It’s Not About Me

OK, time for a little peek behind the curtain at who I am, inside.

In this case, this “not about me” posting IS “about me”.

For some reason, a lot of folks like to assert that some topic or other has “Me” in it. That “I” thought up some point of view or that “I” am calling some set of behaviours a particular thing because “I” have some skin in the game. This often comes out of some political point of view on their part where I have just “gored their ox” and they take it personally, so in their mind “it must be personal” for me, too. What they “don’t get” is “it’s not about me”.

(The impetus for this posting came from Yet Another Round of “I this” and “You that” here: )

In one of my favorite movies of all time, Grosse Pointe Blank, there is a wonderful scene. It captures the essence very well. (The movie is one of the few I’ve watched more than 5 times… I usually remember a whole move intact so watching it any sooner than about 4 or 5 years when some bits have finally faded just a bit is, well, not interesting. So 5 x 5 years is 25 years. This movie is much younger than that…)

Unfortunately, despite a lot of Youtube clips, I’ve not found one with that particular scene in it. Where he says it isn’t personal.

John Cusack is a “hit man”. He has a certain “moral flexibility” that the government put to good use in training him. Now he’s an independent contractor with introspection issues. And a “final contract”…

At one point he’s asked something like: “Why do you want to do this to me?” and his response is a classic:

“It’s not personal! Why does everyone always ask that?”

In essence: “It’s not about ME”… there is a contract, terms, definitions, and an employee.

He’s “just the messenger”…

I DID find the “not me” clip (there is an F-bomb at just after 1:15 while 1:38 has “the moment”)

On many levels I connect with that character in the film. Emotionally dampened (not “dead”, just a bit less loud than everyone else and needing a ‘bit of work’ to develop that “normal” level of emotional response), with ‘awkward’ relationships in the past, very skilled at some things that take a certain lack of emotive engagement (writing a computer program is NOT an emotional bonding experience and needs low “social need strength” individuals). Basically, he’s a geek with a gun, I’m a geek with a keyboard. We both do things that take low “social need strength” and functional, but not excessive, social skills.

After that, though, we diverge greatly…

So, the point of this “sharing”? When I say “Obama is a socialist” it is not from some profound emotional motivation (and in fact has zero emotive quality to me). It’s not because some Republican Machine influences the social circles I move in (as I don’t move in social circles unless dragged there by the spouse or a business contract and mostly just check out the food and drinks while waiting for a chance to leave). Furthermore, nobody in such social circles could influence me against my will anyway. I just am who I am and always will be.

There are no “talking points” web sites I visit (though I might stumble on a talking point in some broad news sweep; and IFF I find merit in it, adopt it, just as I do with Democrat ideas of merit) and I’m completely uninterested in who is running for what and who supports whom. Only in what they do. Generally both side have things they want to do that I don’t like. (You will find the sentiment in those two sentences reflected in Joubert below… “I do not concern myself with why”…)

No, when looking at something like “Obama is a Socialist” I’m just going down a checklist. What are the properties of Socialism. What has Obama done. Do they line up? If they do, he is, if they don’t, he isn’t. And “It’s not personal! Why does everyone always ask that?”

If I pull the trigger, it’s not because I have some emotional baggage about it. It’s just because that’s what the contract said… In the following clip you can see a sketch of the character in Grosse Pointe Blank that does the trigger pulling, and with which I find a certain connection. That he’s free market oriented and not fond of unions doesn’t hurt the identification. Unions? Enforced social engagement? You’ve got to be kidding, “No meetings”. ;-)

Notice the “not about me” aspect of the “our dynamic” with his psychiatrist about 0.50

A nice collection of clips into a trailer

This one is a bit repetitive after the others, but has a bit more ‘detail’ on some scenes

Be advised there is “language” in here that will offend a bit after 2:16 and 3:50.

