Is it just me? or does the following look eeriely familiar as what happens in some responses to questions in this community?
found it on another forum for fish.
Quote:
HOW MANY LIST MEMBERS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB *
One to change the light bulb and to post that it had been changed.
Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how
the light bulb could have been changed differently.
Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
light bulbs.
Five to flame the spell checkers.
Three to check spelling/grammar flames.
Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb".
Another six to condemn those six as stupid.
Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the
correct spelling.
Nineteen to post that the group is not about light bulbs and to please
take this discussion to a lightbulb (or light bulb) forum.
Eleven to defend posting to the group saying that we all use light bulbs
and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.
Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior,
where to buy the best bulbs, what brand of bulbs work best for this
technique and what brands are faulty.
Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.
Four to post links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this
group which make light bulbs relevant to this group.
Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety
including all headers and signatures and add "Me Too".
Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.
Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
Five to actually call the lighting industry on the phone just so he/she
could (be the correct high almighty).
Thirteen to say "do a google search on light bulbs before posting
questions about light bulbs".
Three to tell a funny story about their show dog and a light bulb.
AND
One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now with
something unrelated they found at snopes.com and start it all over
again.
End of Quote:
found it on another forum for fish.
Quote:
HOW MANY LIST MEMBERS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB *
One to change the light bulb and to post that it had been changed.
Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how
the light bulb could have been changed differently.
Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
light bulbs.
Five to flame the spell checkers.
Three to check spelling/grammar flames.
Six to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb".
Another six to condemn those six as stupid.
Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the
correct spelling.
Nineteen to post that the group is not about light bulbs and to please
take this discussion to a lightbulb (or light bulb) forum.
Eleven to defend posting to the group saying that we all use light bulbs
and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.
Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior,
where to buy the best bulbs, what brand of bulbs work best for this
technique and what brands are faulty.
Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.
Four to post links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this
group which make light bulbs relevant to this group.
Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety
including all headers and signatures and add "Me Too".
Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.
Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
Five to actually call the lighting industry on the phone just so he/she
could (be the correct high almighty).
Thirteen to say "do a google search on light bulbs before posting
questions about light bulbs".
Three to tell a funny story about their show dog and a light bulb.
AND
One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now with
something unrelated they found at snopes.com and start it all over
again.
End of Quote:
