Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
While we await the arrival of a photo of the hat on (the damned head) of the newest of FOTDs , lets consider how easy it is to make things difficult for ourselves.
clarks:
- as outsiders, we place the world and everything in it (reality, ya know) someplace there (or better yet) out there ..which we think is not so bad because we can keep an eye on things
- as people who think, we are certain that whatever is necessary for a happy and productive life is something we need to understand ( and we are confident that we will, when we finally un-cover it)
- as outsiders, we recognize that everyone else is different and assume that different is not always better, so we try to fade into the background
- we adapt by thinking that if we can associate with the ‘real people’ long enough, then we will become real people
scotts:
- as the active, productive-live-in-the-here-and-now type, we barely notice that there is no one listening
- if there is no reaction from the people in our world, we know the answer….’cause there is only one answer (how could there be more than one answer? that doesn’t fuckin make no sense) and that (answer) is to work harder, faster, LOUDER
- if the world does not respond to us, no problem! time to move on…because ‘moving on’ is decisive action and that is what we do best…action…decisively (what do you mean the word ‘decisively’ derives from ‘decision’ ?! ) action…move forward!!! thats it!
- we make things difficult? for myself?? thats crazy there is only me and food and sleep and ….what was the question?
- fuck you
rogers:
- seeing how the world is perfect, how can I make things difficult for myself? what are you un-imaginative?? oh…I see now…you are different
- everything can be understood, provided it is properly explained
- everything can be explained because there are Rules for such things ( such things? well I guess we mean all things )
- ‘a place for everything and everything in it’s place’ perfect!! that is the world that you people do not understand or appreciate
- very simple, find the source of the blame and you will have your solution
Well!! We hope everyone is energized and encouraged by today’s little Post. If you ( actually ) read this then you will have one of three response:
- …ok maybe…let me think about that
- fuck you…. wait a minute…lol…..I get it!! fuck you
- no, you have missed the mark and (even if you had a point), you really need to go and learn the Rules of Rhetoric, and proper grammar and well…there is so much wrong here, we can’t imagine how there could be any ‘fixing’ or ‘improving’….clearly you mean well, but someone should have let you know that people have too much to do without having the time to spend with this nonsense
Don’t forget tonight is Saturday Night….Call in Show!!! 8 to 8:45 Call us and have something to tell your damn grandchildren about
About clarkscottroger
Partiality aside (really?)….this is all ingeniously simple! And (fucking) verifiable! Offensive adjective in parens because, after all, clarks are not so shocking in real life. Or are they? No, they are not usually. But can be – they have the capacity.
Babble aside, I would challenge any roger out there, including my own – I mean including MJM, to dispute anything written herein. It is what it is and anyone, yes ANYONE can apply these principles and later say…it’s all damn true. This thing, the Doctrine, is a most useful tool.
Oh yeah, one more thing. Had a stream of commentary over at GirlieOnTheEdge, at the “…gone wild post”… To my new reader, I, Praetorian – this “here Post here” is for you. Read it and get back to me. Here or at GirlieOnTheEdge. Had a sense you were up for a “discussion”. There is more, there is always more with clarks.
P.S. I initially thought the reader I, Praetorian was a clark. Preliminary indicators pointed in that direction. I am now reconsidering he/she be a roger….enough said?
This post confirms some basics about clarks, scotts and rogers. But I have a question as a result of trying to catch up on my fashion mags this morning over my obligatory 2 cups….”who” comprises the majority of designers? Based solely on reading material, I am thinking that in order of numbers, it would be rogers, clarks and scotts.
I certainly concur… the sense of what would appeal, en masse is totally within the purview of a rogerian sensiblity, while there will always be (clarks) to push everything forward …and as far as the scottian fashion designer’s, la vision de la beauté féminine ? ….damn! (hey a pitcha’s worth a buncha words ya know….)
LOL….I know….