|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 17, 2010 11:57:06 GMT
Magic. 79
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 17, 2010 15:13:15 GMT
Eeeeeeighty.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Nov 17, 2010 18:12:11 GMT
You can only count by ones. 49-1 It doesn't say that in the rules. 100.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 17, 2010 19:14:25 GMT
I'm sorry, that isn't 72, but the product of all natural/counting numbers equal to and less than 72... ...nor is that 66, but the product of all natural/counting numbers equal to and less than 66. I would say that we need to start over, but Ganon has a good point. The rules don't specify that the numbers have to be posted in order...
|
|
|
Post by vaconcovat on Nov 17, 2010 21:14:40 GMT
81?
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Nov 17, 2010 21:15:53 GMT
Actually, we either need to start over at 66 (since 66 factorial was used instead) or just post all the winning numbers, one number per post.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 0:25:11 GMT
Ah dangit.
67.
|
|
|
Post by RubiksMaster123 on Nov 18, 2010 1:55:24 GMT
68. i used the exclamation mark as an exclamation mark, not a factorial sign. -__-
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Nov 18, 2010 5:16:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 5:32:06 GMT
69 (See? I can say it without innuendo!)
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Nov 18, 2010 5:44:50 GMT
69 (See? I can say it without innuendo!) I already said that number. See?
70. We're getting so old. Yeah. What he said. That guy who I just quoted. Qwerty. This is my response to the previous number. Yeah. We're getting off the innuendo-filled number. One-up. Multiple of our base. Multiple of our lucky number. Yeah. That's the number. The one that is bolded. (I did that.)
|
|
|
Post by vaconcovat on Nov 18, 2010 6:22:10 GMT
How badly can we suck at counting to 100?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 6:45:12 GMT
I'm sorry, that isn't 72, but the product of all natural/counting numbers equal to and less than 72... Actually, we either need to start over at 66 (since 66 factorial was used instead) or just post all the winning numbers, one number per post. ...nor is that 66, but the product of all natural/counting numbers equal to and less than 66. I would say that we need to start over, but Ganon has a good point. The rules don't specify that the numbers have to be posted in order... Pity we had to reset to 66, eh? 70. Again.
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Nov 18, 2010 7:12:29 GMT
I'll just say it again. And I already did the previous one. The one you just did. I am trying to do this without using numbers. Just quotes. Still, I did the previous one. Do I need to put it in big text?
|
|
|
Post by RubiksMaster123 on Nov 18, 2010 11:43:01 GMT
143-what elmach said
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Nov 18, 2010 13:41:38 GMT
100
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 14:59:08 GMT
73...
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 18, 2010 18:12:49 GMT
74
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Nov 18, 2010 18:14:39 GMT
75
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Zero on Nov 18, 2010 19:23:48 GMT
WTf? How did this game thrive?
76...
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Nov 18, 2010 19:25:32 GMT
Everyone wants to win.
77
|
|
|
Post by Artifact123 on Nov 18, 2010 20:02:42 GMT
78
|
|
|
Post by vaconcovat on Nov 18, 2010 20:59:05 GMT
SEVENTY NINE
|
|
|
Post by RubiksMaster123 on Nov 18, 2010 21:01:41 GMT
100-(15+5)
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 18, 2010 21:18:53 GMT
81. Which happens to be 1 above 80, and 1 below 82.
|
|
|
Post by DISTURBED on Nov 18, 2010 23:28:14 GMT
LXXXII
|
|
|
Post by RubiksMaster123 on Nov 19, 2010 0:12:43 GMT
77+page number
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Nov 19, 2010 1:59:58 GMT
42. TWICE. (Yes, I mean added together.)
|
|
|
Post by DISTURBED on Nov 19, 2010 2:05:39 GMT
LXXXV
|
|
|
Post by RubiksMaster123 on Nov 19, 2010 2:11:44 GMT
86+86+86+86. all that divided by 4
|
|