Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine. Sorry to dissappoint, but the Interview with the roger(Progenitor) is not complete and as such is nowhere near ready to Post. Sunday is a time when I try to get something/anything new in but was drawing a major blank until the name James Joyce flashed against my 3am brain and so we are going to walk to amateur experimental-writing land this morning. And by the way there is something weird about trying to write like this and yes I will tell you something you do not in fact know but the loss or surrender of most punctuation is really hard on the typing. Thank god for the occaisional period although I don’t know how many of them I have left but for some reason doing this Post the way I am I am mis-spelling alomst every third word I promise that I will spellcheck this thing and not put you throught that ordeal or misspelling everything in the name of an art for which I have no techniques be warned though I did look up EE Cummings before I started and at the first opportunity I know I will jam a reference to his stuff. My mother used to have an expression that went a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I think this is an example of what she meant although she died in 1979 and could not have imagined this particular form of acting without regard to justification. Although she (my mother) was a clark of the first order so I would bet that she would have no problem accepting the strangeness of this Post. We clarks are good at that we will witness the second coming and not show a reaction. But she was a clark in all the classic forms of expression you must allow for the time/culture she existed in which for my purposes and perception would be the 1950s through the 1970s. But as a clark she was the perfect selfless-to-a-fault mother and just in case there was any doubt about here type (clark, scott or roger) she has a 3rd grade school teacher. Hey no clark there. Anyway not sure how i got off on that tangent. Damd did i just lose capital letters? Oh well what can you do. so i was saying i brushed up on ee cumming because we all had the wednesday in spring 5th grade english class that started on the poetry and who did not like the phrase and the world was puddle wonderful? but the fun for me was that he did not need to use punctuation or even particularly spell things right and he certainly felt free to make up his own words. i never got much into that poetry thing then but like so much i am only now coming to appreciate things that i thought at a previous time i just did not have the time for. and maybe that is part of what this post is saying to me. while it is not uncommon to put things off, i am coming to an understand only now of how there is not a later for things to get done and as i look back i realise how much time i wasted. this is not a negative thought rather for me this realization produces in me the acceptance and will that whatever i might find of interest today i should and must invest all i have to invest in it now, not later. yeah, yeah i know kind of basic, mature adult looking at life shit. bear with me am filling up the page and can get out hopefully without a topic but no, i stayed too long. so i was talking with downspring glenn, who of course is a scott you saw his interview last week and we got on the subject of post writing and what to do when there is no topic. he is just a scott and as such is strongest in the here and now where all those people live but afterall all of us participating in this Doctrine thing are no more a pure form of our type than we are neither so as an evolved scott glenn is able and quite helpful in working on the development of the Doctrine at least as far as this current effort to bring it to the world. did I get off on a tangent? how the fuck could you tell? this stuff is probably harder to write than it is to read at least you can stop at any point an say yeah that was cute that was creative so when is there a point going to be made and maybe i will just check back in on tuesday or so. and btw i have no idea of what the appropriate music is going to be with this odd little post but if the cat smiles it will be what it needs to be. where was i oh yeah, glenn and the discussion of topics for posts. he said hey why don’t you write about the differences between… and then a number of suggestions most sports as a vehicle for comparing clarks, scotts and rogers. i think he suggested baseball, football and golf i said sure that sounds like a good idea and then he moved on to compare the three stooges which he realized we had already done in person i think talking with downspring joanne who i want to thank for her efforts at working on the questionaire which no else is helpin on. damn i wish i still had itlaics. anyway glenns last suggestion was pick a person in the world that you really hate and tell them how much you hate them and why you hate them. good idea. i hate glenn very much much and it is because he is so scottian at times that i don’t understand…ha ha got you going for a second huh? glenn it is strange how presentation changes everything. words are the point but how important is how they are arranged/laid out/presented/fuckin typed? apparently it makes all the difference in the world. so to complete this minor cycle in the overall arch of the post and my spelling is really going downhill, i hoep that this thing does not decide that spelloing does not matter as grammar and everything else seems to not matter. will do my best to hold on to the last shred of coherency almost done. anyway since we always include some new information about the wakefield doctrine in every post. hey do they still do the prizes in boxes of cereal? i still remember the whole digging to the bottom of the box of frosted flakes looking for the prize that was invariably contained in some kind of white paper envelope that was sealed around the edges in a most peculiar way. the lesson? oh yeah hazel used to use that expression the oh yeah thing jeez what a not to be described yet total energy black hole that hole my hazel relationship thing was. even allowing for the first relationship effect which is cheating here because if you bring up a significant life event i don’t think you should try to control it by laying a in-retrospect i certainly understand what i …blah blah blah but it was the focal point of my existance while it was happening and for too many years after it was over. wtf where the hell am i? where are my caps, my parentheses, jeez louise it is a lot easier to get lost in this rather tedious technique than it is to get out. must find paragraph key…i now it is here somewhere none of the keys have letters anymore shit try something hit any k)y ok {? maye hit1234 nah numbers \
Ah! I’m out! Thank you jesus! I am out of that, that, a lot funnier to read than to write, thing. Whew, man I thought that would never end.
