Which is made even a little more humorous in that you are on record of not reading probably 60% (by volume) of the posts here.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > You realize of course that you are among the top posters. Probably one > the top three. Based on this you might say that you participate just to > make sure that people are engaging in the behavior you describe below. > You wouldn't want to miss anything. I think that is a sign of addictive > behavior. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > > > Sometimes, scanning the list of posts on FFL searching for one that I > > find interesting enough to reply to, I find myself also searching for > a > > metaphor to explain the sense of incredulity I feel at the > > same-old-same-old repetitiveness of it all. This morning I came up > with > > such a metaphor, and it made me laugh, so I'll pass it along. Consider > > this my version of Bhairitu's "The Funny Farm Lounge" metaphor. :-) > > > > Reading FFL is like stumbling across a weird group of fanatical > Monkees > > fans. They get together in cyberspace and endlessly talk about the > glory > > days of Mickey, Davy, Peter and Michael as if they were gods. They > argue > > about which songs were most cosmically important, and the deep > esoteric > > meaning of their lyrics. When other musicians' names come up, the > > Monkees fans get angry and feel that they have to put them down, > because > > however good these other musicians may be, after all they're not the > > Monkees. Some are so fanatical and so enduringly loyal to the Monkees > > that they think anyone who gets caught attending a concert by any > other > > musician should be banned from the Monkees Fan Club for life as the > > heretics they are. But the most amazing part is that the fan club is > > still going strong, still doing all of this every day, 40+ years after > > the popularity of the group they revere jumped the shark. > > > > And all of this for a pop group that wasn't very good in the first > > place. > > >