But it’s just a wonderful scene that highlights some of the “just the facts” along with the “strain” of not quite fitting in with the environment around you, and I actually can relate a lot to the “not technically an omlette” line… You get a lot of folks on blogs who want to “debate omelette”.. ;-) Also the strong emotional bond to animals, people not so much, is somewhat familiar 8-|

Three Days Of The Condor

Oddly, there is another character that I think illustrates the persona well. That is Joubert in “Three Days Of The Condor”. He, too, is a ‘hit man’. (No, I’ve no desire to be a hit man, it is just that they are often portrayed with that emotionally flattened, but not dead, overly careful and precise persona. – Though I do think I’d make a good one ;-) The following dialog is a simplified approximation, Spoiler Alert: The dialog ‘spoils’ the surprise in the clips, so you can watch the clips first if you’ve never seen the movie…

Toward the end is one of my favorite scenes of all time. “Condor” (Redford) has just been “saved” by Joubert (Max Von Sydow). There is a delicious scene where it becomes clear that Joubert had every opportunity to kill him (as he had been hired to do). He has just shot, and killed, Atwood ( a rogue CIA manager). There is an exchange where Redford says something like “They knew I would be here?” and Joubert says “No, they did not know. I knew you would be here. They hired me to kill Atwood. I suspect he was about to become an embarrassment to them”. Redford: “So what happens now, are you going to kill me now?” Joubert: “No, no. That contract was with Atwood, and as you can see…”

They then step outside and Joubert offers advice on the future… “Where will you go, what will you do?”… after some fumbling by Redford, Joubert says: “Have you considered doing what I do? What I do is not so bad. No need to believe in either side or any side. There is no cause; there’s only yourself. The belief is in your own precision.”

In a very real sense, that encompasses who I am when it comes to economics. While I have an abstract evaluation that “the most productive” economy is about at a 1960’s to 1980’s USA Mixed Economy; I’d be quite comfortable living in a Swedish Socialism, a 1920’s British Empire, or an 1800’s Wild West. I have a “certain moral flexibility”…

And while I’d rather be paid to do in “bad guys”, the fact is, “It’s not personal” and “It’s not me”… so anyone who wanted an “analysis of economic impact of policy” would get the same analysis, and what they do with it, well, that’s not up to me… The person who crafts the gun is not the gunman, and a paid gunman has no attachment to the contract. “It’s not personal” with either of them… nor with me… and my faith is my “belief in my own precision”…

a bit of overlap, then picks up the rest of the scene…

FWIW, I also identify with the Redford character… a “bookworm” who can be creative when trapped… afterall “I read a lot” ;-) One of the things that attracts me most to the movie is that I can see myself being on either side of the dynamic, or even working in an office in Langley…

So when attempting to assert things about me, take just a moment to remember Joubert, Blank, and “Condor” (thrust against his will into doing what “isn’t him” to survive); then remember “It’s not about me”…

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Human Interest and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to It’s Not About Me

  1. Level_Head says:

    I see your Pointe.

    I, too, have always tried to be careful and dispassionate when evaluating information. I do have the sense that the outcome is important — that I have “skin in the game” as you say — but the objective approach is a good and necessary discipline anyway.

    As for President Obama: He grew up with a rather loud communist as a mentor, “sought out Marxist professors” and radicals at college, then spent two decades under the tutelage of fierce anti-capitalist (and apparently Marxist) Jeremiah Wright. It would be extraordinary if he was not strongly influenced by this thinking.

    But I think he is more a pragmatist, though that pragmatism is in the service of aims that I believe are poor choices for the United States. It’s sort of a chamelonic desire (that does not seem to work well in practice without cover from the media) to adopt whatever sort of appearance suits his purposes.

    You suggested that “he’s … not fond of unions,” which surprised me. I may have misunderstood your comment; were you referring to Obama?

    ===|==============/ Level Head

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    The “not fond of unions” was about Martin Blank… see the last clip of Grosse Pointe Blank…

    I’ve added a line of text to clarify where the pronoun goes ;-)

  3. That describes me too:

    “It’s not because some Republican Machine influences the social circles I move in (as I don’t move in social circles unless dragged there by the spouse or a business contract and mostly just check out the food and drinks while waiting for a chance to leave). Furthermore, nobody in such social circles could influence me against my will anyway. I just am who I am and always will be.”

