No I'm not. And I love pretzels -- ask Hirsch. It's the oblique references to pretzels in an otherwise meaningful statement that I detest. That's just elitist colloquialisming. No-one understands it, but it separates the people who pretend to understand it from those of us who refuse to pretend we understand something we don't, and as such is designed to separate into cliques and outcasts. I refuse to join the clique, that is all.
And I'm not anal. It's anal-retentive.* Close enough. My analogy does not draw to closed systems so much, but the rest of the definition looks accurate enough. Think of it more from a universal perspective -- all motion can be categorized -- nee separated -- into directional and random. Entropy is the random part. When I say, "I refuse to contribute to the entropy", it's because I see motion towards anything but a stated goal as a problem. I do not wish to be a part of the problem. I am, but I try not to be.
Also, the entropy in the universe is increasing. Eventually, all motion will be random, and life will cease to exist (actually, it will have ceased to existed long before entropy takes over).
*That's a joke, son, laugh. See, I'm being anal-retentive about 'anal-retentive'...geddit? That's alright, you'll get used to my sense of humour...eventually...you may not like it, but you'll begin to recognize it.