Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clark, scotts and rogers )
You shoulda called in last night!1
We had a very interesting and, at times provocative discussion with RCoyne, DownSprings glenn and DS#1 on line and live!
The (discussion) began with the roger being asked why he persisted in efforts to get a collaborative project started over at his blog, the Scatter Muffin, in the latest Post. He did not have a particularly good explanation, which, only naturally, caused the question to be asked by glenn and me, “Why the hell did you ignore both of our Comments’? This prompted a fairly technical discussion of the nature and practical (and theoretical) application of rogerian expressions. Both DownSpring glenn and I were interested in finding out if rogers used rogerian expressions as a form of aggressive strategy. RCoyne, he be sayin, “No!”
The Topic (of the Show) then shifted to finding out if RCoyne knew the ‘meaning’ of the vacuum cleaner that formed the focus of his recent dream/Post topic. glenn attempted the gestalt strategy of asking him to speak for the appliance, ‘zo now, mine little chicken and dumplings, I vant you to be zee vacuum cleaner!’
But to no avail. (Like DS#1 before him), our Progenitor went into extreme oversight-mode and mum was the damn word. Now at about this point in the Show, DS#1 joined the fray and, as is true of her kind (clarklike female), she instantly assimilated both the content and the context of the conversation. Of course, before you could consider one answer, the topic moved on to the question, ‘What is the Achilles Hell of clark/scotts/rogers‘. ( Now, we wuz treadin terra incognita, y’all)
The discussion became even more technical and before you could say ‘delusional-compensatory life-coping construct’, the Progenitor roger and both DownSprings were totally gangin up on yours truly.
Keep in mind, these are the people at and around the Wakefield Doctrine back when it was still the theory of clarks and scotts and rogers, hell even before that. But they could give as good as they could take, even when the notion of a single descriptor ( of clarks, scotts and rogers) was put into the conversation. I mentioned, in passing a mere rhetorical filigree, if you will, that it would be useful to understand just why it was true that:
- clarks are crazy
- scotts are stupid
- rogers are dumb
Since Ms. AKH was unable to get in on the fun, lets ask her the question: is the above assignment of descriptions valid, or what? glenn made the excellent (and obvious) point that as descriptive terms go, these are considered by most to be “..really, quite pejorative. Most people will react to the connotations that are inextricably attached to these words, their use is fairly problematic“2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMcErHwbzVA1) the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Live call-in show, nothing less than the coolest concept in the otherwise lame-intensive world of blogs, blog writing and blog readers
2) yeah I understand your reaction, you are right, that is the same DownSpring glenn who, like a profane Eskimo, has 73 different words for Fuck, but pretty much likes to just use the word ‘Fuck’.
About clarkscottroger
clarks are strange (until you understand them)
scotts are audacious (yep, that’s fuckin’ right)
rogers are corn-fed (ridiculously befitting of the herd)
the ‘highest energy’ part of last night’s festivities was devoted to the apropriateness of the three descriptors, crazy, stupid and dumb. While I trust all involved will accept the fact that I am not married to these three particular words, and will, in fact, replace them with anything better that may show up, I would like to refer roger’s (and to a lesser extent the DownSpring’s) attention to other attributory statements:
clarks are from space
scotts are from Mars
rogers are from Hell
these are true statements.
Even more useful are:
clarks are scientists
rogers are machine operators
scotts are salesmen
In response to the second comment. True statements all. But I fear that my understanding of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, befitting a clark, allows for a simplistic acceptance of such statements as truth without making it an overly cognitive experience. (no, I am not bored today)
If I may re-visit the “crazy”,” stupid”, “dumb” descriptors. There must be something to it. For me, the reason could be simple coincidence or further validation of it (descriptors). Here’s why: a couple of weeks ago, during a lull at the supermarket that is my present employ, I was engaged in a “conversation” with a 20 year old female roger. As we went back and forth conversationally, my fellow cashier exclaimed “Downspring#1! (pretend that is my real name) You’re crazy! I was puzzled and laughed as to her thinking I was crazy. What in the world did I say that would lead “C” to proclaim I was crazy?
What was it that made her fearful? Was that it – fear? Unexpected, atypical responses? Ideas not usually thrown around her part of the universe? (her sub-conscious brain was screaming “girl, she ain’t like everybody else”)
Back to the clarks/space, scotts/Mars and rogers/Hell.
“Space” – the idea of it is infinite, it cannot be fully known, it is expansive in a way that defies and challenges. No leap to see the analogous relationship between clarks and space. Easy one. (and yeah, I know about Mars and Hell too)
But I don’t want to go on and on. I’d like to hear a scott’s opinion as it relates to the fourth planet from the sun and who doesn’t want to hear from a roger from hell:)
Okay, here’s the thing.
By leaving the back door open on my last post, I was thinking that a response from an absolutely arbitrary person would be pretty cool, but I’d more likely get something from the inner core.
