Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
Today’s Post is meant to allow public space to discuss a Comment made by DownSpring glenn late last night. Given the timeliness and importance of the topic (the Wakefield Doctrine’s path to world domination) we felt it deserved a more prominent forum, the ‘trailing Comments’ format that follow each Post has a way of meandering. So following is glenn’s Comment and my (initial) Reply…jump in any time, binyons
“Nice” people don’t make comments. You’re not attracting enough assholes. Let me go wild on this bitch. I’ll draw assholes from every corner of the world. If you don’t put some fucking fireworks in this thing, it’s gonna sink of its’ own ponderosity. A few well-placed fucks. A rude comment. A wildly irreverent observation. Something’s gotta wake up these yokels. You’re BEGGING for commentation–and getting crickets….
Nah.
(Don’t get me wrong, I understand your motivation is a good one) but it is misdirected.
No matter how many lights and pennants flapping and those twirly things (twirling) you have on a car lot, if the buyers passing by are not interested, they are not interested.
(Hold on a minute glenn…)
Let’s bring ‘everyone’ (lol) up to speed. The issue being discussed is whether there should be limits on what is said/printed within the pages of the Wakefield Doctrine blog, both in the Comments of Readers as well as the content of Posts. Of course, anyone reading this knows that there is the gate-keeping function of (a) Moderator; to wit, you send in your Comments, the Moderator receives a Notice of Comment, and proceeds to Approve or Deny said Comment. First case, Comment shows up at the bottom of the Post, second case, nobody but the Moderator (and the Commentator) ever knows it existed. (Oh yeah, editing a Comment is possible, and the fact of editing does not need to be apparent). (To anyone other than Moderator and Commentor).
So, we all know that glenn has written Comments. He has, in fact, participated in Posts and has an issue with the fact that many of his Comments have not made it past the Moderator. The reason being simply that the Moderator felt that (these) Comments were ‘outrageous’ simply for the sake of being out ‘outrageous’. The question that we have all discussed (DownSprings and Progenitors) is whether that is a correct policy.
This is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) …that is not to say that we should not have the scottian view evidenced, in these Posts (specifically) and this blog (generally) but this thing is about the Wakefield Doctrine.
It cannot be the:
- scottian out-fuckin-do-you-believe-what-that-guy-just-said-rageous behavior;
- clarklike too-much-information?-what-are-you-crazy?-hey-dude-you’re-fallin-asleep, content for it’s own sake nor the
- rogerian of course I would be happy to contribute my view, I-can-see-that-you-all-recognise-that-you-need-to-bring-me-in, in case I walk away from the literary ICU work occurring just remind me that I care…there don’t you all feel better now that my voice is filling the jagged edges?
But in defense of the editorial policy to date (arrggh!!! {scott}) I must say there needs to be a balance.
What I feel glenn is missing is this: the Doctrine needs all three ‘voices’ afterall this is the theroy of clarks, scotts and rogers by definition all three elements are necessary. But the point of this is that just because glenn is a scott does not make his personal expression of the scottian nature the best example of the ‘scottian nature’. Just as I know that as a clark, what I contribute to these Posts runs a significant risk of being dense, unclear, in-direct and otherwise not rogerian or scottian. But, while in the early days of the Doctrine (blog) the thinking was that these Posts would be a collaborative effort, that simply did not come to pass. So it comes to the Comments as being the venue for the scottian (and rogerian) voices to be heard. But more to the main point, when is indulging in one’s own (clarklike, scottian or rogerian) nature purely for it’s own sake counter-productive to our efforts with this blog?
(My own ‘issue’ with outrageousness is simply that it is a hunger, it can never be satisfied it must always grow. If I say “Fuck you”, at a certain point in time/with a certain audience, the reaction would be, “What did they just say?” There might be laughs, there might be offense taken, people might leave the room. At this point I suspect glenn will say, “yeah! that’s the point – they are paying attention” And I do not disagree. But it is a fact that the next time the reaction will be, “what? oh yeah…fuck you…great”. And where does that leave us? (One school of thought would result in: “Fuck YOu! You Assholes!!”)…do I need to spend any more time on my point?
