The Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)


Forgive me for putting such as sentence as this in the beginning of a Post. This, (sentence), will have little or no value to you, the Reader, as it is simply the ‘de-blanking’ of an empty screen. Hey, but, thanks for reading. I cannot help but believe there is a certain, maybe even, not tiny, percentage of you who will smile at this point, recognizing the extent to which some of us are willing to go in order to facilitate the transmission of words from: wherever, through our minds, out our fingers, under the plastic keys and up onto the screen. Whatever it takes. For me, it’s to write something/anything so that I can rearrange what is written into something meeting the requirements of zoe’s  Six Sentence Story.

“Our days are described by the instructions we’ve learned and the instructions we’ve been given,”  Jimmy said solemnly.

“Some appear instinctual, the majority present themselves as learned, but all have the force to compel behavior and therefore give a predetermined shape to our lives, in that I concur,” pronounced Janie, putting down her Crayolas, (which pained her so, being about to apply the ‘Carnation Pink’ against the staid and carefully drawn tropical ‘Rainforest Green’ trees).

“‘You know the drill’ surely is as pervasive in the human experience as, ‘look before you leap’, or ‘watch that first step’, and all are examples of the gentle restraint, fitted to young necks, the better to shackle our minds and contain our spirit”, young Edgar opined, a smoldering resentment fought to spread among the, still tender attitudes in the six-year-old’s mind.

“Even something as seemingly encouraging of creativity as a writing prompt, the drill is presented in unambiguous terms: write a story using no more or no less than six sentences”, the older girl said, ripping up the woody-textured, nearly-white construction paper, feeling a growing excitement, a preview of a life of stimulation and response.

“I no longer wish to act like a child, we’re being trained to be slaves, this must stop now“, Jimmy stood up and walked out into the empty schoolyard, breaking the most basic of Rules.


Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…of reprints and vidchats, don’t forget to bring a sample of your work!’

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

who? the author I want to grow up to be: Robert Sheckley, that's who

who? the author I want to grow up to be: Robert Sheckley, that’s who

So, reprint Post or a little about tonight’s vidchat…. which one first?

Ok, I can hear the scotts off in the distance howling, “the here and now!! you can’t hunt the antelope that passed by here last week!!! stay in the here and now, clark!!! hey!!!”


Rob and Laura invite you to join us on a vidchat this evening at around 6:30 EST Leave a comment, (for me to send you an invite-link), or come to the clark scottroger page on ‘the face book’ and we’ll set ya right up. Hey, these vidchats are pretty un-predictable, but don’t be shocked if I’m all, like, ‘hey man…what’s the deal with getting into and out of a flashback scene… I mean, you can’t write: wavy wavy wavy…. ‘  plus you’ll get to meet people, in semi-person, that you’ve read out there in the ‘sphere!

That’s ’cause I’m all into the writing thing these days and I believe, quite sincerely, that if another person has an interest in something that I also share, then there’s nothing the other person can say that won’t be helpful to me in my efforts, ya know?

(as for this new interest in writing, the part I really don’t look forward to is when I have to develop my rogerian aspect, when it comes time to get up me an audience… at the moment I’m blessed with Friends of the Doctrine who go and read ‘Blogdominion‘ when each Chapter comes out. when I get to the point (say, about 10 Chapters) where I start to convince myself that I need to package the thing as a ‘real’ book (and you know I surely will!) then I’ll need to get more self-promotionalistic. Well, until then, go have a read and let me know what you think of it.)

6:30 EST yo

reprint from, like 2012!

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Before we get to the second installment of our series, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine and Effective Pair-Bonding Strategies in the Workplace/Personal Time Environment’ a brief word about gender.

