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 SUBTOTAL >M 13 >I 9 >C 3 >H 8 >A 1 >E 5 >L 12 > 51 SUBTOTAL >S 19 >T 20 >R 18 >A 1 >C 3 >Z 26 >Y 25 >N 14 >S 19 >K 11 >I 9 > 164 SUBTOTAL > > 225 TOTAL > > 2 + 2 + 5 = 9 = 3 x 3 > > >JOE M STRACZYNSKI > >J 10 >O 15 >E 5 > 30 SUBTOTAL >M 13 > 13 SUBTOTAL >S 19 >T 20 >R 18 >A 1 >C 3 >Z 26 >Y 25 >N 14 >S 19 >K 11 >I 9 > 164 SUBTOTAL > > 207 TOTAL > > 2 + 0 + 9 = 9 = 3 x 3 > > >At first sight, it seems that both forms are in fact Minbarilinked, 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 > > > > > > > > 
