ATTN JMS: Influences?

B5JMS Poster b5jms-owner at
Sat Nov 11 06:40:05 EST 1995

Subject: ATTN JMS: Influences?
*  1: Oct 28, 1995: straczynski at
   2: Oct 28, 1995: edwinyoo at (Edwin Yoo)
   3: Oct 28, 1995: jegolf at (J.M.Egolf)
   4: Oct 28, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
   5: Oct 28, 1995: elana at (Elana who?)
   6: Oct 28, 1995: romana at (Laura Jane Swanson)
   7: Oct 28, 1995: cdershem at (Carl Dershem)
   8: Oct 29, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
   9: Oct 29, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  10: Oct 29, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  11: Oct 29, 1995: alaric at (The Renaissance Man)
  12: Oct 29, 1995: alaric at (The Renaissance Man)
  13: Oct 29, 1995: enthar at (Seth Buntain)
  14: Oct 29, 1995: jegolf at (J.M.Egolf)
  15: Oct 29, 1995: navoff at (J. Potts)
  16: Oct 29, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  17: Oct 29, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  18: Oct 29, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  19: Oct 30, 1995: thedoge at (The_Doge of St. Louis)
  20: Oct 30, 1995: pspacek at (Pat Spacek)
  21: Oct 30, 1995: esiuol at (Esiuol)
  22: Oct 30, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  23: Oct 30, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  24: Oct 30, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at>
  25: Oct 31, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
  26: Oct 31, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  27: Oct 31, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at>
  28: Oct 31, 1995: haaker at (Cheryl Haaker)
  29: Oct 31, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
  30: Oct 31, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  31: Oct 31, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  32: Nov  1, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  33: Nov  1, 1995: tracer at (Roger M. Wilcox)
  34: Nov  1, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
  35: Nov  1, 1995: fotoldy at (Linda Freund)
  36: Nov  1, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  37: Nov  1, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  38: Nov  1, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  39: Nov  1, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  40: Nov  1, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
  41: Nov  1, 1995: schillin at (John Schilling)
  42: Nov  1, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at>
  43: Nov  2, 1995: rmiller at (Blue Fenix of the Unknown BBS)
  44: Nov  2, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  45: Nov  2, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  46: Nov  2, 1995: vinay at (Vinay Pandey)
  47: Nov  2, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  48: Nov  2, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  49: Nov  2, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  50: Nov  2, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  51: Nov  2, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  52: Nov  2, 1995: mears at (David Mears)
  53: Nov  2, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  54: Nov  2, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
  55: Nov  3, 1995: park at (Bill Park)
  56: Nov  3, 1995: denebeim at (Jay Denebeim)
  57: Nov  3, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  58: Nov  4, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
  59: Nov  4, 1995: marco.bernardo at (Marco Bernardo)
  60: Nov  4, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  61: Nov  4, 1995: dubost at (Michael Dubost)
  62: Nov  4, 1995: marco.bernardo at (Marco Bernardo)
  63: Nov  4, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  64: Nov  5, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  65: Nov  5, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
  66: Nov  5, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
  67: Nov  5, 1995: jegolf at (J.M.Egolf)
  68: Nov  5, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  69: Nov  5, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
  70: Nov  5, 1995: marco.bernardo at (Marco Bernardo)
  71: Nov  5, 1995: vinay at (Vinay Pandey)
  72: Nov  5, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  73: Nov  5, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  74: Nov  5, 1995: nimue at ("Vivienne Oregan")
  75: Nov  6, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  76: Nov  6, 1995: gharlane at (Gharlane of Eddore)
  77: Nov  6, 1995: "H. E. McDorman" <heather.mcdorman at>
  78: Nov  6, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  79: Nov  6, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
  80: Nov  6, 1995: sbrowett at (Stephen Browett)
  81: Nov  6, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
  82: Nov  6, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
  83: Nov  6, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
  84: Nov  7, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  85: Nov  7, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
  86: Nov  7, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
  87: Nov  7, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
  88: Nov  7, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
  89: Nov  7, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  90: Nov  7, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
  91: Nov  7, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  92: Nov  7, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
  93: Nov  7, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  94: Nov  7, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  95: Nov  7, 1995: vinay at (Vinay Pandey)
  96: Nov  7, 1995: vinay at (Vinay Pandey)
  97: Nov  7, 1995: Robert Holland <rholland at>
  98: Nov  7, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
  99: Nov  7, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
 100: Nov  7, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
 101: Nov  7, 1995: smithk at (Ken Smith)
 102: Nov  7, 1995: marco.bernardo at (Marco Bernardo)
 103: Nov  7, 1995: marco.bernardo at (Marco Bernardo)
 104: Nov  8, 1995: greg at (Greg Noel)
 105: Nov  8, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
 106: Nov  8, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
 107: Nov  8, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
 108: Nov  8, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
 109: Nov  8, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
 110: Nov  8, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
 111: Nov  8, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 112: Nov  8, 1995: scphill at
 113: Nov  8, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
 114: Nov  8, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
 115: Nov  8, 1995: vinay at (Vinay Pandey)
 116: Nov  8, 1995: marco.bernardo at (Marco Bernardo)
 117: Nov  8, 1995: vinay at (Vinay Pandey)
 118: Nov  8, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
 119: Nov  8, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
+120: Nov  8, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
*121: Nov  8, 1995: straczynski at
 122: Nov  9, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 123: Nov  9, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 124: Nov  9, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 125: Nov  9, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 126: Nov  9, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
 127: Nov  9, 1995: dstarr at (Daniel J. Starr)
 128: Nov  9, 1995: tmclean at (Tom McLean)
 129: Nov  9, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
 130: Nov  9, 1995: nicko at GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Nickolai B. Ogurtsov)
 131: Nov  9, 1995: nicko at GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Nickolai B. Ogurtsov)
 132: Nov  9, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
 133: Nov  9, 1995: strueb at (Strueb)
 134: Nov  9, 1995: vinay at (Vinay Pandey)
 135: Nov  9, 1995: scphill at
 136: Nov  9, 1995: scphill at
 137: Nov  9, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
 138: Nov  9, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
 139: Nov  9, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
 140: Nov  9, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
 141: Nov  9, 1995: Morgan <Morgan at>
 142: Nov  9, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 143: Nov  9, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 144: Nov  9, 1995: 3cjmd at (De Castellvi Jaime M)
 145: Nov  9, 1995: toddh at (Todd Horowitz)
 146: Nov 10, 1995: ext at (Eugene Zhu Xia)
 147: Nov 10, 1995: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
 148: Nov 10, 1995: seebs at (Peter Seebach)
+149: Nov 10, 1995: srati at (Echo)
*150: Nov 11, 1995: straczynski at


