Replication is the devil’s work...

IBM Lotus Notes replicator tab showing the number of the beast!…And now I have incontrovertible proof, oh yes.

Yeah, I know, 666 may not actually be the mark of the devil, but what the hell… (sorry) indulge me; it amused me on a gut-wrenchingly tedious day!


  1. Ah, yes, you're a true geek Mr Poole! :)Colin Williams#
  2. 666 got lost in translation. The latest findings say it is 616 and anyhow it is very likely a pun on emperor Nero. But what the hell if ift made your day.
    :-) stwStephan H. Wissel#
  3. Er, that’s not necessarily true Stephan. But anyway, I link to all that in the post — didn’t you follow the 666 link, damn it?

    OK, I shall stop the hell / damnation puns now ;-) Ben Poole#
  4. Sorry about the devil getting into your system… =)

    "The latest findings"? The proposition that it could be 616 has been around since fairly early in Christendom.

    Albert Barnes wrote in the 19th Century about Irenaeus and Tychonius talking about this in the 2nd Century:

    "In Wetstein, Griesbach, Hahn, Tittmann, and the common Greek text, it is expressed by the characters χξς = 666. There can be no doubt that this is the correct number, though, in the time of Irenaeus, there was in some copies another reading - χις = 616. This reading was adopted by the expositor Tychonius; but against this Irenaeus inveighs (Liv. v. 100:30). There can be no doubt that the number 666 is the correct reading, though it would seem that this was sometimes expressed in letters, and sometimes written in full. Wetstein supposes that both methods were used by John; that in the first copy of his book he used the letters, and in a subsequent copy wrote it in full. This inquiry is not of material consequence."Chris Whisonant#
  5. It is scary how much people who read blogs know.Ben Langhinrichs#

Comments on this post are now closed.


I’m a software architect / developer / general IT wrangler specialising in web, mobile web and middleware using things like node.js, Java, C#, PHP, HTML5 and more.

Best described as a simpleton, but kindly. You can read more here.