I am not really trying to debate glenn here in this, his point is valid and any discussion resulting from the views of all three (clarks, scotts and rogers) is a good thing. But I will say this, glenn does the ‘outrageous’ thing better than anyone around here, he will make me laugh and the Posts I write are better as a result. But Ms AKH is a scott. And while her grasp of the technical aspect of the Doctrine may not be up to glenn’s level (hey AKH! Wakefield Mall 7:45 pm Saturday November 20, yo) she brings the ‘edge’ that glenn rightly asserts is necessary to this blog attracting Readers, but does not throw any away cause they didn’t find the joke funny. Not saying this is all calculated by AKH, but the idea is that our responsibility as Progenitors and DownSprings is to take our understanding of the Doctrine and our own natures and present it in a way that is not too personal. You do that I will try not to preach…(yeah, right)
now somebody go get roger…I last saw him in the back yard…talking…with a bunch of squirrels, 2 or 3 rabbits and a whole bunch of cats…he was leading them down the street, something about, “now when we meet Ken Burns, say you’re with me”
A little illustration if I might? A whole bunch of rogers, playing in total frickin unison, with a scott up front doing whatever it takes to get noticed and one hapless clark, desparately trying to get people to believe that he is in control of the mess..
…that’s the clark on the left, just nearly out-of-frame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TWrxH1IBwQ
About clarkscottroger
(Chuckle) at the clarklike pictorial/cartoon.
(Chuckle) at the humor written within.
Comment? Interest can never be lacking when there is diversity. When there is diversity there is the possibility of challenge. When there is challenge there is the potential for……melding, morphing, evolving, expanding….
(thats ok, glenn…I got this one…)
wtf??! I gots ya evolving and morphing…right here
OK. I gotta chime in here. There is always room for diversity. That’s what makes life interesting.
However, that being said, we’ve got to take the good with the bad (not inferring anyone here is better than anyone else-just different). I believe that there has to be a middle ground. Glenn, while you are definitely able to catch anyone’s attention, you are the ultimate predator. Once you’ve got the attention of the prey/audience you don’t stop but rather go on to the point where people start to think, “…man, this guy’s an asshole…” We (scotts) as predators must sometimes take a more subtle yet still effective approach to the hunt to lure in our prey/audience (new readers in this case). You know, the old saying “honey attracts more bees…”. Personally I don’t feel that there is a need to go on a rampage. Once you’ve got ’em keep ’em instead of scaring them aware or worse having them think that you’re a total lunatic and therefore to not be taken seriously.
Sorry (or not) for the “glenn roast.” But you started it! lol
btw, if we’re talking about evolving, there are some scotts (no need to mention names) who could probably use an evolution or three. Afterall, we’re not club-wielding, pull-her-by-the-hair scotts anymore (at least i’d like to think so.) No, we are much more sophisticated and able to get what we want with a little subtlety. Stealth-mode works well for me.
Now I realize that I am preaching to the elect, so I will not. (much)
We have all, to one degree or another, been working on this thing (together) for more than a year. To return to my ‘used car lot’ analogy, the problem of Reader Participation may very well not be due to how we present the Doctrine, rather we may simply be in a ‘bad location’ in terms of the number of people who happen upon the Wakefield Doctrine. It may take longer that I would have thought. (This idea of links and connections to other sites where people go is still the fundamental principle I am ascribing to, and we have done a lot of that, mostly through the efforts of AKH, but even you, glenn…the Doctrine is there, as a ‘friend’ in your little facebook thingie).
To the broader point of (any) responsibilities that we all have to this thing, both real and imagined, let me add my 2 cents (like anyone is gonna stop me)…We all understand that the ‘practical’ side of the Doctrine has an appeal pretty much limited to the clarks.
rogers and scotts have neither the desire nor the need for ‘self-improvement’. OK Fine.
But this Doctrine is more…(not powerful)…(not efficacious)…influential! (yeah! lets say influential).