From: straczynski at
Lines: 49

      Have not read Rice's "The Adding Machine" or seen it, but from the
apparent time period, it's likely of the school of playwriting that has
most influenced my work in general, mainly in terms of style.

      I somewhat tend to moderate my writing style between the fairly
straightforward and simple to slightly more theatrical in nature, more of
the Serling/Chayefsky/Corwin mode.  I like playing with language, and
English is a terrific language to play with.  There was a time in this
country when literate syntactical construction was something honored; now
everything tends to be more toward the y'know, I was, you know, hanging
around the corner store, y'know, and Bob comes up to me, and he says....

     If you look at the original Twilight Zone, some episodes of the
original Star Trek, the Outer see a kind of reflective
writing that delights in slamming nouns and verbs together to see what
kind of explosion you get when the syntax hits critical mass.

     It saddens me a bit now that anybody who sounds too literate is
often put down as showy or being theatrical.  Listen to the speeches of
Kennedy and Churchill and FDR, look to the great orators of our long
history of a nation, from Lincoln to Jefferson.  Their use of language,
of an idea well formed and delivered, propelled this nation toward its
current destiny, forged one country out of dozens of squabbling states.
I listen now to politicians, hoping and waiting for the one who
understands that the words have to dig into our souls and take root,
must have power and the purity of language well-used.  And I just don't
hear it anymore...which is perhaps why we have consensus takers and not
leaders these days.

     It saddens me that literacy has become suspect, and degraded, given
how many millions of years of evolution spent developing the ability to
create language.  The quality of our thoughts is bordered on all sides by
our facility with language.  The less precise the useage, the less clear
the process of language, the less you can achieve what you want to
achieve when you open you mouth to say something.  We have slowly
bastardized and degraded and weakened the language, abetted and abided
by a growing cultural disdain for literacy, a cyclical trend toward

     So I write my characters as sharp, and as witty, and as intelligent,
and as literate as I wish I would be under those sorts of circumstances,
which of course I never am.  Maybe to remind people of the power of
language...mainly because I just love the sound of words carefully
stitched together.  My dramatic conceit is that in 2259, we have had a
moderate rebirth of formality, and the kind of literacy you would often
see in letters from the turn of the century, and the 1930s.  Because it
allows me to write it the way I want.