    After I became aware of flaws in the AGW story promoted by Al Gore, world leaders, the UN’s IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society, and the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, many wrongly assumed that I therefore embraced the right wing agenda.

    Not at all. “I just am who I am and always will be.”

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    @Oliver K. Manuel:

    “And the facts just are. -E.M.Smith” is probably a connection too. FWIW there are a lot of “High Function Aspes” in the sciences and engineering. You might want to watch for other charcteristics / markers too…

    I’m frequently faced with folks (from BOTH sides) who want to put me in their box. I don’t fit.

    Then they get grumpy because “they expected at me” and I didn’t match their expectations.

    Not my problem…

  5. Tom Bakewell says:

    Ahem. Sir do you ever sleep?

    I love it when you don’t, because the range and depth of commentary are wonderful nuggets of brain food for me.

    And I’m most appreciative.

    Tom Bakewell

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    @Tom Bakewell:

    Oh dear… public admissions time…..

    Um,er. I , … ‘not much’ …. but some…

    I can “get by” on 4 to 5 hours a night forever. (Yes, I’ve measured it… part of an early interest in sleep studies that I did on my own…)

    I can go 42 hours straight, then get very loopy and at 43-44 of constant awake I “hit a wall” and simply can’t go any further. (at least, last I tried it in about 1990?)

    I can go on 1 hour in a 48 hour period, but it’s very hard. 2 in a 48 hour period is better (i.e. 24 up, 2 sleeping, 22 up, 2 sleeping, repeat). This is not sustainable, though, as the ‘sleep deficit is still climbing.

    OK, total accumulated sleep deficit can be about 6 to 8 hours (that “hit the wall at 40 ish”) and at sleep rate of 2 / day I’ve got at most 4 days. In reality, I’m good for more like 3 and even that is way hard and takes lots of coffee. So “usable” is more like 2 / day for one day. 3 / day for 3 days. 4 / day for ??? but somewhere around one week I’m really wanting a bit more. At 6 / day I don’t really notice.

    Other end:

    On “free sleep” (i.e. nothing to do, no one wakes me, no noises bumps in the night, whatever…) I tend to stabilize at about 7 – 8 hours / night. Over 8, I wake up groggy and “sleep hungover”.

    When doing a ‘rebound’ from a sleep deficit episode, I “catch up” about 2 for 1. (Deficit driven sleep is about 2 x as efficient as non-deficit). So in full 8 hours of deficit, I ‘catch up’ with 4 added hours. (Thus the stabilization at about 4 -5 hours / night). But I don’t like it, and the ‘sleep hangover’ is rather profound.

    So most of the time, I’m asleep about 6 to 7 hours a night.

    But with LARGE variations… ( I tend to be awake when the moon is overhead, time of day not relevant… I think I’m a tidal crab at heart ;-)

    Often I get to bed at 4 AM (when the wife wakes up and tells me the night is over ;-) then sleep until about 9 AM. Sometimes I’d “flip” to a new lunar sync and go to bed at 10 PM getting up at 6 AM. Occasionally “life” will keep me up all day and “full moon” will keep me up all night. Then a day or two later I’ll sleep 12 hours (often on a weekend). Those times when I seem to just not be responding to folks…

    So “now you know”…

    Just don’t ask why I wanted to know and put myself through all this… (hint: It was interesting…)

  7. Hal says:

    Great post.
    but it will not keep those CAGW trolls from attacking you.

    I also liked Willis Eschenbach’s post on WUWT with the same title

    Both of you guys are a thrill to follow on the net.

    Keep up the great writing.