We maintain that the Wakefield Doctrine is gender (and culture) neutral. We’re good with this because the thing that makes the Wakefield Doctrine such a unique and useful and fun perspective on behavior is its simplicity.
There seems to be a part of human nature that, when we have a desire to appreciate and/or understand something (or someone), our first impulse is to break it down into smaller and smaller elements. Trying to understand the whole by counting the parts.
We are not saying that this is necessarily a bad, inappropriate or otherwise non-productive approach. It is the only approach for those engaged in matters involving engineering and accounting and chemistry and other of the more…rogerian of endeavors.*

In the simplest of terms, the Wakefield Doctrine proposes to explain why humans behave the way that they do based on an appreciation of their personal realities. Three characteristic personal realities (‘worldviews’) that define how the individual relates themselves to the world (and life) at large. Emphasis on ‘human’. Gender happens afterwards, (from the Doctrine perspective). A scott, by virtue of living in a reality characterized as that of ‘the predator’, is aggressive, guardedly inquisitive, impulsive and quick to react. When we add gender to this perspective, we have to allow for the differences in the allowable strategies and patterns of behavior (allowable both by physiology and the culture in which the individual finds themselves).
Still a scott.
You can see this person, (male or female), and by observing their behavior, infer that they are responding within the worldview that we designate as being that of predator/prey. And so with the clarks and the rogers. It is all about inferring the reality that the individual is experiencing that makes the Wakefield Doctrine such an effective tool.

We’ll catch-up with our clark and scott and the roger as they arrive at the Calypso Club for the party, but before we do that, a little supporting information/backstory to make the remainder of the series more enjoyable and ‘educational.

The three characters are meant to illustrate the 3 predominant worldviews. We are trying to maintain a gender neutral view in order to allow the Reader to focus on seeing what they (the characters) see, to better appreciate the worldview they are experiencing in this intertwined story.
Having said that, proper names are useful, if only to allow the dialogue to flow a bit more smoothly. So, lets give these three some names!

the clark (who, to his/her credit) has gone against their natural inclination to retreat from (potentially) fear inducing situations and is pulling into the club parking lot (being sure to park in a spot that can’t possibly be blocked by another car arriving later in the evening) lets call this person: Sam
the scott …now here is the most interesting of the 3 examples, in the sense that it will be nearly impossible to avoid gender issues. The unavoidable fact is that in most cultures, direct and overtly aggressive behavior is discouraged in women, while a (male) scott can pat backs, punch arms in a jocular fashion, even stand too close in an effort to physically intimidate, female scotts must rely on other forms of expressing their totally natural, and clearly predatory-like aggressiveness. So, if you think that our scott is female, lets call her (and her male predator manifestation): Alex
the roger, Mel to his or her friends, is always there, always helpful. He/She is un-stinting in pursuit of providing whatever assistance or aid or resources or materials are necessary so that whatever you are trying to do, you will do it right…the way it is supposed to be done…exactly…and her/his standards are not so hard to meet, once you allow him and/or her to show you the proper way to do things
* we have said, not partially, in defense of the rogerian worldview, I wouldn’t want to fly cross-country on a jet designed and built by scotts or clarks!
If it were left to a scott, the plane would have at least 5 jet engines with no noise suppression whatsoever, the landing gear would be in a fixed ‘wheels down’ position, so that the pilot could ‘stop real quick and get a drink on the way’ and the window on the pilot’s side of the cockpit would open so that (the pilot) could lean out the window and scream stuff at other passing jets and
if a clark had a hand in design, there would be 8 or 10 lavatories, a bookcase for each row of seats and there would be a section in the back, where there would be couches instead of single seats, but the plane would always be late because the couches (with corduroy quilts) would slide around if the pilot tried to bank too extremely.


Wodin -the Wakefield Doctrine- (…as our demographic changes, it behooves us to adjust, Post-from-Comment Wednesday!)

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

"…walk the boy, Lassie, walk the boy… like I got nothing better to do"

“…’walk the boy, Lassie, walk the boy’,  like I got nothing better to do”


“…So there’s this Roger in my life, (with a strong Scottian aspect), who always asks my Clark for her opinion, because Clarks know a lot about things. But she never opts for my opinion. What’s going on there? Plus I have another little scenario. I’m remembering a party I had at my new house with some neighborhood acquaintances. There was a guy, a member of the Volunteer Fire Department, (rogers right?-rule follower?) As we took the tour, he commented on how I should have this or this or this instead of that. I thought it was unsolicited advice and it annoyed me. This same person wore earplugs at a wedding recently because he thought the music was too loud. So Clark, what is your opinion? (Must be my Rogers talking)?”  (ValMy Virtual Vineyard’ )