From: faa35 at (Jeannette Simpson)
Lines: 77

marco.bernardo at (Marco Bernardo) wrote:

<much snipped since this post could get toooo big>

>One last point about subcultures to help you appreciate my
>perspectives on a personal level...  I believe that we are in an age
>of disunity and not unity towards global understanding and a one world
>order.  Heck, many nations are fragmenting because the subcultures did
>not wish to remain unified in a national structure.  Even here in
>Canada we are having our own very serious problems in this regard (but
>that is huge topic unto itself).

Here I agree with you. The British Conservative government continually
espouse the idea of family and the breaking down of the class
structure whilst seemingly doing everything in their power to increase
the cultural divide. Britain is moving back to the Victorian age when
health, wealth and education were only for the rich and the elite.
More than ever we are becoming a nation of haves and have-nots. Those
who have now live in so much fear of losing it that increasingly the
attitude is one of I'm-alright-Jack. And when you have a government
which denies that increased crime bears any relation to mass
unemployment, that overcrowding in schools short of books and
equipment has any effect on education standards, who juggle statictics
to lie about the efficiency of the health service....well, here are
people in power who, as far as I'm concerned, don't live in the real

Governments have a responsibility to *all* people and not just those
who best serve their own interests. Government should be about
achieving the best it can for everyone and not sweeping half the
population under the carpet, hoping they'll go away. 

And yes, fragmentation is everywhere and humankind seems no nearer a
one world order.

>OK.,  I appologize for the misunderstanding.

Thank you, and I apologize also.

>>And if we don't have elitism? Would you have it that we are led by the
>>kind of people who would hold "a knife to your throat in a dark

>I would have us lead by all who wish to truly be part of a larger
>unified society.  The people with the knife in the alley are entitled
>to their say if they want it.  If they end up representing the vast
>majority of people and some population groups cannot live with that,
>then I guess they should form their own society, join another or start
>carrying their own (bigger) knives.

But  I would rather they said it with words than with knives. Knives
are used when the words aren't there, when voices aren't being heard.
As long as we live in the kind of political and economic world that we
do, English is necessary...for jobs, for discourse, for understanding.
If we don't offer the best we can in terms of education to all people
then how can those less privileged ever hope to rise above their
situation? We should give them the tools to aspire to dreams.

>Once again, what degradation is for one culture may just be natural
>evolution for another culture.

In discussing this point with colleagues, I am coming around to the
idea that there is no degradation in the use of language, in that
there has always been this distinction between literary dialogue and,
risking attack here again, street dialogue. Since I have to leave for
work in 10 minutes, I'll close by repeating the words of a
dramatist.....literary language will never die because mankind has too
much poetry inside him.

And thank you Marco, for offering such a reasonable and open-minded

Jeannette (Jay) Simpson    faa35 at


From: straczynski at
Lines: 211

      I was more or less unaware of this latest battle until someone aske=
if I'd seen it.  Most of it's scrolled by, except for Marco Bernardo's
post and a few others; since his quotes a lot, I'm going to use his as a
kind of rosetta stone to address the others.

      One of the biggest hot buttons lately (in general, not just here) h=
been the question of language vs. culture, and how the two inter-relate.
There seems to be the sense that language =3D culture, and that unless yo=
speak street language, the language of a minority, you are somehow giving
up your culture.  Which is, of course, nonsense.

      Lemme give you some examples.  I'm basically one-and-a-half
generation American; my father was born ehre of immigrant parents, but
lived his formative years back in Byeloruss.  My family came here, and th=
single most important lesson was, "Learn English."  For years there was a
second language spoken around the house -- a sort of polyglot mix of
polish, russian and=1A*| white-russian --(6 but outside the house, and ou=
tside of
the kind of "little europe" community we often lived in, English was the
way to go.

     Similarly, in Jewish culture, it is standard to learn Hebrew, Yiddis=
and *the dominant langauge* of whatever country they're in.  Why?  Real
simple.  Economics, and common sense.

     Sure, you can choose to speak only street language, or a culturally
influenced language, but if you choose that, you are going to limit your
economic prospects.  Particularly as we become more and more an informati=
based society.

