On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:25:20 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:49:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:31:42 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:00:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

[snip]
I think he feared that the movie would give terrorist organizations
ideas on how to do it... like run an Islamist thug from Chicago,
cloaked in political correctness, evil-rich-banker platitudes and
promises of wealth redistribution... something like that.

That doesn't sound very likely as, at the time the book was written
and the movie made, we were hip deep in the "communist threat" and
'terrorists' were low on the security totem pole, if on the radar
screen at all.

Well, that made me wonder so I checked imdb and they have a note in
the trivia section saying that's an urban myth.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/trivia not quite half way down.


Of course nothing like that could really happen, now could it ?:-)

Not to ruin your joke but "brain washing" someone into roboticaly
doing what they would otherwise never do is quite a different thing
than 'selling' someone an idea based on it's alleged 'merits'. I.E.
Islamic terrorists are 'believers' in the morals and mission. They
may, if important to the mission, hide it from *you* but it's not
'submerged' in themselves nor does it run counter to their 'true
nature'.


...Jim Thompson

I guess I got sucked up by someone's urban legend, then validated it
in my own mind when I couldn't get it on DVD :-(

It's certainly easy enough to do because 'things (seem to) fit', so to
speak.

That's one reason I'm typically a skeptic (and a 'look it up'). Not
because I think people are 'lying' but because I've found that to be
one of the most common deductive flaws.

Some people even do it as a matter of form: having a conclusion and
then looking for 'evidence' of the conclusion. The problem is: the
supposed 'evidence' is usually consistent with not only the
'preferred' conclusion but a gaggle of others as well.

It takes 'effort', though, because we have a natural 'built in'
information reduction system where things are screened in light of
what we already consider 'plausible' or 'reasonable'.

Though my platitudes still fit the situation don't they ?:-)

I'm not sure which ones you mean.


"...like run an Islamist thug from Chicago, cloaked in political
correctness, evil-rich-banker platitudes and promises of wealth
redistribution... something like that."

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Leftist weenies are like watermelons...
GREEN on the outside, RED on the inside.
Test them as done in "Day of the Jackal"