Has it occured to you, glenn, that while you play with the Doctrine that the Doctrine is playing with you? No clarklike metaphysics, nothin sinister, but the fact is that there has evolved over the last 12+ months a character/person referred to as DownSpring glenn, This glenn is a scott, a ‘person’ who immediately took to this digital reality…frickin totally loving it…how much of your scottian nature is being influenced by the fact of where you are, as opposed to who you are?
Take roger….please! we all knew him and his (manifestation of his rogerian nature)…show of hands now…is the roger we ‘hear/read’ in these pages (or his own blog) really the same roger we thought we knew prior to the creation of the Wakefield Doctrine blog.
AKH… I would say, even allowing that we have not known you much in the intervening years since EL Freemanburgers that you are the one among the DownSprings who has most comfortably, naturally taken to the ‘opportunity’ present by this digital reality we is fuckin with here. If this were a time machine, you seem to have found the damn switch.
I will stop demonstrating my clarklike quality of blah, blah, (yes, we get it!) blah. Nice Post. Fun
I so enjoy being able to start a conversation. lol
Not that I can do such a thing as easily on a face to face basis – depends on my mood. Sometimes it is possible if the proper energy is present.
I find interest in discovering/experimenting with catalyst(s) of the word variety.
Tell me – is it a scottian quality to seek to evoke reaction in such a way?
(quick! think Dirty Harry) Well, is it “punk”?
btw Ms. AKH, I agree with you:) and kudos!
I would offer that the sophistication, the stealth mode you refer to is ascribed more to females. A sophisticated scottian woman for example, in “stealth” mode is/can be far more effective and “dangerous” than a “rampaging” scott of the male gender.
(But wait. That is a clarklike statement. Perhaps it depends more on the individual “food source” at the moment?)
Although the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is gender neutral I would posit there are nuances.
Shit, Clarkie! See what happens when you drop an occasional metaphorical deuce in the candy basket? People respond. They get curious. They get thoughtful. They get pissed. All I’m sayin’, Dawgs. Take your foot off the brakes. We ain’t gonna crash. And we gonna have some fucking fun! Unpucker, motherfucker.
LMAO
…”what country are you from? …they do Speak English in What?”
I love the conclusion you draw from the previous Post…if anyone ever calls into the question the fact that we all live in separate ( a little different/ a lot different, doesn’t matter) realities, I will simply send them to this Post.
(or if a Reader asks a question about how clarks, scotts and rogers percieve the (same) event in different ways, why I send that motherfucker right to you…screw them fucks what can’t even track a discussion from start to finish). (yo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_-UJtZwjRI
AHK! come in here!
AKH, you must speak to your scottian DownSpring glenn…I have tried and tried…please, make him understand that we are all seeking the same thing…
Seems that Glenn is just pushing that big ol’ WD button on your chest, there, Progenitor. Why? Cause it’s there…hell, you knew that…
Really wanted to comment on the videos.
Allison, Allison…even when she gets bluesy and pentatonic, still in perfect control. Marvelous. Great band, everyone is a master of their own thing, but they never get in each other’s way. Although Jerry on dobro seems a bit reserved on this one. Not quite the fiery blues guy. But that is a tough gig, because if anyone stepped on Allison’s toes, I think they would have to kill themselves.
#2 from Beethoven’s Ninth, I believe. Total misread on this one , I’m afraid. That might be a scott in front, but he is still doing a) what the conductor lets him b) what Beethoven wanted. They’re all doing Beethoven’s bidding. That might be a clark conducting or not, but he is anything but hapless. He is in total control. Don’t presume anything at all. He has half brain on Beethoven, the other half on the players. The players have half a brain on him, the other half on their jobs. Anything less, it fails. And then The Man probably pushes his headstone aside to come and set it right himself.
