I’ll bet this really does not work/it will be great | the Wakefield Doctrine I’ll bet this really does not work/it will be great | the Wakefield Doctrine

I’ll bet this really does not work/it will be great

…no way…this is so not going to work…

(Screw it) let’s deal with them clarksrogers they’re easy if for no other reason than there are just so damn many of them out there…prevailing opinion is that of the general population the breakdown is: 65% rogers 25% clarks and 10% scotts

…(alright, alright I’m getting to it…damn this is turning out way harder than I thought)… (And it’s not that it is hard to describe clarks/being a clark/understanding clarks), what is the challenge is to not sound/appear/look/or seem to be overly self-indulgent/un-certain/too-clever or even apparently-not-able-to-settle-on-one-description.

(ya think?) …hey you want to try this?  ,,,(back to amateur experimental writing 1010)…(I know! let’s quote some source material!)… The following  is from the ‘Page’ clarks, which if you had read that, you would not need to read this,

To a clark, information/knowledge is the thing of highest value in the world.  This belief is the flaw from which all in the behavior (of a clark) flows.  “If I know everything I can understand why I feel different.  If I understand why I feel different, I can change and then not feel different.  Then I can be like other people.

That pretty much sums up the nature of clarks, thanks for coming by…..

(…they still out there?)                    (….shit)                                (…I know, I know I have to fill up more space….)   (more pictures!….that will fill in the white!)

 

 This is Flo, she is a clark…as a matter of fact, clarklike females are totally easier to identify than are clarklike male-type people.  (At least in the current culture) women are permitted a wider latitude of physical expression, both in physical features and in clothing.  (Funny thing about them, always odd footwear, and a mixture of clothing styles that does not just cross the male/female line, it totally obliterates it).  The patron saintlette of clarks is Diane Keaton, not only in her role as Annie Hall, but by all indications, in her ‘real life’).  Don’t take my word for it, look at this clip.

(…we done yet?…) ….(goddamn it, yeah I know ‘no one is forcing me to do this’…) ….(if I actually hit PUBLISH on this Post it will be a major miracle)…

Are there any questions? (oh great, roll out the over-done classroom thing with young and not weird students to act as deux ex machina*…(clarks, they know what that means)…most of them are not stupid, even though they think that you think that they are….)

You can see the clarks, if you just look.
See that herdlette of rogers over there?  They are all talking in a circle, not a perfect circle, but a group with a common center.  See that guy that is standing at an angle to the group?  See how his body is oriented to the same center as the rogers?  Notice how his head/face is looking outward from the group?  That’s your clark.  Look at the corner of the room, see that person who appears to be moving to another part of the room?  But when you look back, he is still in that corner, still looking like he is moving to another part of a room?  That’s your clark.

(Physical characteristic of clarks: hunched shoulders.  The result of growing up with a worldview/perceptual bias/simply being a clark and living in an essentially hostile environment, knowing that you are always going to be an outsider/different-from/not-like-them.  Always with the bad posture).

Funny thing about clarks, tho…we get along with scotts.  In fact, find a scott and there will be a clark nearby.  It is so characteristic as to be axiomatic, the clark will be giving ideas to the scott, who will act on them. The clark never gets credit, not being the one who acts, except from the scott.  In that sense the Progenitor roger is correct.  There is a strong symbiosis between a clark and a scott.

(…are we done yet?)…(how the hell did you go from ‘painfully self-conscious’ to ‘totally boring’ so fast?…jeez dude)…(well you have come this far, find something to wrap this deceased equine up in and go home…)

Hey!  You know who are clarks out in the real world?  Woody Allen, Steven Wright, Jimi Hendrix, Prince (that’s right, I said that Prince is a clark), Flo, David Hyde Pierce (no shit), Norm Abrahms, Richard Linklater (Slacker, Dazed and Confused), David Duchovney, Bob Newheart, Diane Keaton and many, many, you have to pay attention to spot them, people.

So, scottsrogers…. you people need us.   (So, clarks…don’t believe that for a second).

(…can’t wait to see what he considers appropriate music…..)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQh112HQsoE
* deux ex machina -[dey-uhs eks mah-kuh-nuh, dee-uhs eks mak-uh-nuh]
–noun
1.(in ancient Greek and Roman drama) a god introduced into a play to resolve the entanglements of the plot.

2. any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot.

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Downspring#1 says:

    There most likely isn’t a female clark out there who does not have/has not had a pair of black and white shoes:)
    Let’s not forget to add Gwen to the list.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJsp7-qv7xs

  2. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    the eyes, what is it about the eyes of a clark? Doctrine tells us that the eyes of a scott are an unmistakeable and primary characterisic of the type…but are the same for scottian females as for scottian males.

    but clarks…def on the eyes of the clarklike female…but totally not for the malelike clark…their eyes are completely set on ‘stand by’…