JMS on Usenet

Message

Subject: Re: Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:59:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated

Never, ever do this again.  Not to a man in my condition.  And I didn't even
HAVE a condition until I read this.

jms

>It's because it has better balance:  1 syllable, 2 syllables, 3 syllables
>rather than 1 syllable, 1 syllable, 3 syllables.
>
>You see, as ever, it goes back to the Minbari's obsession with the number
>three.  Three words, with a total of six syllables.  What is six, but three
>factorial ( 3! ), which is  3 z 2 z 1.  Also, 3 + 2 + 1 = 6     -  amazing!
>And take into account that 1 appears in both sums - yes, you guessed it -
>"the one" !  You see - more Minbari numerology in there!!
>
>The Minbari connection is even more remarkable, when you do a quick
>numerological analysis on both forms you suggested:
>
>-----------------------------------------
>
>J MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
>
>J    10
>               10   SUB-TOTAL
>M    13
>I     9
>C     3
>H     8
>A     1
>E     5
>L    12
>               51   SUB-TOTAL
>S    19
>T    20
>R    18
>A     1
>C     3
>Z    26
>Y    25
>N    14
>S    19
>K    11
>I     9
>               164   SUB-TOTAL
>
>                        225  TOTAL
>
> 2 + 2 + 5 = 9 = 3 x 3
>-----------------------------------------
>
>JOE M STRACZYNSKI
>
>J    10
>O    15
>E     5
>               30   SUB-TOTAL
>M    13
>               13   SUB-TOTAL
>S    19
>T    20
>R    18
>A     1
>C     3
>Z    26
>Y    25
>N    14
>S    19
>K    11
>I     9
>               164   SUB-TOTAL
>
>                         207   TOTAL
>
> 2 + 0 + 9 = 9 = 3 x 3
>-----------------------------------------
>
>At first sight, it seems that both forms are in fact Minbari-linked, with
>the totals collapsing down to 9.  However, closer analysis shows that the
>first form must be the ideal candidate.  If  you take the first word from
>each form, you get J (10 summed letters), and JOE (30 summed letters).
>
>Rewriting these in Bolloxian form, you get:
>
>(1)  J = 10
>(2)  JOE = 30
>
>Substituting (1) into (2), you get:
>
>(3)  10OE = 30     =>      OE = 3
>
>Now, as we know, Joe is a great wordsmith, so it is obvious that that OE can
>only refer to the Oxford English dictionary.  And in this context, it is
>obvious that (3) is telling us that we are talking about the 3 volume
>_Shorter_ Oxford English Dictionary.  Since J is shorter than JOE, then we
>can only conclude that the first form is correct.
>
>~~~~
>
>Just as an addendum, look at the numerical positions in the alphabet of JMS:
>
>J     10
>
>M   13
>
>S     19
>
>Cam you see the pattern?  Yes, the differences are:
>
>J     10
>            \
>                   3
>            /
>M   13
>             \
>                    6
>             /
>S     19
>
>There you go again.  Three and six, both multiples of three.   And what do
>you get if you add them up?  3 + 6 = 9 = 3 x 3.
>Unbelievable!
>
>
>I hope that this answers your question.
>
>--
>Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
>Kingston upon Thames
>UK