  8. E.M.Smith says:


    Glad you liked it… I wasn’t sure how it would “work” as it’s a bit out of character for me to make that kind of posting…

    Hmmm… I guess Willis and I have more stuff in common ;-)

    I’ve noticed that folks “on the left” tend to go for the personal attack and personaliztion a lot. Don’t get it myself (though now the reasons ought to be obvious…)

  9. Tony Hansen says:

    Thanks EM,
    Brought to mind (and gives more shading to) the Peter Cook/John Cleese sketch where after Cleese gives a withering personal description of Cook, Cook asks “Is that a fact?”
    Cooks character has zero personal connection with the Cleese comments.
    Emotive people can’t understand why some people just want the numbers.

  10. E.M.Smith says:

    @Tony Hansen:

    You mean this one?

    I rather liked that one… He tells good jokes too ;-)

  11. Malaga View says:

    Good morning E.M. Smith from a sunny Malaga,

    Just a comment to let you know I really enjoy your blog… which really means I enjoy your virtual company via the internet… this enjoyment stems from your knowledge, experience, openness, honesty and integrity… but there is more… your superb analytical skills… your insights… your modesty… your willingness to communicate… your thirst for knowledge, understanding and truth.

    This does not mean I always agree with you… that does not mean you are always right… but is does mean that you usually get to the truth… or get very close to it… or are moving towards the truth… and that can be very uncomfortable for some people because they are just so compromised… they do not have your honour or integrity.

    Perhaps what I am trying to say is… firstly: I know this is not about you… secondly: I know you just want the facts… thirdly: you don’t need to justify yourself… fourthly: don’t stop… fifthly: don’t let them grind you down.

    I remember my father talking to me when I was very young… he asked: Should you tolerate intolerance? Where do you draw the line?… and he taught me there is no absolute answer to this value judgement… it is a bridge we have to cross individually… I think those are true words… because sometimes we have to counteract dogma, prejudice, intolerance, aggression and intimidation.

    Where do all these negative traits come from?

    I really don’t know… but my guess is FEAR… fear of change… fear of the unknown… fear of rejection… fear of failure… fear of pain… fear of death… its a long list… and fear is an emotional response… sometimes rational… often irrational… we each have our own mix of fears… and these fears separate the men from the boys… and ironically the leaders from the cannon fodder.

    What I am trying to articulate is that there are two types of personality… the courageous… and the fearful… they really don’t understand each other… and it is difficult for these groups to communicate… their perceptions and value judgement live in different worlds… and my perception is that E.M. Smith is intellectually very courageous… it is a wonder to behold… long may it continue.

    Take care… and enjoy

  12. Murray Duffin says:

    Delightful!! Stay with me. None of the following is meant in any deragatory way. You have used the term Aspe several times and I didn’t make a connection. However from your writings, your analytic style, your defensiveness in some cases, your amazingly detailed search for data/information and then unrecognized selective use and application of that information in non-technical analyses, your super analysis of technical data (like surface instrument temperature), and a few other oddities, I had concluded that you are a high functioning borderline autistic, and was just discussing you, relative to that conclusion, with my wife yesterday. Then it struck, Aspe = Asperger’s.

    I mentioned in one of my replys some days ago that I have had a thesis running around in my mind of the relationship between people’s political bent, and other aspects of their mentality and mentation. You fit my idea perfectly. I haven’t wanted to bring it up, for fear that you would be offended by the suggestion, but evidently you are somewhere between acceptance of and pride in your difference. Good on you.

    Anyway old sport, I won’t continue this type of discussion, because we are wired sufficiently differently that we will never agree, and IMHO it is a question of wiring. At the end of the day, our failure to agree on issues like Obama and socialism is about you, and about me. You perceive the world through a filter very different from mine, as evidenced by the fact that you truly disbelieve, and therefore are unable to see that you do have a filter. You perceive associations and relationships and motivations etc through the filter of Aspergers. To you, your perceptions are right, and others’ are often “batshit”. C’est la vie.