Now there’s a right proper WD question…Lovely, Lovely Ludwig Van…C, S, or R?
it would appear that the big question is: do the means justify the ends? we are all on the same page. that is, to get the Doctrine out to the people as a viable and useful insight that is proven to determine that there are only 3 distinct personity types. to get on the map as it were. it has been proven to be true. it’s simplicity is authentic. can you imagine if there were actual studies done to this end?
that being said, we all need to perhaps compromise (glenn) and be a bit more “professional” so as not to mispresent the Doctrine and the seriousness of the theory. we do not want the Doctrine to fall into a half-baked idea category cooked up by some guy with nothing else to do.
on another note, it seems that Miss Downspring #1 may just be on to something regarding the difference between male and female scotts in their approaches to the hunt. very interesting.
well, you ( scottian females) do enjoy the roger de la cuisine, it is a given that the female scotts while as predatory as the male, have a apparent restraint…you people hardly ever kill the whole herd, just for a burger
Hey AKH! we waited in the Wakefield Mall parking lot tonight…ended up doing a radio-Wakefield, had the Progenitor roger on speaker phone, with glenn riding shotgun…lets try and make this thing work, maybe next Saturday…(can only be Saturday and only 7:45 to 8:35pm) (just the way it is)
shit, i forgot all about it.
btw, by “compromise” i in no way am saying we should change the way we are. just maybe tone it down.
rated PG?
ok…since we are all going to come back here at least once early Sunday (to see how the Commentation went) rather than immediately start the next Post, here is what I would like to do:
This being Thanks-fricken-being Week simple write as a Comment the answer to the Question:
I am glad there is a Wakefield Doctrine because…and the one thing that will make it better for the new Reader is…
….the new Reader should take this from their first visit to the Wakefield Doctrine….
If you will write it, I will turn it into a Post. (some conditions may apply)
(*add to our knowledge of the Doctrine, tell us something about clarks, scotts and/or rogers that we don’t already know;
*when we do the movie version of the Wakefield Doctrine, who do you think should play you? …and you got to tell us why that particular person)
the roger: Without knowing all that much about Ludwig Van’s actual life, I gots to go with ‘he was a roger‘ the basis is only one story I have heard attributed to him, the one about how people started waving hankerchiefs in the audience after a perfomance ’cause dude, he be deaf yo. But the story says Beethoven he got mad when he did not hear applause (behind him when he conducting and whatnot).
Ludwig. Only my most favorite of composers.
I will have to ponder this. I have read only 1 biography and that was when I was but a wee lass so all is from distant, distant memory.
Having said that, what a stupid thing he did dunking his head in that cold water(causing his deafness).
If I used that as the only criteria then LVB was a scott.
But wait – he had a tortured love life. Did he not spend his life enduring perceived unrequited love? If this be true then he be a clark.
If I based my assessment solely upon his music I again would have to say he was a clark. I know, I know! There is argument there for not clark.
Tell me MC RC. What do you think?
I honestly believe he must have been all three in an uncomfortable but equal balance. For instance, if he was mad for not hearing applause, he was also not hearing the orchestra. But still playing the thing through in his head…so he was really just conducting his way through their physical cues. No need to actually hear anything. So if a string player screwed up, he could see the bowstroke out of sequence. He was known for being extremely harsh in such matters. So the players were terrified of him…other conductors thought him to be a great mechanic…other composers thought he was possessed.
(courtsey of Wikipedia):
According to legend, as a young black man living on a plantation in rural Mississippi, Robert Johnson was branded with a burning desire to become a great blues musician. He was “instructed” to take his guitar to a crossroad near Dockery Plantation at midnight. There he was met by a large black man (the Devil) who took the guitar and tuned it. The “Devil” played a few songs and then returned the guitar to Johnson, giving him mastery of the instrument. This was, in effect, a deal with the Devil mirroring the legend of Faust. In exchange for his soul, Robert Johnson was able to create the blues for which he became famous.
auf wiedersen, yo
Interesting. I had thought of the possibility of all 3 but…..
Well done MC RC. Could not have expressed it better:)
(btw just submitted what I dub my “TD Response” (see today’s Post). Don’t know if it made it through the moderator’s office yet but seems to me that you are up next!!