Why I hate Roman Numerals

or, "Roman Numerals Do Not Automatically Make You Seem Smarter."

Dear publishers of newsletters, magazines, journals, and newspapers (I'm looking at YOU, newsletters),

I realize that publishing a periodical can be difficult. It's hard to keep track of all those numbers, and to remember what volume you last sent out. It's perfectly fine to say that you publish twelve times per year when in fact you publish 7, or 2 or whenever you feel like publishing. I can deal with that.

I understand that sometimes you may decide to change the title of your publication without warning, so that I don't recognize it when it comes. I understand that. I even understand it when, after some indeterminate amount of time, you inexplicably change the title again-- revert to the original or perhaps to something else entirely. I don't mind. Really, I don't.

I understand when you get behind, and your fall 2005 issue isn't published until June 2007. I mean, I personally think it would make more sense to just give up on 2006 entirely and get back on schedule. But hey, it's your prerogative.

It would be nice if you would try and be consistent with things. When you switch back and forth between seasons and months it just makes things so messy. I am a perfectionist though, so maybe that's just me.

There is one thing I don't understand, however, and it is this:

Why, oh WHY do you insist on using Roman Numerals when you have NO CONCEPT of how they work?

This may come as a surprise, but it doesn't make you seem smarter when you're using them incorrectly. Let's look at you for example, CN News. You are on your 93rd volume. Clearly, you are an important organization that has been around for a long time--Good for you! Do you think that your publication is made more, or less respectable when you write the number 93 as LXXXVVIII?

(that's 50+10+10+10+5+5+1+1+1. It's the two fives that really get me).

I know, I know. It does look impressive to see all those numbers stretched out across the page. But if you know anything about roman numerals? Not so impressive. 93 is XCIII (That's 100-10+1+1+1). I'll let you in on a little secret, "When you make up your own roman numerals, people laugh at you."

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but please please go to Google and type "roman numeral converter." It is SO EASY.

Pleadingly yours,

The Chocolate Milk Girl.