    I love reaching understanding, even when I can’t reach agreement. Lets get back to hard technical subjects where we can reach agreement.

    cheers, Murray

    [ My response can be seen here: -Chiefio ]

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    @Malaga View:

    Interesting point…

    You see, I’ve often told folks that I think I’m “broken” in that I have no “natural fears”. All of my fears are “learned” (and are actually more like a dread than a fear…)

    For example, I can stand on the edge of a 5 story building, toes over the lip, look down, and feel no fear. A bit if hightened awareness of “watch that wind” but that’s about it. Don’t mind at all playing with things like alcohol fires in the palm of the hand. I *love* the sensation of falling… it’s just the sudden stop at the end that’s a bother…

    Think it’s kind of “snuggly” to be rolled up in a carpet or locked in a closet; yet love standing in the middle of a wide open space horizon to horizon. I don’t mind being completly alone, even 100 miles into the Outback at the end of the road (it’s kind of cool, actually…)

    Being 30 feet down in the ocean with air running to zero and needing to find someone to “buddy breath” is “way cool”; and so much more.

    I did have a small amount of “stage fright” the first few times I had to go on stage; but don’t mind public speaking much at all. I’ve been in front of 400 person sized groups, on stage, and on TV. Get’s a tiny “flutter” if I’ve not done it for a year or two, then in 10 seconds it’s gone… supposedly “fear of public speaking” is the most common and strongest ‘fear’ for most folks.

    I have an intense “dread” of mosquitos. Only becuase after dozens of bites that I watched happen (it’s interesting to watch the abdomen inflate with your blood…) I’ve become “reactive” to them and can develope large intensly uncomfortable welts (size of dime). Similarly, I’m not keen on having a loaded cocked gun pointed at me (as I know what it can do). Yes, I can “have fear”, but only of things that I know are going to do me harm if I don’t stop it from happening…

    Perhaps that is the key bit. A broken sense of fear. I simply have no fear of things like “social embarrassment” which many folks (though especially those on the loonier side of left, for reasons I don’t yet ken) like to employ to attack others. To me, it just shows them being stupid and looking at stupid things. Attacking the person is “a waste of attention”… and not much more… I’ve often phrased this as “I don’t embarrass worth a damn”. (About as strong a reaction as I can muster, and then only if I really did do something stupid, is a feeling-thought of “Oh bother…did I screw that up?…” and if I didn’t do anything stupid it’s “Oh bother … they are being stupid again…” )

    I don’t know if that counts as “courageous”. Maybe so. I’ve jumped out of a perfectly good airplane and that DID take overcoming fear. (Hanging in mid-air under a wing, one foot dangling, the other on a ‘palm sized’ metal pad on a wheel, hanging onto the strut, looking at “3000 feet of down” below you and with 100 kt wind in your face is not “tranquil” and knowing you are about to let go of the strut brings a certain focus on “am I about to kill myself?” that DOES arrive with adrenalin…) so I’m pretty sure I have courage in there when needed. But most of the time I just don’t need it to be ‘unafraid’…


    There is a gene for “food adventurism”. Some folks only eat ‘familiar foods’, others seek out ‘new foods’. The belief is that in times of famine, the ‘adventurous’ survive, but in times of plenty, they are more likely to stumble on a poisonous food and die. So the population needs both types of individuals to survive the cyclical feast / famine cycle best. I’m VERY food adventurous. There are a couple of foods that make me sick, and so I avoid them, but other than that “I’ll try just about anything once”… (Not keen on deep fried shrimp heads, the antennae are brittle and got stuck under the gum line… like pointy corn kernal shells…)

    Perhaps it is more than just food… a generic ‘ramping down’ of “dislikes and fears”… would be an interesting thing to study / test for. ( A tiny “dig here” for any social geneticists out there… does food adverntureousness cross correlate with other non-fears?)