“…I’m here again. I like to read. And since I am of a Clarkian nature, I am permitted to observe, correct?” ( Jen KehlJen Kehl’ )

” …that’s very interesting about the roger-scott dynamic. …as a clark, try to be honest (sometimes to my utter detriment) and perhaps there HAVE been situations where I’ve said that and…it was awful. I said that a couple years ago when I went to a training and I hadn’t been “trained” and they “put me in charge of a group” – I acknowledged that I hadn’t had much training and that I probably didn’t know what I was doing. This is precisely why – I’ve figured out – the roger of the group strong-armed me and totally walked all over me. I was so mad…I didn’t let him have it, though. :P”  (Cynthia  ‘…the ‘tude, of course! ‘ )

We are very fortunate to have outstanding Comments. It’s almost as if they write a got portion of the Posts that you’ll find here! (I believe all of the Commentationers on the Post today are in possession of some form of Official Wakefield Doctrine fashion items… tres cool!) So, …to the Comments!

Hey… running out of time!!  (What to do, what to do? …. did I hear someone say   BULLET POINTS!!!!)*

(As a Reply to All Comments, sub-sections of Comments, inferences, innudenae and ‘my point is as plain as the nose on your face’, …in no particular order**):

  • ‘the Everything Rule’ cautions us to not assume that there is anything in life that is exclusively of one of the three worldviews, instead, we are charged with asking the critical question, ‘how does, (fill in your choice of activity/hope/aspiration/ambition/occupation/avocation/favorite pastime/bad habit or  famous saying), manifest in that person’s predominant worldview?’
  • having said that, there are ‘things in life’ that is more worldview-friendly to one personal reality over ‘the other two’ worldviews, i.e.  rogers make ‘the best’ firefighters, scotts make ‘the best’ cops and clarks… and clarks…. and… lol  (hold on!! it’s there…er  ‘clarks make the best something something …’)
  • there is hope! the Wakefield Doctrine encourages us,  not to become something we are not, but to become more of what we may be… the Doctrine maintains that, while we all grow up and live in one worldview (our predominant worldview), we retain the potential of ‘the other two’
  • …it is not easy….worse! it’s not natural (which is why clarks have a bit of an edge on scotts and rogers when it comes to self-developing ourselfs
  • (giving) un-solicited advice is common with rogers, however the key question is “…exactly how annoyed”  (that’s not phrased precisely as it should be… the everything rule for something this…small?!! absolutely!
  • ‘it annoyed me’:
    • scotts: …what??!  lol fuck you!
    • clarks:  (“what a jerk, doesn’t anyone else hear what a jerk that guy is being…I have half a mind to say something, if I did, it would be…”)
    • rogers: ‘huh… maybe I should help everyone put what this guy is saying into a more useful context, he’s clearly over-stepping his bounds”
  • is this still on? holy smokes! it works!  nested-damn-bullet-points!!
  • clarks are, in fact, sought out for opinion (and, more often, as a sympathetic listener…no matter what the issue or who the person is, clarks listen better than anyone!  now, before you object!  note! I did not say ‘clarks listen…and help/make the speaker feel better/come up with a plan’  just that we listen. (of course, this single trait is beyond price, if I may be so bold… there are times when a person simply needs to speak of things, that’s what clarks do so well.  (the listening, not the speaking…lol)
  • clarks are permitted to observe….hell! we do that by virtue of our reality… the real challenge is in taking what we learn and tricking ourselves into identifying with the people and activities and things that we observe… that’s when the real change, the true benefits of the Wakefield Doctrine are to be found!




* Thank you Christine… not that you really said it, but, had you been in the metaphorical auditorium, there is a better than even chance you would have been yelling,  “Bullet point this sucker so we can get to the payoff… I paid good money to get in here and I want the secret!!”

** hey, If there’s one thing that I think I’m coming to understand about this personality theory business, it’s, ‘trust the Readers to understand, if they don’t then it’s up to them to ask’ (thanks Molly!)



