JUST INTO THE NEWS ROOM: the PROGENITOR CLARK INVOLVED IN SERIO-COMIC TRAFFIC ACCIDENT. No one called to the scene. But the calls keep coming into the Postroom – WHO will publish the Sunday Post?! (Lois, did you get that reel I asked for!? What do you think Jimmy?(rolling her eyes behind Jimmy’s back, Lois can’t wait for Clark to get back to the postroom).
[Please find following the last Post the Progenitor (clark) was working on before his untimely accident. Here’s hoping for a timely return]
Today we have an Interview…with frequent Reader MJM. DownSpring Joanne has a brief conversation with MJM on matters Wakefield Doctrine related. With a word from AKH interspersed. Enjoy
Joanne: What are your main attributes that enabled you to classify yourself as a roger? (I sometimes find this still difficult having such a strong scottian aspect, myself)
CSR: (what our participants don’t realize is that Ms. AKH and I can see everything they write and I can interject these clever asides as well as ‘whisper’ in Joanne’s ‘ear’….sort of like on ‘Bones’)
MS.AKH: (This is fun. We can make faces, throw our arms up in the air whatever. Hell, we can even laugh out loud or yell at these rogers – they are so unwittingly amusing but can also be pretty damn annoying. Hopefully I won’t feel compelled to jump through the damn window.) MJM: Please don’t jump through the window – what would you do without the rogers of the world?
MJM: This one is a little hard. I guess I consider myself very family-oriented, try to keep things on an even keel with people, whether family or friends. In a work situation, I was very good at my job and no one could do it as well as I could and didn’t have a problem going to the in-charge people if I felt things were wrong or could be done better. My friends are ones of long-standing and I’m also interested in my family history – working now with a family member I never knew I had and doing a genealogy on my father’s side. >
CSR: (gimme an ‘R’, gimme an ‘O’, gimme a ‘G’…hey Joanne are you going to tell her you are also a roger or does she already know?)
MS. AKH: (No one could do it as well as her? No problem going to the big guns to tell them something could be done better? Give me a break. That’s a little daring for a roger don’t ya think?) > >
MJM: That’s right – no one did it as well as I did. Maybe there is a little Scott in me – cause you really don’t want to push it with me:)
Joanne: If, in a work situation, you find a coworker being treated unfairly by Management, how would you react? (Especially if you work with a group of people)
MJM: If I felt the coworker needed it I would go to management and make a case for the person. I have done this in my past work life. > >
Joanne: Are you a strong roger or do you have some significant tendencies of a scott or a clark? >
CSR: (the Doctrine says we have all three qualities…I think Joanne is setting a rhetorical trap…Sally Jessie gots nothing on our Joanne)
MS. AKH: (that’s a good point. I think that inside she feels compelled to lean toward thinking of herself as a strong roger.) >
MJM: I believe I am a strong roger >
MS. AKH: (Aha! What did I tell you? She seems like she wants to be perceived as a goody-two shoe “let’s not rock the boat” person. What do you think? I mean come on, what the hell is she thinking? A strong roger?!! I’d like to know exactly what she means by that one)
CSR: (Ask her what the hell that means…a “strong” roger…) >MJM: After reading my answer I will have to agree – just what is a strong roger – and to be honest, I really don’t know. > Joanne: Just for fun, how would you classify each of the 4 Beatles? >
MJM: Paul (roger), John (scott), Ringo (roger) and George (clark) >
CSR: (…not bad…not bad she is giving a proper response…)
Joanne: Finally, do you tend to hang out with other rogers, as opposed to clarks and scotts? (not counting family, of course)? >
MJM: I listed a few of my friends and discovered that I tend to hang out with rogers, the next being scotts. Don’t know that I have a lot of clarks as friends. > CSR:follow-up!! follow-up!!! we know that rogers hang out with rogers…h-e-r-d ask her what she hates the most about and likes the most about…) >
MS. AKH: Well Miss MJM, my good buddy and I have been watching and listening to you. I’m kind of surprised. I would have thought that you’d be more comfortable with clarks before scotts. I mean obviously you’re going to hang out with rogers, you being a strong one and all according to you. What is it about clarks that made you choose them last? Of course scotts are fun to hang out with. I hang out with myself all of the time. But what is it about scotts that you prefer over clarks?