    And you are quite right, the two types don’t understand each other. The number of times I’ve offered some ‘interesting bit of sushi’ to some folks and had them cringe… and no amount of ‘explaining’ can make it any better… ( I know some folks who just want bland beef, potatoes, and maybe bread/butter and draw the line and adding peas and corn to the plate…) or tried to get them to go skiiing or flying… same people, same ‘no thankyou’ and we each look at the other and think “you must be crazy”…

    I guess the species needs both types of us to survive the cycles…

    Well, hope you continue to “enjoy the ride” ;-) ’cause I’m going to keep looking for “intellectual airplanes” to jump out of 8-0

  14. PhilJourdan says:

    I aspire to be like Blank, but I am not always successful. Indeed, about half the time, I allow my emotions to cloud my view and start personalizing. But the other half? It is fun to watch others do it to me, in which I quickly correct them and admonish them to quit projecting.

    You inspire me to be more Blank in the future! I will never attain a level of complete self detachment, but I know I can do better.

  15. Verity Jones says:

    Hmmm. Always questing for the new. The familiar can be comforting at times, but without the addition of ‘new’ becomes mundane.

    How about ‘intellectual thrill-seeker’?

    There are some people I could say that to and I know I would get a ‘look’ like “are you mad?” These are the same sort that go “huh?” when you mention some wonderful piece of geology, or literature.

    As for embarassment, I find I have a real problem with people who seem to rate style (over substance?) in the guise of professionalism. They’ll sit there and say very little that matters while ‘acting the expert’; I don’t care if I make a gaffe – I’ll deal with it and move on.

    It’s all too easy to be sucked in personnally sometimes and yet it feels great to be dispassionate. Yeah, more would be better. Working on it too I guess ;-)

  16. A C Osborn says:

    E M Smith, please forgive this Off topic post, but after you series on Electric light bulbs I thought you might be interested this item that I have posted over at WUWT.
    I posted
    I have posted before about this guy in the Phillipines on the Tips & Notes.
    His name is Ismael Aviso and he has “invented/Advanced” the techonolgy for extracting Power from the various transmissions in the atmosphere.
    He has an Electric Car that runs far farther than anyone elses and is now producing what he calls a “Motionless Electric Generator” which powered 100Watt bulb for 4 hours from a 12.8V battery and the battery only lost 0.1V.
    His car was tested by the Phillipines DOE and they confirmed it works.
    This technology seems to fit with your own interest in things Electric.
    Can you look in to it and find out if it is for real?


  17. A C Osborn says:
  18. Interesting Connections says:

    So, do you think a Glock is better or an XD is better?

  19. E.M.Smith says:


    I like the sound of that: “Intellectual Thrillseeker”…

    @A C Osborn:

    I’ll take a look. Theoretically possible to get power ‘from thin air’ but a lot of error and hocum in most stuff done so far. That the quote you gave lists V as a measure of power used and not V*A i.e. Watts over time (as in kW-hr) is a red flag right off the top. I can run a battery nearly forever and not have a voltage drop if the battery is very large compared to the load on a kVA basis…

    At first glance, it’s not encouraging. Lots of “donate” buttons. Lots of “Fancy jargon and acronyms” while “Short on how it works at a physics level”. And for me, the “smoking gun” statement that their baseline is a 45% efficiency reading on a DC motor? That ought to be close to 90-95%. So you can make a “100% more wall power” claim just by by taking 45 *2 = 90 getting up to “normal expected” range…

    If I find anything other than fluff, I’ll make a posting out of it.

    @Interesting Connections:

    Cz-75 / Cz-85 (for Rt and Lt hands respectively).

    The XD is just so “designed by the marketing department” in looks and though I’ve not shot one, looks like it has the tradtional ‘inside rails, outside slide”; then is “decorated” with a whole lot of angular grooves that are just junky and not needed. The Glock works fine, but has no soul and is a bit bigger and clunkier than it needs to be…

    But I’d rather not turn this into a gun thread…

  20. gnomish says:

    on the topic of fear, let me offer this :
    fear => (implication arrow) ignorance.
    That is to say, that if you know all about a ‘threat’, then you are competent to deal with it and there is no mystery.
    To fear is to have apprehension for something that one does not or can not know.
    “what are you afraid of” is, in a way, a miscalculated question for if the person did indeed know what it was sufficiently well to understand and explain, then he would not be in fear for he would be dealing rationally with contingencies.
    Fear requires ‘the unknown’.
    That’s why fear is hardly a characteristic of a rational man.
    Cheers, E.M.

