One.

(Reply) (Thread)

LOL. I knew this was going to happen. And it's not anyone's fault.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

To be honest, I thought that was the most likely way for it to end as well. Just not at one.

OK, who had the under?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I can't say I outright declared it, but for that very reason, I would have taken the under. By far. You have too many readers.

If not for that, I'd still take the under for someone speaking out of order, like asking a question or something like. Or replying to the post instead of the comment.

If not any of those factors, I'd maybe take the over. But that's only b/c we can sit here and think and be careful. My understanding of how this is supposed to work is that you sit in a circle and you're supposed to say it as fast as possible. And you're supposed to be drinking. (Duh.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hey, in all honesty both my comment and the first came in at the exact same time. I thought I was the first to comment.

But then, as you said, it wasn't anybody's fault. Poor Ol' Chris didn't think of that contingency. I would reckon that, in the future if this should happen, it be treated as a "split" like in blackjack, and each thread would then take on a life of its own.

Chris, what do you think?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Nope! Only one shot at it. We can't start the range finder again for another 35,064 hours.

Of course, theoretically it's possible to pre-arrange a strategy for avoiding That Sort Of Thing, and off the top of my head I might start with "if you were born on 1st January, comment at 00:01; if you were born on 2nd January, comment at 00:02" and so on, not withstanding the fact that there are days where as many as four people on my Friends list alone were born. Frankly, the preparation takes the fun out of things. It's only an interesting challenge when people aren't prepared for it.

We have set the world record at one for some other unexpecting online community to beat - and now you've seen what can happen, you're no longer unexpecting, until you've forgotten about it. One may yet prove to be a good score.

Bed time!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Can I point out that 35064 divided by = 11688 and you are therefore disqualified for not saying fizz!

err so am I apparently!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

OK, who had the under?

I was thinking as I read the post "Hmm... this is a lot like 'First post!!!', which means there will probably be three or four copies of '1'.

I'm impressed at how much restraint everyone showed!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Ummmm...fizz?

(Reply) (Thread)

Well done, everybody! We have set a new world record. The rest of the world has one to beat.

Perhaps we shall have another go next Leap Day and see whether we can beat the world record - or, at least, our personal best.

(Reply) (Thread)

Seriously, please don't feel terrible.

Meg can vouch for how much I have been laughing about this turn of events at this end - though, I hasten to add, not maliciously, nor intentionally at any particular respondent's expense. If we'd got to, say, 29 before breaking the chain then it wouldn't have been nearly this funny!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Considering how ridiculous this is and how much we are (I hope) laughing, you should not feel terrible.

Especially since you weren't the one who messed up!

(Just teasing, jumbach!)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

{stomps out}

No, actually, I thought it was pretty funny, too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Actually, it's a world record that is only matchable, not breakable; the fastest-ever game of fizz-fuzz, when measured in number of posts it took to end the streak.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Surely not. This had one correct post followed by one that broke the streak. If another game starts with "fizz", "buzz", or "two", it fails to make even one correct post and ends with a final score of 0.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Indeed - or, possibly more likely, a spammer advertising the third to eighth letters of socialism.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oops. Make that "fizz-buzz," not "fizz-fuzz." My typo.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Man, that would have been a disaster had we gotten to five and you typed "fuzz".

Luckily, you're off the hook. :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

:-D

I recall one French class when the teacher was away and an English teacher came to make sure we didn't run riot for the 40 minutes. He led us in a game of Fizz Buzz, or at least Fizz, with the French word for sausage (saucisse!) being the token for numbers divisible by three. (Or, as I recall, including a digit three.)

On another matter, I have a bit of a thing for old-fashioned books of party games, many of which I'd still like to play some day but are absolutely the sort of thing that nobody plays any more, for no good reason. One of them had a variant of Fizz Buzz, without the "multiple of" rule, but where eight numbers from one to twenty were replaced by Fizz, Buzz and all manner of other entertaining sounds that had to be memorised. I'm pretty sure that twenty was "Grooby".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

1

(Reply) (Thread)