MJM: For some reason the clarks can frustrate me. In my immediate family: married to a Scott, and children are 1 roger and 1 clark. The clarks have a tendancy to talk a good game but take forever to come to a conclusion on alot of things – it takes the “thinking” about stuff to a new level. When I want a good in-depth conversation about stuff I just contact a couple of the clarks in my life – especially the Original:) And I don’t know that all of this is done on a conscious level – just drawn to more scotts than clarks.
MJM: I have to say that this has been interesting – don’t keep up with all the Posts religiously but may have to start paying more attention to them. Thanks for inviting me to share.
About clarkscottroger
what’s comic about a traffic accident? hope you’re ok there buddy.
Not an accident, at least not in the Hegelian sense, but more a matter of randomness.
The Post stands as a point in the progression of the Wakefield Doctrine, marking a threshold of increasing independence on the part of the DownSprings.
Was anyone killed? Come on…make it interesting. Say someone was killed. Clarks even have boring accidents. Hegelian THIS, motherfucker. Did your car cause injury to a semite?–and thereby live up to its’ name? If only YOU were hurt, we’d have to call it “The Clarkkiller.” I like AKH. I want to wrestle with her. Love her attitude. Bet she would hurt me bad. Me and you, AKH. Always been me and you… Can’t go wrong witha Beatles piece. The older I get, the better they sound. MJM is right about clarks being ponderous. Takes a long time to develop a point. Then, after you’ve invested so much time and effort, you discover the point is only relevant in a clark world. Has no REAL bearing on anything. Entertaining though…Hegelian…my ass.
I believe in total honesty in communication, as direct and clear as possible:
f*ck you…
besides this is yesterday’s Post, if you are reading this, you are living in the Past
step right up, watch yourself little lady, please do not reach through the bars, we cannot guarentee your safety if you reach through the bars…
(yeah, yeah. I know. yesterday is gone but I can’t help myself)
Did NO ONE read the word “SERIO-COMIC” in the sentence that was made!?
the comments you guys make are frickin funny to read. really, very entertaining.
i like you too glenn. mud or mat?
Interesting Post. I also do not have any friends who are clarks. The people I associate with are primarily rogers. Which brings me to a question for the Interviewee in this Post: how is it that rogers, in a very unconscious, non-malicious way, insist that the world revolve around them? I do not know how to describe the “energy” emitted that insists that people do what they(rogers) want.
Please explain! Is it more on the person interacting with the roger? rather than something rogers do?
Girlie…you are right. Sometimes Rogers just suck. When rogers believe something is right (for them) they believe it is also right for everyone else. Being “right” is huge to rogers. As herd animals they fully expect that other members of the herd will WANT to go along. It does not occur to them that we are not all herd animals. Its not so much that they insist we do what they want–they ASSUME we will do what they want. The assumption has a force to it. Without rogers, there would have been no NAZI Germany. No lynch mobs. The assumption carries weight. People fall in. The ORDER is maintained. Fucking rogers.
well said, for a scott. This Comment does, however beg the question, ‘what is it between those scotts and rogers‘?
…I could answer, but it just plain would not be fair to either (scotts or rogers)….take a penny , please
And what of those inherent, universal “assumptions” (by rogers)?
STEP UP to the plate rogers. To the charge of “assumptive projection that the world revolves around you” -how do you plead ?
As to the question “what is it between those scotts and rogers” let’s hear from some other scotts. Hey, here’s an idea (lol) how about a scottian female? Do you ladies feel the same towards rogers? (sorry AKH. you are excluded from this discussion)
Part 2 to the question would be “why is it that rogerian men almost always, strike that, always succomb to scottian females. Their tolerance is not proffered to scottian men.
Caveman #1, with big rock in hand, contemplates Caveman #2, and decides against murder, rape, and pillage. Civilization is born. Apply recipe as needed. The ” universal assumption” is that everyone/anyone would want to be included in that transformational process. Except Scotts. They just suck. They simply want to get back to raping and pillaging ASAP. Use any justification you can find. Wakefield Doctrine? Sure, that’ll work. Whatever.
Sadly, the only thing to be done with an unreformed, unrepentant Scott is identify them, isolate them, and kill them. We all make mistakes, but Scotts foster a sense of entitlement that they’ll use to justify anything. And that is the original “universal assumption.”
I will disagree, (but not as much as it would sound), scotts do not foster a sense of entitlement anymore than a wolf reflects on his/her Darwinian advantage as a (necessary) justification for chowing down on the nearest bunch of wildebeests. They simply do it, as “not self-consciously” as possible, consist with being a putatively self-aware lifeform.
…rogers with their obessesion with their own “taste appeal” now that does not make sense…