My error was in presuming that offerings would be generally with my overall style in mind ( all style, no substance), so as to come up with something that seemed congruous. What arrived was a furious diatribe from Glenn, and a long reading from the Book of Clark. And being my own editor-in-chief, I opted to simply leave them up as comments because they had not much to do with the original thread.
…at least ya got Commentation… my opinion is that Comments are like conversations…(or maybe passing notes in grade school)…people want to see their thoughts and ideas, words and such in print…your desire or need or whatever drives your colaborative project needs to chill…either or find some blogs where people have a writing club thing going or something…
at the risk of sounding like a clark who knows it all (if that is not a redundancy, nothin is…) your approach to getting people to colaborate is not understandable. I might even venture it is not necessarily rogerian, you write that you want people to contribute to this idea of yours, but you do not seem to have asked yourself a very basic question: why should they? what’s in it for them?
(hint: if someone is into writing, chances are they are doing it already, so again the question is why? the more direct approach you took in the early days of the Muffin, was equally indirect…I don’t know…maybe I am not understanding things…)
Sparks fly in the blogosphere. Ain’t we got fun! Cyber-potshots. E-roasting in the ether of computer space. Can’t we all just get along? Nah! Let’s not. More lively this way. Girlie’s “EDGE” seemed to have descended upon the car and dashboard last night. Now here it is on the WD. Edgy–sensitive…reactive, critical, nasty, brutal, thin-skinned, —what? You guys premenstrual or something? Got cramps too? I got your furious diatribe, right here! I guess it must be fun to think that any of this matters at all.
To address the issue of scotts being frrom Mars—no idea. Not sure what Mars has to do with scottian characteristics. The Red Planet. I dunno. A lot of scotts walk around with a serious case of the red ass–not me, not anymore. Mars is a hostile, barren, lifeless planet. What that has to do with scotts is beyond me.
Anyway, Clark has managed to piss off a progenitor. How is that rift repaired? Or do we just go on like nothing happened? ‘Cause nothing did. The selection of descriptors that are loaded with “extra” (perjorative) meanings results in ….what?..confusion?…resentment?..discord among the core. Maybe that’s a good thing. It IS entertaining. But if it is not a good thing–only if that—then what is to be gained by clinging to those descriptors? I THINK–But, I’m not sure–that discussion led to the incipient rancor. (I wrote that…incipient rancor..I like that…great name for a rock band.) What will happen now? Does it increase? Does it linger? Does it fade? Do we need to act on it? Perhaps a furious diatribe would do the trick. (Furious Diatribe is an equally good name for a rock band.) Not one f-bomb in this comment. I gotta get my testosterone levels checked.
The comments here remind me of dinner time in the very early days of”35″. At a very young age I was allowed to raise my voice at the dinnertable when joining the inevitable (unavoidable?) topic(s) of politics, religion, philisophic shit at times….all the usual hot button topics. It was invigorating, at times frustrating, and ocaissionally evoked anger but when the conversation was over, it was what it was. A discussion. (then we had dessert. funny, no yelling over dessert. just dinner)
What is the purpose of discussion/conversation? For some of us it is a tool in self-evolution. For some it may be a reflecting pool and for yet others it’s a place to grab a bit to eat before moving on to the next house.
Um…..I may have mentioned this before but I used to have this desire for a collaborative effort. I tried it in college for a very short time – few weeks maybe. It was with a guy I met in one of my classes. Seemed to go along alright but then petered out. Who really wants to do collaborative poetry? Ever. College or not?!
My point? Seems that the yelling is about acknowledgement, action, evolution.
wait a minute!! I just read RCoyne’s Comment more carefullier…yeah I know, after my comment…hey, I am a clark! (lol*)
…anyway I just read it slower, looking for clues, and I read this:
‘My error was in presuming that offerings would be generally with my overall style in mind ( all style, no substance), so as to come up with something that seemed congruous (dit dit dit) ‘
(now we all know who I am going to quote at this juncture)
…’you didn’t hear not a goddamn thing that was told to you, binyon?…and you’re supposed to be the reckers of intelligence?…sheeit..”
Anyway, to your Comment, specifically the part about …offerings would generally with my overall style in mind’ wtf!!?! have you even read any of the Posts in this fuckin thing? someone!, some-fuckin-one!! please relate to our Progenitor-level collegue how many (fuckin) times it has been stated that: ‘the challenge to write like a roger (or a scott) while certainly a worthy task has not been any-frickin-where sucessful….not even in the same goddamn timezone…what the hell do you think this fuckin medium is? Are you mistaking blog writing for a previously un-publicized form of mind-reading? That somehow if you type what you think and others can read those words, then all they have to do is keep reading (backwards, maybe?) and they will also understand what you were thinking when you were writing? motherfucker, thats just plain….clarklike
* means: laugh out loud
So can you actually walk with your panties tied up around your ears like that?
yeah?!! well…well…you ain’t got no ears on your cheeks, at all; just a hole like, you binyons friend..