[B5JMS] Why is it J. Michael Straczynski
b5jms at cs.columbia.edu
b5jms at cs.columbia.edu
Wed Jun 25 04:24:15 EDT 2003
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw at virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 141
"horrid goblin" <horrid_goblin at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1056338317.468021 at radsrv1.tranzpeer.net...
> not Joe M. Straczynski
>
> My parents both go by their middle names so I'd understand if that was the
> reason, but everyone seems to call him Joe so I'm a little confused. Is it
> just cos J Michael sounds cooler?
"horrid" -
In short, yes..
However, the reality is far more complex and amazing than we may have ever
thought.
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:59:35 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 139
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the B5JMS
mailing list