That's just for starters, of course.

Whackadooness isn’t a quality limited only to the people I follow. It’s certainly not the barometer by which I decide to follow someone. A little makes one interesting but there are diminishing returns.

And as with most data sets, there are outliers. There are some extremely serious people who would fall below 0.1% who I might follow, even if they are obviously boring. Brillaint, yes, but boring. And there are some who are absolutely certifiable and yet have some redeeming quality which makes them entertaining from time to time. Again, while it may be good, it is possible that there is too much of a good thing.

I could try to correlate the data. I won't, of course. But I could.

As for Michele, she may be thinking, "A fool! A fool! I met a fool in the forest." Or maybe she isn't.

Final thoughts: I don't know how many Os should be in "whackadoo", but I decided to end with the double. Also, I like the "h".