I must apologise for the subtitle, it was meant for a different Post.  Allow me to elaborate, as regular Readers know, the subtitle is part of the ‘pro forma’ in the writing of these Posts.  Actually I should not make that statement, very often it is the sub-title that drives, informs maybe even totally represents the Post that follows.  Naturally I cannot think of any examples at the moment, but if you go back and read all the old Posts then you will see Posts where the sub-title is: an amplification (of the Post), a distillation of the topic, a counter-point to the Post.  In other words (the sub-title) plays an active, if variable function in the writing of these things.
Today’s sub-title came after the fact and may  be changed before I hit “Publish”.

Speaking of it’s own…kudos to Ms. AKH for her Comment on the question “Who, of the three, is most likely to do a good job “talking shop” (and the answer is not roger)…” I make specific mention of this because of the nature/character of her contribution.
From the very beginning of this blog of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) it has been a fundamental premise that this thing of ours would be a collaborative effort.  That participants (Progenitors and downsprings) would add to the body of knowledge that would allow us to spread the word on this fine, fine personality theory.

Yo, the Comment:

…For a scott, talking shop is shepherding a herd of rogers.  Meanwhile the clarks are on the outside quietly observing… Talking shop is the perfect opportunity (for a scott) to pick out…weaker ones of the herd… They (the scotts) become the “leaders of the pack” taking over the conversation and using it to their advantage.  Don’t be fooled by that big smile and pat on the back…

Well said.
We acknowledge (this Comment) because it is an original contribution, not new information,  but, more importantly it is a way of seeing through the eyes of (one of the three).  All of these Posts are written with the goal to provide Readers something new, a point of view, a concept, a symbol that will come back to them during the course of the day and cause them to say, “damn! that’s what those weird-ass people at the Wakefield Doctrine were talking about“!
And so Ms AKH’s Comment  goes out to all Readers and says, “Hey Reader! Yeah, you!!  When you are in the lunch room at work or the cafeteria at school or outside on a break today and the conversation is centered on work (‘talking shop’) watch the one who is getting most of the laughs, pay attention to the person who initiates the conversation or steers it back to the job, there’s your scott.  And most of the people surrounding this person, thems your rogers.  Unless, of course, you are the person ‘getting the laughs…etc’.  In that case…”bon appetit y’all!”

Big news on the hat front (as opposed to news on the front of the hat)…got a e mail from Jason over at the Project: Enlightenment…Jason is one of the original Friends of the Doctrine and he will be sporting a fine hat (for his damn head) real soon.  And he promises to send us photos of the hat in distant locations.  Stop by the Project and say hello and we will get the photos up in the Fashion Center asap. ( Oh, Meester Melll! you have for us some photos of a certain hat in the so called “State” of “Michigan”?).

So let’s get out with a little music.

Ah, the choice of music… that’s a Post in and of itself, not that I am above using it as a way to further pad this Post.  Actually, the first choice I’ll just throw up and the biggest surprise is that I have not already used it, so no big intro or implications or echos of content, just an excellent song.
(btw, I could be wrong on this but the Progenitor roger (being of no mean guitar skills), once did ‘Moondance’ in a band he was in, Windblown…no…Windborne…yeah…that’s it…anyway he did this song with a little “flourish/fill” (on the guitar) that I have not heard in other versions and in my opinion is most excellent, to the point that it is how the song should be played.  If the roger is Reading this, perhaps he will elaborate…)

the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day?
Well, I think we have already provided that in the Comment about the Comment…those photos? welll…that takes a little more ‘splainin.  Truth be told I have no explanation  for it…just some Egyptian Pharoah-ette and from there the legendary Pope Joan…of course…
For a while as I started writing this Post I was thinking…”alright these gots to be scottian women passing as men of power at a time when they would not otherwise be allowed to”… Take  Joan ‘d Arc (…please!..) (..barump bump!)  Now there was a scottian woman…and the Pharoah-ette…Hatshepsut,  she also a scottian woman…Pope Joan I am not so sure of…the little reading I did points to a clarklike female (due to out-learning all the guy pope wanna-bees) and her coming to a ‘bad end’…gotta go with a clarklike female.
More interesting is Rickie Lee in the following vid…lookin clarklike with the clothes but an edge that is kinda scottian…

…since I was looking forward to putting “Valley of the Pharoahs” by the Hellecasters in here but can’t find it…will settle for the following: