by following these simple instructions, your product should offer a lifetime of simple satisfaction

 Hey, hey, hey…a little prolix on the subtitle?

Yes, yes it is. But it being  Firstaversay Week, I thought now might be a good time to address questions, concerns and comments that have been directed to the Doctrine. These questions (and answers) hopefully will let us start a new year with all the benefits of a 12 month learning curve.

First up. (More  a philosophical, than a “why do you” or “how do I” type of question.)

Question #1: So what is the point of the Comments that follow each Post?

Good Question. ( …thank you… ) glad you asked.

(June 27 2009)  Until a better structure is devised, this page will be pretty much free form, notes, entries that sort of thing. But for now the next section will be devoted to a ‘definition’ of the three forms. The definitions will be, perforce, brief characterizations of the form. Since there exists at this point no established system or ‘profile requirements’  we will simply have to wing it.

By ‘wing it’, I mean that we will approach this as a conversation to an unknown and somewhat willing audience.

The above is from the second entry  or Post of the Wakefield Doctrine and shows that the thinking (at that time) was that these Posts would be a collection of opinion and conjecture and….

(   Hold on. Stop…  )

The real question here is: “why can’t we keep doing what we have been doing for the last 12 months”?  And the answer is: “because there is nothing new being added to the Wakefield Doctrine if it is being treated as a message board, a “vote for your favorite music video” site or as a place to see your words “published”.

(Next question, I see some hands raised. You! the one with the necklace made of teeth, you have a question?)

“Thank/fuck you. I (fuck you) think you are doing a real (fuck you) swell good job (fuck you) but I get bored and like to (fuck you) make fun of people (fuck them) so you can’t say I cna’t write Comments (fuck you). Thank you (fuck you) for taking (fuck) my (you) question.”

Good question. Actually I can say that, and have in fact said that.  There is no place for that here for  ‘ad hominem’ attacks and any Comments limited to that just don’t get Posted. Pretty simple, isn’t it?

(Next question?)

So, what should a new Reader think? (About writing in Comments or questions)

The new Reader should know that Comments are moderated and then posted within a few hours of being received. And that no Comment will be refused except the aforementioned ad hominem, or otherwise pointless yelling for attention type Comments.

(One last question?)

Yeah, so whats the deal going forward?

The “deal” is that the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) continues until it proves itself. And this proof will be found in a demonstrated efficacy in altering a person’s perception in such manner that they will be able to act outside the normal limitations associated with their ‘type’ (clark or scott or roger).

Thats all this has ever been about, finding a way to have the qualities of all three, in balance in one person.

(Yes you in back?)

You still doin music and what about when I think it sucks? Huh? what then?

The music videos are there for a couple of reasons. First is as a reward for the effort of writing a Post, second it is fun when a song is discovered that somehow reflects or reinforces the message in the Post and third it is just because.

Damn!! (I just checked and the first time a video showed up in a Post was December 3rd!) Where have my words gone? All that time (July to December) without the whitespace eating benefit of a music video… Well, in any event, lets reminisce our own bad selves with that first vid…L(s) and G(s) I give you Robin (oh, I’m a clark, don’t you even doubt that) Trower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CalcTiZag4
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. Glenn Miller says:

    Thank/fuck you. For (fuck you) explaining the criteria. (fuck that). That piece above, in which you are (not so crytically) channeling me is the funniest shit you have ever wrote. It is (fuck it) brilliant comedy. I (fuck me) laughed out loud. Had to close my office door. Was disturbing my co-workers(fuck them). It (fuck) was(you) maybe the funniest thing I have ever read. Thank/fuck you for that. You have not lost your (fuck you) sense of humor. You have simply added a complementary sense of (fuck you) pomposity. Not all readers(fuck them) are clarks. You want an audience of all clarks? (fuck them). Maybe you do. If you want scotts and rogers in da heezy, relax the heezy rules(fuck that). Just (fuck you) sayin’. This reminds me of the time we staged an argument in a business meeting just for the fun of it. So, in conclusion, fuck you.

  2. Glenn Miller says:

    You know—just adding a scottian howl to the clarklike drone. Does that break the continuity?–or does it break the monotony? Me and you, clark. Always been me and you…Maybe a roger needs to chime in.

  3. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    ok…I see you reading…contribute something new to the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, ideally based on something that is said (in the current Post) or something that is a part of current body of knowledge as it pertains to the Doctrine.

    So…my question is this: why do scotts seem reluctant to try things that they are not familiar with (at least trying them ‘in public’).
    We had a Doctrine ‘haiku’ one or two Posts ago…how about taking a shot at one of those?

    (Remember that there are no stupid questions, just your questions.)

    (…just a joke…have used it before…hey! Ms. AKH, talk to your scottian compatriot…try to get him to reach down and contribute…part of your responsibility as (current) Speaker for scotts.)

    ok…out of parentheseses…

  4. Glenn Miller says:

    Was going to do haiku, but needed the formula in front of me–and cannot type without blank page in front of me–so cannot do. But I’ll be back.

  5. Glenn Miller says:

    OK. I back. Hai(fucking)ku

    Rock band without scott
    Music is good, but bores
    Audience needs loud colorful voice
    Scotts

    A forest clark falls
    Is sound produced at all?
    No one hears the falling clark fall
    Jane?

    A roger’s heart hurts
    Blame must be affixed post haste
    Someone broke a cardinal rule
    prick.

    Alright? There’s some fucking hai-fucking-ku for ya. I got yer hai-ku right here. I’m a haiku man from way back. AND–it pertains to the Doctrine. Not as funny as my usual shit–but…hey..its what you want, right?

  6. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    “It’s a start”*

    *(the roger will provide the provenance for that expression)

© 2009-2017 Francis Clark Farley All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright