JMSNews
The J. Michael Straczynski Message Archive

 

JMSNews provides an archive of messages posted
by J. Michael Straczynski (JMS).

  Home      Community Forums      Contest      Links      FAQ      About JMS     

RSS Feed  

 Search all Messages

   Sort by: 

This field searches the text of all messages in the archive.

 Message
    From: jmsatb5@aol.com (Jms at B5)
 Subject: Re: Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
      To: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated  
    Date: 6/24/2003 5:59:00 PM  

  << Newer  : List :  Older >>

View Thread
(5 messages)


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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Site © 2015 Midnight Design Productions  -  Message content © 2015 by Synthetic Worlds  -  Privacy Statement