     None of this required sacrificing my culture.  I could have chosen t=
maintain my second language, but I chose to focus in on this one.  My
CULTURE, my heritage, where I'm from, where my family is from, the histor=
of my people...that's still intact.  None of that is sacrificed in the
smallest way.  I'm still proud of where my family came from, and the
struggle taken to reach this country.  It's got nothing to do with one's

     English has become the langauge of economics not just in this countr=
but in others as well.  That's an undeniable fact, I'm sorry if it's not
a kind fact.  In this country, unless you're in a primarily hispanic or
italian neighborhood, if you walk up to someone and start speaking spanis=
or italian at them, the odds are you'll get a blank stare.  (This is also
partly our own native ethnocentrism creeping in.)  Go to Europe, and you
will find an English-speaking person a hell of a lot more often.  Because
that's becoming the standard for economic reasons.

     I know a number of african-american educators who are driven to
despair over the street english question.  I'll recap the main points tha=
they stated: "Don't they realize that dz=14hstreet english is *slaver's*
english?  Slave masters didn't want their slaves to know english, to spea=
well, because that way would lead them into thought and the ability to
control their own lives.  They wanted them to speak poorly, to get their
ideas across inefficiently, to be hobbled at the cerebral cortex.  That's
why one of the biggest crimes you could commit would be to be caught
reading a book.

     "Street english isn't anybody's culture; they weren't speaking
street english when our people were ripped from our native countries.
It's not our culture.  It's got nothing to do with us.  It's just a
bastardized form of english used to keep us repressed.  If people want to
stay in touch with their cultural roots, there are more efficient ways
to do it that don't lead to further repression because we can't compete
in the business world."

     Yes, language changes, new words are introduced, the whole purpose
of language is that it should be fluid.  It should be fluid enough to
add new meanings, new terminologies, words from foreign places that are
in some ways more effective.  In this way, the language becomes more
precise through addition.  The more the language becomes *imprecise*,
the more poorly it is used, the more people are limited in thier
(their) possibilities.

     It's real simple, people, and it's got nothing to do with anybody's
culture.  If I wanted a career in math, I'd have to learn the rules of
math and be able to apply them.  If I want a career using language, the
better my grasp of the rules of that language, the better.  In this
country, it's english; in mexico it's spanish, in germany it's german;
it's not one being any better than the other, that's just common sense.

     Now, I suppose you could choose to only speak broken english, or
street english, or an otherwise inefficient form of english, whether it's
in the barrio, or little italy, or little korea, or little poland in
Chicago...and that's fine, *provided you never intend to leave and pursue
work outside that community*.  Because if you do, you're screwed.  Becaus=
if you're from little italy, and you move into little korea, you know
what?  You've got noting much in common, their culture is as valid as
yours is...the only thing you *may* have in english.  And if
there isn't that bond, your economic prospects are zilch.

     In the first wave of immigration into this country, the emphasis was
on learning english as fast as possible.  You moved in to little italy,
or little germany, or the other immigrant neighborhoods that sprouted up
along coastlines and harbors, in New Jersey and New York and parts west,
which gave you a brief leg up, while you learned the language, and the
culture enough to master it and move out, pursuing better opportunities
outside that small community.  Now, the small community has become the
dead-end in many cases, and learning to deal with the dominant culture
around you has become perceived as a threat to one's culture, which one
left behind in another country.

     Okay, you bring your culture with you, that's great...and the next
guy brings *his* culture with him, and that's great...and neither of you
learns a middle-ground language, and *that's* great...and two hundred
thousand more guys do the same, and *that's* great...until one day when
a bunch of *your* guys have to make deals with and buy and sell to the
OTHER guys.  Then it's a problem.

     What makes a nation a nation is a certain commonality, something the=
share in common.  That's our strength, and our life's blood.  The more we
are fractured, the weaker we become.  We fought a civil war because we
were A united states, not THE united states, because we weren't americans=
we were Virginians, or Carolinans.  And now we're fighting a new civil
war in the streets because we're hispanics or eastern europeans or native

     People need to stop being threatened by the use of "you" instead
of "se" or "du" or "vou."  It's a word.  It doesn't detract from where yo=
came from, who you are, what your culture is.  Stop trying to make the
overall culture bend to your specific needs, because it won't, and in the
end you're the one hurt by limiting your options.

     We evolve by becoming smarter, faster, better.  By adapting to our
circumstances.  Why do you think we're here and the dinosaurs are dead?
Because us little mammals adapted, and adjusted, and sought out the best
way to survive in our new environment; we didn't stay locked in the way
we were because that was our culture before.