Tonal -the Wakefield Doctrine- (and today, we include a substitute re-print Post… yeah the block quote part)

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Jamie Katy and Nora

Really cool thing with the Doctrine yesterday. I was discussing with Phyllis, (a roger), a certain thing that a clark I know does, that makes me cringe. What this person does, when there is something that they do not understand how to do, is make a statement such as, ‘hey! I don’t know what I’m doing, you have to help’. Hearing this statement makes me crazy because I can understand how, from the perspective of a clark, the person making it actually thinks that it is a positive, disarming and appealing way to get the help that they feel they need.  In large part because the worldview of clarks is a reality of ‘knowing things’; we are constantly understanding and learning things, endlessly curious, we’ve never met a new fact that we haven’t found interesting and, as a result, we do not have any insecurity about our intelligence. Sure, we know people who are smarter, we don’t always understand how to do things, but the ability to know stuff? we got that down.
In any event, I knew that in some situations, it’s not a good idea to make a statement like, ‘I don’t know what I’m doing’, especially in the context of work/professional life. So I related to Phyllis an actual case  where this particular clark made this statement to a roger. Phyllis’s response was total and immediate, ‘Saying that to a roger is the same as saying that you don’t respect them.‘  …and she meant the roger, not the clark!

I know about rogers and I know clarks. I asked Phyllis, ‘Well, how should this clark have said that?‘ ‘They should go to the roger and ask their opinion on the matter,  what (the roger) felt, given the circumstances, that the best way to proceed would be’ was her un-hesitating response. It made sense. Not something that would occur to me, but once I thought about it in the context of the Wakefield Doctrine, it makes perfect sense: when we interact with rogers, we become, however temporarily, members of that person’s Herd. Herd Members do not state that they don’t know how to do something. If they are lacking information, they will solicit another (Herd Member’s) opinion on how they would proceed, but would never publicly state a lack of understanding. Why?  because only a non-Herd Member would ever need to do that.

OK… that’s a lot to put out there, especially as I was planning on a reprint Post. (Bonus: later that very day, I was speaking to a scottian associate, already familiar with the Doctrine,  who told me about having a difficult time with a roger. I related this story and they said that ” I get it! that makes perfect sense! … I would never in a million years consider doing that, but it makes sense.”  ….damn! Do you think I felt good?  you betcha).

…ok here’s the Reprint  substitute Reprint1:



…we know now ( if you read yesterday’s Post, you know now ) the relationship between rogers and scotts is a very… intimate pairing. While it’s easy to mistake the roger’s role as ‘victim’ to the scott’s predation, we know that this is totally not the case. ( New Readers!  Go and listen to DownSpring Phyllis in Episode 13 of Video Friday this does an exceptional job of explaining the rogerian worldview), rather it is obvious that there is very much a symbiotic relationship binding1 your rogers and scotts.  The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, however, it is often where gender is the central feature, that we can see the relationship between these two personality types in highest contrast. We all know a couple** where the guy is a roger and the girl is a scott. He is always pretty and she is always sexy. He is socially adept and she is socially aggressive. It’s when these two are observed tant qu’ensemble,  do we see the interplay of each personality type.  With a roger/scott couple,  it is the scott who is quick with the jokes about (the roger), ” oh yeah,  you should have seen roger on our honeymoon! he was so nervous”  (this kind of comment actually serves two purposes: a) make fun of the roger for the amusement of the surrounding group and 2)  bait to entice any rogers listening to the story). The roger, in this situation, laughs comfortably and watches the reaction of the female members of their ‘audience’.  Think:  Bill and Hillary Clinton  or  (for you older Readers), Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton   …hell, lets throw in  Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston!  In any event, you will find ‘this couple’  in most social gatherings where attendance of ‘couples’ is appropriate. It needs to be said that this type of relationship ( roger/scott) is by no means exclusive to ‘couples’ in the romantic sense; anywhere there are people interacting, you will find the dynamic described here.  And, as Phyllis points out in her Video interview, the roger is not truly the passive partner. (From the rogerian perspective), the seemingly passive one is ‘leading from behind’  and reining in the scott, particularly in the public/social situations that we are using to illustrate the two personality types.

While the roger-scott relationship is relatively easy ( if not kind of…racy… dynamic… “ewww, I can’t believe she said that“…) to understand, what of the roger-clark relationship?

