Unutterably Silly Corrupt-A-Topic (anymore off-topic and it would be on-topic)

[HomeInMyShoes]

Chili burgers. Not what I had in mind, but could work. Thanks for the menu suggestion for today.

[Solitaire1]

Why do some TV shows that the critics have a poor opinion of seem to last? Look at Gilligan's Island, a show that was looked down upon at the time and was eventually cancelled to make room for Gunsmoke (it's cancellation was so unexpected that the cast didn't find out until after they had wrapped for the season and went home).

Yet, Gilligan's Island has become a beloved show that has entertained so many people over the years and has become a part of the culture. It's likely that more people probably know the characters on Gilligan's Island off the top of their head than know the characters from other shows of its time.

It is also one of the few shows to be revived with the same cast several times. It was twice in animation (including one where they ended up stranded on a planet), and three times as a live action TV movie (one was intended to be a pilot for a new TV series).

In the distant future, could the impact of Gilligan's Island be shown by space law edicts that require all ships on a three-hour trip to carry an individual that represents the characters from the ancient documentary series believed to be called "G'll'g'n's I'la'd" to ensure survival in case of a crash. Analysis of the video record shows that this combination of individuals could survive any disaster, including: being struck by lightning, turning invisible, eating radioactive substances without harm, create a simulation of modern technology using only primitive materials, and calling for mythological figures to appear.

[I hope this takes us completely off topic. If not, I'll have to try even harder. ]

[HomeInMyShoes]

Mary Ann.

[Solitaire1]

With all the talk of analog vs. digital, could it be that the technology that we abandoned might actually be the best one for sound? Rather than the technology, could it be the way the technology has been implemented?

[HomeInMyShoes]

Perhaps, but we'll never know the real answer. See beta versus vhs.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Mary Ann.

Yes. Mary Ann.

[WT Sharpe]

Absolutely. Mary Ann without question.

Maybe we should have a poll:

• Mary Ann (HINT: This is the correct answer.)
• My opinion doesn't count/nobody cares what I think.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

...Gilligan's Island...[I hope this takes us completely off topic. If not, I'll have to try even harder. ]

It appears to have created a topic. Cut it out right now!

[Solitaire1]

Why do depressing songs seem to strike a chord with some many people? There have been so many hit songs that, when you listen to the lyrics, turn out to be quite depressing.

An example of this is the song "Alone Again (Naturally)" by Gilbert O'Sullivan. Under the peppy melody is the story of a young man who is stood up at his wedding, loses his father and then his mother, and then decides to jump off a tower to end it all. Despite the topic of the song, it was a #1 hit on the Billboard Chart.

Another song is "All By Myself" by Eric Carmen and later covered by Celine Dion. Carmen's version is done in a very world-weary manner which reflects the sad mood of the song. Dion's version turns up the power of the song and makes it a song of emotional devastation over being alone.

Of course, sometimes the emotional aspect can be a little overdone, leading to it being funny. An example of this is the song "Your Hiroshi" by Diane Michelle. It's a song about a woman is completely devastated by finding out that the man she loved is now with someone else.

Could it be that people enjoy depressing songs because it makes them feel better about their own life?

[Lady Blue]

Why, indeed?

Teen tragedy was big in the 50s and 60s. They were all very big hits ... all tragic. Those songs are still burned in my memory.

"Teen Angel" (1959)
"Last Kiss" (1964)
"Patches" (1962)
"Tell Laura I Love Her" (1960)
"Running Bear" (1960)
"Leader of the Pack" (1964)
"Moody River" (1961)
"Dead Man's Curve" (1964)
"Ode to Billy Joe" (1967)
"Ebony Eyes"

[HomeInMyShoes]

Every morning when I wake up I listen to country music. That way I can be assured that the day can only get better.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by Solitaire1

With all the talk of analog vs. digital, could it be that the technology that we abandoned might actually be the best one for sound? Rather than the technology, could it be the way the technology has been implemented?

History has proven time and time again that the people will pick convenience over quality. In fact a little over a decade ago the industry tried to push not one but two "high-fidelity" digital audio disc formats... Super Audio CDs and DVD-Audio discs. Neither of which ever caught on of course, as they weren't nearly as convenient as either conventional CDs or the then emerging MP3 player.

[Lady Blue]

Cassette tapes and VHS tapes ... there are many things I miss about them.

Several years back, before the days of e-readers, as many of you can relate, I was totally running out of room for my paper-based books. I also had (still have) many other side interests (hobbies) that I was neglecting with the scant spare time I had while working full time, commuting, cooking, cleaning and otherwise trying to raise a family.

So I opted to switch to audiobooks that I could obtain in audio cassette form for a nominal price from Half-Price-Books, or borrow from the public library. I could pop a cassette into my portable player, plug in headphones (or ear buds) and MULTI-TASK without bothering anyone else. I could listen to my books while sewing, crocheting, cross-stitching, paper-cutting, cooking, blah-blah-blah. I could quickly punch the stop or pause button, and later push play and continue right where I left off. I could pop out the cassette, pop it in the car player and pick up listening where I left off for my commute to work and never miss a beat. You just don't have the same easy options with books on CD. It doesn't work the same and it's just too frustrating. There are the same drawbacks downloading audiobooks to MP3 players. It just doesn't work as seamlessly for my multi-tasking purposes.

I sure miss those days. Multi-tasking in that fun and productive way is a thing of the past I sorely miss. I love my e-readers and won't go back to paper, but now I'm just reading and miss doing all the other things I love to do at the same time, and getting lost in both.

Did that meet the off-topic criteria?

Maybe this should have been a RANT thing.

[HomeInMyShoes]

I don't miss VHS tapes that would wear out to the point of being unplayable.

I do miss Cherry Coke availability in Canada.

[Solitaire1]

What determines if a post is sufficiently off topic to qualify as an off-topic post? For example, if a post concerns Gilligan's Island does that mean that the next post, to be considered off-topic, must simply not mention Gilligan's Island or does it go further than that? Could it be that the next post also cannot mention the following to be considered off topic?

- Island
- Mad Scientists (there was one who appeared on the show twice)
- Individuals who didn't make the cast of Gilligan's Island (Jerry Van Dyke as Gilligan, Jayne Mansfield as Ginger, and Dabny Coleman as The Professor)
- 1960s TV shows
- Seeking an answer to that eternal question that will likely never be satisfactorily answered: Ginger or Mary Ann?
- Boats
- Boating disasters
- The memorability of a TV show
- Any of the characters from the show in any form
- Stars before they were stars

To quote "Weird Al" Yankovic from the song "Midnight Star:" I wanna know! I wanna know!

Interesting, I've made a post that's off topic from the previous post because it's about what is off topic. Since this entire post is concerning being off topic, does that mean that the next post must be on topic to be off topic since it would be the opposite of the topic of the previous post?