "mmm". But really, I like the new dynamic, too. I like dynamics.

[Crumb]

I like dynamics.

Me too. They are so much better than statics.

[Shake]

That's really not surprising, as the Roman numeral system represents six as 5+1, 60 as 50+10, and 600 as 500+100. Not to rain on your parade. I got spanked pretty hard the other week when I said I thought base 10 was cool. :study: (aparently, it's not)

Yeah, I can't say the 666 post thing ever really did anything for me. Aside from being satanic or whatever, 666 is a good milestone because it is approximately two-thirds of the way to 1000. Some people don't make it to 1000 in the first week (I'm not naming names), so it's good to have other milestones in between. Although 667 would be closer to accurate. I think I might start celebrating 667 from now on
Well, base 10 really isn't any cooler than any other numerical system, once you just realize that they all work the same way.

And yes, I think I'll just be happy about the 2/3 to M milestone instead!