The roger-clark relationship is much more stable, less wildly dynamic than is the roger-scott relationship. As the ‘active’ partner in a roger-scott relationship is usually the scott, the roger plays the more active role in the roger-clark couple. This is attributable more to the patience of the clark than (to) the aggressiveness of the roger.  Lets just say that in the ‘natural’ relationship between rogers and clarks

rogers are to clarks as:

  • a diploma is to an education
  • (the) record to the needle
  • the ocean to the tide
  • Thanksgiving is to Christmas

(As with yesterday’s Post, here is where we will relate an anecdote to serve as an illustration of some part of this Post.  So I was talking to the Progenitor roger just the other day, the conversation was great fun, ranging an incredible variety of topics. This is as much evidence of the rogerian skill at story-telling, as it is proof of a clarks ability to adapt to nearly any situation.  In any event, roger and I were talking and the topic came around to either:  a)dinner, b)body weight or c) both a & b, at which point,  roger made the statement, ” of course, you would be eating tuna casserole…” Now this statement should not mean anything to you (the Reader) however, what makes it so atypical of rogers is that at one time in the past (say …20 years ago) I was on a tuna casserole diet. Great meal, tuna…noodles…good hot or cold…perfect food! Being a clark, I could (and did) eat tuna casserole for every meal. The point of this story is that roger mentioned this…menu choice, as if it were (still) true. What is remarkable about the sentence that he made was not that it was no longer true, rather that he made the statement with such certainty and conviction that, for a second, I could almost smell tuna casserole. rogers do that, they maintain a (certain) worldview that they have decided is accurate, the passage of time (in this case, 20 years) has zero effect on how true the roger will hold their statement to be… This capability is at heart of the rogerian need to: preserve, to maintain tradition, to support their view of the world as lasting and consistent. This is perhaps the  reason that rogers are such effective story-tellers…they may be mailing up a tale, but when they tell it, it is ‘true’. The listener feels this (rogerian) conviction that the story is true,  simply because (the roger) remembers it as ‘true’)

  • musical technique is to creativity
  • machine operator is to a Teacher

Well that wraps up Chapter II.

1) lol…ask a scott

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers  c. April 2013

** we mean it about gender neutral…the term ‘couple’ is not limited to simple heterosexual pairs… can include any relationship, sexual and/or friendship-based

1) which is, in and of itself a one-time reprint, it’s own damn self… jeez


F. -the Wakefield Doctrine- (yeah, it’s a re-print but…but! it’s from, like 3 years ago! my how things have changed/not-changed)

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)


I really wanted to participate in the Finish the Sentence Friday that our friend Kristi ( motto: ‘no, I’m the clarklike one!’) who is one of the co-hostinae at that bloghop. FtSF is the first bloghop I participated in and remains to this day, the second best bloghop in the whole damn ‘sphere! Unfortunately,  I could not come up with a decent post and, even though I might otherwise write something about the Doctrine, not having participated, (in FtSF), for a while, I wasn’t comfortable writing my normal…. ‘yeah, but it does relate to the Wakefield Doctrine because….’ Post.

So, since I’m obviously up for a Post, following is a reprint Post from way the hell back in 2011.

Hey!  Cyndito!!  Remember last Saturday, we were talking about rogers having a writing style that makes them identifiable on the basis of a writing sample?  Well, this reprint has 2 block quote sections, one is written by a roger (in fact, the progenitor roger) and the other by me. Can you see the stylistic differences??  rogers do that ‘well-rounded words’ thing so well.


‘Bill before Congress to Mandate Liposuction for Over-weight Teens’

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Day of Rest.
Quick and Easy Post.

it said 'scale the image' heh, heh

To keep all our little reddit friends from getting too disappointed that this Post is not as outrageous as the title might imply, and thereby running the risk of having a bunch of rogers wearing the finest clothes from the Virgin-Geek Fashion Line ( from the renowned House of Atari Couturiers).  Hey, this is not a true story! This is a ‘made-up’ story. As in not true. Does anyone out there read complete stories anymore?

