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.
-
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
-
9 n 11 r the same, dey just backwards
-
Clock s shitting bricks? MEH!
-
All "Tissot" watches have 4 ike IIII not IV
-
Learn to take a picture.
-
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.
-
IIII for 4 n the v are upside down
-
its missin a finger
-
"fucking idiotic, blind retards"? calm the fuck down, asshole
-
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.
-
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.
-
They missed 4:20! :0
-
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 --'
-
Hey guys, chill about the damn numbers! its the shadow of the big hand. now you can all get some rest.
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.