     Street language is poorly used english, mixed with a smattering of
the local ethnic verbiage, whichever ethnic group happens to be there at
the moment.  That's all it is.  Take pride in the ethnic background?
Absolutely.  If you speak spanish or italian or korean, don't you want to
speak it as well as you can to communicate with your neighbors?  If so,
then why is it *not* okay to speak english as well as you can?

     No we don't always speak in complete sentences, I lapse into street
profanity and syntax when appropriate for color or effect...but when it
comes down to it, I have options *outside* that.  I have the flexibilily
(flexibility) of doing both.  If you don't have that flexibility, you're
screwed.  It's as simple as that.

     Finally, on the subject of's sad when someone who
simply suggests that we should strive to be as good as we can at somethin=
-- whatever that something might be -- is an "elitist."  I always
figured it was the human heart always striving to be the best possible at
what we do.  Yes, let's praise mediocrity and fuzzy thinking and imprecis=
instead.  Because that's what we end up with.  The less precise your
language, the less capable you will be of conveying what you want.

     When did we reach the point when saying it's okay to be less than
we are is a grand idea, and saying we should work harder to master an
everyday part of our lives is something to be derided and insulted?

     Jeannette has been unjustly maligned in this conversation, for sayin=
something that totally reconciles with the nature of this program: to
always shoot for the absolute best.  And those of you who jumped on her f=
this should be ashamed of yourselves.

     You don't want to learn standard english?  Fine.  You don't have to.
Just don't ever leave your neighborhood, because the people three blocks
down feel the same way about THEIR language and THEIR culture, and they'r=
every bit as entitled as you are.  M=1Egw=7Ftz=1F!B=7FAnd then we will ha=
ve more and more
neighborhoods and communiites that can't communicate with each other, tha=
can't deal with one another, that fight with each other.  I'm all for it.
It makes for great drama.

     Maybe you've heard about it...the Tower of Babel.

     And if that makes me an elitist...I couldn't be happier.  Because
only being an elitist, a perfectionist, striving to be better than the
next guy, has given us an Einstein and a Jorge Luis Borges and a Santayan=
 It has given us Nelson Mandela and the Beatles and Churchill and everyon=
who has ever won an olympic foot race in the last thousand years.

     A society is measured by the marks left by the best of us.  Any
society that forgets this is on the downward slide.  Elitism is an
evolutionary stance.  It's not a bad word.  It respects that which is
(to that culture or society) best and brightest in all of us, the potenti=
we have for greatness.  "An elite squadron" means that they're the best
they are at what they do.  "An elite few" means the same thing.

     Elitist?  Hey, Jeannette...if it's true, wear it as a badge, because
that's what it is.



From: srati at (Echo)
Lines: 39

Daniel J. Starr (dstarr at wrote:
: There are two separate issues here ... jms and everyone else on this
: thread seem to love to conflate them together ... let me separate them
: back out again.
: One is:  "If Joe pronounces words differently from Jane - e.g. 'aks' 
: instead of 'ask' - and uses different words - 'homie' instead of 'friend'
: - in what sense is that bad?"   This is the "Slang English" issue.
: The other issue is:  "If Joe speaks only in very simple sentences and with
: a very small vocabulary - e.g. 'cool' for almost every situation - in
: what sense is that bad?"  That is the "Dumbed-Down Diction" issue.


: So JMS is absolutely right that the trend toward lowest-common-denominator
: speech in modern media is a Bad Thing - because dumb speech leads to dumb
: art and dumb thought.  This has nothing to do with slang in language,
: and everything to do with richness of language.

	I'm coming into the debate late, but I beg to differ.

	The "Slang English" issue and the "Dumbed-Down Diction" issue are 
definitely different, however, JMS's I agree that 
limiting one's expression to slang makes you only understandable to those 
who know your particular slang.  There's nothing WRONG with slang, but by 
definition it's limited in its scope.  Leave your town, or even go 
several blocks away, depending on where you are, and the slang is 
different.  Suddenly, you find yourself completely unable to communicate.


Aiel Arandolen Echo Grace Iona Leia Mala Unole Zack srati at
      Computer Science, Gaming, Science Fiction Fandom, BBSing
     Rush, Enya, Phil Collins, GURPS, Cyber Society, *Babylon 5*
Explore the Universe:
         "We're only immortal for a limited time."  -- Rush


From: straczynski at
Lines: 6

      I've now caught up on more of this discussion, and I think that
introductions are definitely in order.

      Tom McLean, Thaxton and Fuller; Thaxton and Fuller, Tom McLean.


More information about the B5JMS mailing list