Comments From Those Who Have Shat Brix
-
In Roman Numerals, it is normally correct not to repeat more than 3 consecutive identical numerals... however, an exception is made for 4, which is, and you can look historically at the ancient romans, CORRECTLY written IIII, and INCORRECTLY as IV.
-
9 n 11 r the same, dey just backwards
-
The sad thing is, I have a watch just like that. o_o It's like..WTF? Lazy asses.
-
okay retards, the 6 is correct it's just upside down, all of the numerals bottoms are towards the inside of the clock
-
Guys, please...IIII as a Roman numeral for 4 on clock faces is standard, been that way for a long time. So for those of you who called FAIL on that one, YOU failed.
-
Clock s shitting bricks? MEH!
-
All "Tissot" watches have 4 ike IIII not IV
-
its missin a finger
-
"fucking idiotic, blind retards"? calm the fuck down, asshole
-
IIII for 4 n the v are upside down
-
Learn to take a picture.
-
ITS THE SHADOW OF THE BIG HAND
-
The reason why 4 is IIII on old clocks is that you can make all numbers with: 20 I, 4 X and 4 V. Metal was melted in moulds like XVIIIII. 4 of them allowed to have a complete set of letters for a clock. It was the cheapest and most convenient way to get all the letters. Sorry for poor English.
-
They missed 4:20! :0
-
this is the most boring shitbrix ever. i didn't shit brix, it didn't even make me fart a little
-
Okay, for one, 4=IV For two, the 6 is correct. It is VI, not IV. Fucking idiotic, blind retards.
-
I have a roman numeral clock with IIII as '4' and its fine....theres nothing wrong here
-
of course 4 is IV not IIII , It is fucking easy --'
In Roman Numerals, it is normally correct not to repeat more than 3 consecutive identical numerals... however, an exception is made for 4, which is, and you can look historically at the ancient romans, CORRECTLY written IIII, and INCORRECTLY as IV.