  21. MarbellaBoy says:

    Hi E.M.

    I’ve been lurking here for a few months now and this is my first post. I’d just like to add my 2c worth on the sleep issue as your experience sounds quite similar to mine. Like you I tend to average around 5-6 hours sleep per night with an occaisional 2 or 3 hr night. It has always been so, my mother tells the storey of bringing me to the docter aged about three or four and being told “Oh, he must be hiding from you to take naps, he can not be getting by on so little sleep”, he was wrong. As a teenager I experimented with how long I could stay awake continuosly and could manage about 40hrs before crashing. I could not manage that now as a middle aged man, but regularly do a 2 hour night followed by a 1 hour afternoon siesta, one of the joys of living in Spain is that this is considered normal :-)

    I guess it is just a question of individual metabolism. I think the world divides into morning people and night owls. As I write this it is 1am here and I know that it will be at least 3am before I get to sleep, even though last night was one of those 2 hour nights. I also know that when I wake at 9, I will be back to ‘normal’ again. Another good thing about Spain is that the work day begins at 10, to paraphrase that 70’s song ‘I wanna move where the weather suits my clothes’ I moved to where the workday suits my metabolism.

    Anyway, thats my 2(€)c worth. Love your blog, you cover an enormous range to quite an astonishing degree of detail. Always fascinating.

    Ciao, MarbellaBoy

  22. Jerry says:

    Nothing personal

    Thought you might like this: the Marshall Pucci 02/09/11 episode.

    The Guerrero character has a ‘nothing personal’ moment close to the end – 34+ or so minutes in.

  23. E.M.Smith says:


    How can a movie clip be personal? After all “It’s not about me!” ;-)

    FWIW, the link gives a window that says it’s going to play, but doesn’t. I’m using Opera, so maybe I’ll try something else…

    I’m assuming someone does something bad with a ‘nothing personal’ tag on it… It’s a very common movie metaphore and is very commonly used with emotionally flat bad guys (that’s a movie standard… I think the hyper emotive writers and actors “have issues” with unemotive logical folks ;-)

  24. A C Osborn says:

    E M Smith, thanks for the response.
    That is a pity, it would be nice to have cheap electrical production.

  25. Jerry says:

    I am using IE 8 and the clip starts and plays a couple of commercials and then the content begins – fast forward works for content, but you gotta watch the commercials – which are paying the bills so understandable. You got the gist of it anyway – standard tv stuff – ice cold gun doing his thing though this actually is personal for him.

  26. E.M.Smith says:


    On mornig vs night people.. “I’ve got a study on that”…

    NASA found that “night people” have a longer than normal biological clock. “morning people” have a shorter than normal.

    A Morning Person starts to raise their body temp atou 4 AM and is “hot” by 8 AM. A night person may not start raising their body temp until noon, and only hits peak about 3 or 4 PM. By 4 or 5 PM, the “morning person” is getting cold and feeling drained and “less bright”. They go home and can’t wait to get into bed by 9 PM… the night person has just finally “gotten going” and is just cooking on through 9 or 10 PM, only starting to slow about midnight…

    My “free run natural day” was measured (in a controlled environment with no outside time cues) at 25.5 hours per “day”. A “morning person” in the same test measured at 23 hours per “day”. So he spends every day trying to “stay up late by an hour” and drifting to earliery to bed, earlier to rise. I spend all day drifting to 25.5 hours and getting to bed later and later… and waking up “on time” gets harder and harder…

    So just take your temperature every hour, on the hour, for a day. Plot your “day length” and you will find who you are, and by how much ;-)

Comments are closed.