Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
At the very real risk of compounding a series of bad (editorial) choices, I am leaving the following to “run” as today’s Post. There were a number of technical difficulties associated with it that normally would have had me throwing the whole thing on the ground and starting over, but I liked the video and couldn’t stand to part with it (Post-wise).
In any event, if you are a New Reader? better get used to it. There is a universe full of entertaining, informative, well written blogs available at the mere click of a mouse, and there is the Wakefield Doctrine.
Now that I see the words in ‘print’ I just had another satoristic moment, a new appreciation of this thing of ours!
I’ll bet you that on a good percentage of the Posts that get published, this place looks like a scott’s house/apt. Bear with me here, I know what I mean to say, not sure how to put it. I’m talking about the ‘tone’ or style, maybe of these Posts; I am thinking that some of them will be kinda scottian. No one element that I can point to, a certain frenetic quality, impulsive un-orderly way of attempting to make a point. That is not to say that scotts are not good housekeepers, (they are not, rogers are the good housekeepers), and not that scotts aren’t the most likely to be taken by curiosity, (they do have a streak of curiosity but it is clarks that are the eclectic of the three). But if you were to go into a scott’s house/room/workshop/library, you would find a really odd bunch of things. Nothing that would betray a need to be orderly, a lot of broken instruments, tons of magazines and not a few half-eaten sandwiches on plates at work benches (… you know a scott was working and eating and then something else caught their attention and BAM out the door). This is the den of a scott, eclectic without a need to preserve, variety without the drive to catalogue.
But I was starting to say, it just struck me that taken as a collection, these Posts are beginning to reflect, at varying times a clarklike consideration, a scottian impulsiveness and a rogerian formality!
Damn, maybe this frickin Doctrine is starting to work!
In any event, below is the ‘original’ Post for today. ……see ya
Everyone knows the story of how the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers came to be known as the Wakefield Doctrine, right? ( your monitor gets wavy, you come back into focus in…in Hollywood?)
INT. LATE MODEL LUXURY CAR – NIGHT
Clark and Glenn are in animated discussion, it is clear that the topic is one they are both very, very familiar with and they are covering old ground
Blah, blah blah…I know and you know and I know that the theory is valid and way, way more useful than most of the crap that you use for your trainings. When are you gonna incorporate it into one of your modules?
Hey, I know its useful! I been in this car listening to you for the last 15 years, haven’t I?
So what’s it gonna take to do something with this thing…what do you need to take it on the road? Hell, I know you’re already stealing parts of it to use in your presentations
Credibility. Thats what it needs…If I go out there in front of my Board of Directors and say, “…and this new module is based on ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’ they will laugh.”
Yeah, but…it works… it is useful…
…And it sounds like it came out of a dorm room…from the 70s. I work in a corporate environment…credibility, empirical…metrics…you hearin this?
I get it, I get it…fine! then I’ll change the name…you want credibility?…from now on the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is…the…Doctrine, the Wakefield Doctrine!
Did you happen to notice that we had a (fairly un-common) pairing here of a scott/scott? Ellen Foley is pretty obviously a scott, but Meatloaf not immediately so; but if you are not convinced watch the end (7:44) of the song.