When I was a kid… in order to get a Hunting License… I had to take a “hunter’s safety course…”

Now there’s another damned course standing between me and “my prey”… ARGH! F*****g bureaucrats and “marketing ilk!”!

You said:
“After all, you are the one in the small percentage of people, (compared to an overwhelming large percentage of people not bright/flexible/creative/intelligent enough to get this thing), who is reading and presumably getting…”

WTF? Have you READ my blog? I’m about to go postal and take out half of Mississippi, as I type this. With all the cops cruising shopping mall parking lots looking for MILFs (it IS “Black Friday” after all)… I may even get a way with it. After all, I know the ancient art of “Jew Fu…”

What? I do too! I even spelled it correctly!

And, I can curse in Croatian… that’s gotta be worth something… ;)

I suspect that some liberal namby-pamby will determine that the practice of this arcane knowledge will be a violation of some murky civil liberty and anyone following along behind the likes of you Stooges will be knee deep in litigation.

Hey, that gives me an idea… I’ll just spin this off as “Moe, Larry and Curly…”

Oh yeah, and if you actually get caught using the Wakefield Doctrine and do anything notable… they’ll add a clause making it a violation of the “Geneva Convention,” and “the Hague treaty.”

“But your Honor, the contract can’t be valid. He used the Wakefield Doctrine” on me…”

On a serious note: It’s 59 degrees in Biloxi, with scattered clouds.

Here’s your “words for the day:”

“Odi u kurac”

That is all… ;)

(Now you got me going ‘ronin,)…Most of the systems of ‘learning to understand other people’ are ‘loaded’, biased if you will with the notion of ‘good’.
That is, they tend to come across as all: ‘here is a way to understand others, of course you will want to help them, be good to them’.
Sure. Got that.

Unlike most religions or moral-belief systems, golden rules or golden boughs, the Wakefield Doctrine does not have an agenda.
It does not wish to promote goodwill or fellowship or ‘peace love and understanding’.
The Doctrine does not care what a person does with the knowledge that results from understanding it.
It simply says, ‘hey, you want to know why the others are acting the way that they do? huh? well do you?” What you do with the seriously advantaged position you are in with this thing, is entirely up to you.

Afterall, you are the one in the small percentage of people, (compared to an overwhelming large percentage of people not bright/flexible/creative/intelligent enough to get this thing), who is reading and presumably getting this Doctrine thing.

Hey, enjoy. Use it as you please. Stay in touch and help us (share this with the world).

Seriously, the number of people who read and understand this is so small right now, that we do not have to worry about someone complaining, ‘Hey no fair using the Wakefield Doctrine on me”

(Not yet, at any rate.)

“But Scott told me too! I was just Rogering my own business, and wham! All of a sudden… Clark was dead.

I mean, at the end of the day, it’s just open season, anyway…

Jebe Se!

Croatian works in Slovinia… ;)

Additional note: It just happens that among the Downsprings there is only one scott (at present) and rest are rogers and clarks, further the (only) scottian Downspring is male.
It is important to note that there is no distinction in Doctrine between male and female. For the the interview it was a scottian male and a rogerian female. Could have been rogerian male and clarklike female or any other combination.

The point here is that the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral. While there are some differences in expression (among the three) a scottian female is still a predator first (individual person second) and a clarklike female will be just as abstract and subjective as her male counterparts.

If anything, the gender issue helps us to see the underlying ‘perceptual bias’ that makes each of the three types distinctive, i.e. scottian predators, rogerian herd members…and clarks…