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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>