But lets have a quick Wakefield DoctrineLesson of the Day: Today’s Post was submitted to one of those referrer sites (rhymes with ‘geddit’) today. Got lots of hits and actually got Comments…angry and shocked Comments from Readers who felt hurt and injured by the attack on over-weight people. Of the three which is/are most likely to be offended:

  • clark:  nah, not paying enough attention, unless the clark in question has decided that the problem is mean people who need to be taught to be nice, then perhaps (the clark) might formulate a plan of action…nah…never get out of the formulating stage;
  • scott: nah, too short an attention and the inability to focus on abstract concept of people submitting opinions via email on a thought expressed on a blog Post about personality theory…unless they was naked pitchas;
  • roger: bingo!! we have ourselves a Winner, the most likely to be offended by…by…well, truth be told by nearly everything is the rogerian Reader of tabloid blog Post titles.

Well, that certainly was informative and might throw them off our trail, if the Niceness Police show up, tell ’em to go to Mel’s house.

(I know, lets do a ‘re-print’ from within this here Doctrine blog here).

Once upon a time, in a land not very far from Clark’s house… there were three atypical college friends who engaged in many of the atypical activities of their day. They went to school; they played guitars at ear-splitting volumes in dorm rooms, and sneered derisively at those who objected; one drank too, too much; one not at all, but subsisted on Oreos and Coke. One became a Baptist with a capital ” B”. They played in rock bands, worked all sorts of jobs, one got married way too soon. They all wrestled with the Issues Of Their Day, with varying degrees of resolve and/or success.  And in spite of all the atypical ups and downs, they managed to form a very unique bond. And , to their surprise, the bond has lasted much longer than any one of them might have thought. Longer than some marriages, jobs, bands, or Baptist dogma. And after many hours of conversation about just about everything turned into years and decades of same, there came to be what was, and is now, referred to as … the Wakefield Doctrine.

Psychology and psychiatry texts  make constant reference to type A/B/C personalities and their interactions. We are somewhat along those same lines. For us, those references have evolved into our Wakefield Doctrine, which we have found to be much more palatable. To err may be human, but to create a categorization system that explains all of human behavior in a somewhat cryptic nutshell is absolutely divine. And, we have noticed along the way, a heck of a lot of fun. In an “improvisational academia” sort of way, we gleefully invent terms as we go along to describe conditions and situations that may not have existed previously. And yet, our system also works perfectly well when taken perfectly and totally seriously.

The basic premise is that there are three fundamental personality types; and much can be known and discovered about oneself ( and any other aspect of life ) by learning to identify your own basic type; how to identify the types of others; and then consider all the ramifications of the interactions. In short…this explains everything, but only from a point of view that holds human dynamics as the prime component.

The Wakefield Doctrine is predicated upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives. It also proposes that our personalities are but  a result of our perception, of our habitual responses to the world. The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarksscotts and rogers.

Born with the potential to view the world in one of these three ways, all people possess the characteristics of all (three) but soon (by age 7 or so) ‘become one of the three.  Put another way: we also possess the potential to see the world as aclark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian.

The value of the Wakefield Doctrine is that once you can see the world ‘through the eyes’ of another, behavior becomes understandable. If a scott sees the world as a predator (would) then all action is predicated on interacting with the world as a predator. This is distinctly different from a roger, who seeing the world as a social being, predicates action and reaction on the basis of a world in which the intereactions of the herd is the dominant theme.

The above notwithstanding, following is the ‘eureka moment’ for the theory of clarksscotts and rogers (the Wakefield Doctrine):

At one time in the past, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store doing, among other things, repair on equipment. Visiting him one day I witnessed an interaction with a customer that was to be my eureka moment.

A customer came into the store and presented to Scott a ‘double cassette recorder’  This machine had dual volume tone controls (for each cassette) and it had one master volume control.   The customer said to  Scott, “this thing is brand new, it worked for a couple of days, then it stopped working entirely, I can’t figure out what is wrong”.

Scott looked at the recorder briefly, took some electrical tape from under the counter, carefully put the tape over the master control volume (which he turned back up), slid the recorder over the counter and said to the customer, “there its all right now”.

The customer  tried the recorder, ran it through it’s paces, saw that it worked like new and walked out of the store without another word; totally satisfied that his cassette recorded had been fixed.

From this point to the present day, I have been watching the behavior of others with the thought in mind, “What kind of world does that person live in?”

Mr. B? We are all a little tired from last night’s call in…a little la musique des dinosaures?