Hey, plenty of white space filled in…maybe I can just tie up a few loose thoughts, find some music and put this bad boy in the category: ‘Keep one as Proptype, cancel production run”
Damn, what little typing skills I had, seem a bit messed up by this little experiment. Alright loose end tying time, (in no particular order):
there was a person by the name of hazel; my mother was, in fact, a 3rd grade teacher (quite a good one, but she was a clark); hey I gots italics!; golf is a clarklike sport; football is scottian and baseball is the rogerian sport.
Alright. Now for some music….(man! I just ‘previewed’ this Post, jesus christ what a mess! am thinking of putting music first, be weird but that really, totally is a meaningless term at least for today.) Nah…better put it down here, someplace for the Reader to run to:
So…
Will not leave without a Goodnight to our friends in Slovenia…hey guys…
About clarkscottroger
My, what an article today. I don’t always keep up with your posts and was quite surprised to see our mother in this article. Guess I hadn’t thought about her being a Clark, but makes sense. And yes she was a damn good teacher, lucky kids that had her.
Lately the more I read I’m beginning to dislike Scotts and I know there are a few in my life but guess that can’t be helped. I also find it odd that I have commented as often as I have. Do have an issue (is it because I’m a Roger) but I am having a problem with the F word being used so often – find it offensive and not necessary.
Will try and keep up with all of this – quite interesting this morning. Look forward to the Roger interview. An aside, but was thinking about all the Clarks in my life – need a few more Rogers:)
I have an f-word for you. “Fair” Rogers LOVE that word. Rogers actually believe there is a thing called objective fairness. “Ha” I say–and hasten to add, “Ha”. Rogers are always trying to get people to be “fair” with them. What a crock! Fairness is the most subjective concept. Rogers almost always feel that people are not fair to them. And therefore Rogers feel perfectly justified in judging and condemning everyone at least some of the time–maybe all of the time. Rogers can be such infants in the real world. Their rage at the “unfairness” they encounter justifies their “unfair” dehumanizing of others. Again I point out that as a culture, we have become alright with the idea of torturing others–especially others who are different from us–religiously, racially, culturally… This is the inherent evil in the rogerian viewpoint. Their take on torture is that the tortured must be a “bad” person–therefore, a person who has no right to not be tortured. Therefore–not a person– because they are “unfair”. Rogers may be the organizers and keepers of order in the world, which is a strength, but, within that very strength is the capacity for extreme evil–disguised of course as something that is needed and proper. Then they go get other rogers to agree with them. Roger DO run the world–and that is why the world is so perilous and cruel. To a roger, cruelty against a bad person–does not count. It is not really cruelty. Herd animals who cannot think independently and rationally are dangerous. Herds stampede sometimes. Mindlessly. Like the way the rogers in power in this world are all so eager to see “bad” people punished. The herd gone wild. I used to think that as a nation we would one day look back on this period with shame. But now I know that will not happen. As the herd continues to stampede, the rogers in charge will become more cruel and vindictive–and, the world will be a more orderly place–but a more dangerous place as well. Rogers know no shame. Fuck.
You go Glenn! You Headmaster of the School of Fuck.
You are astute in the identification of the rogerian concept of “fairness”. All the children screaming on the playground “hey, that’s not fair!” were indeed little rogers.
Payback is a bitch, isn’t it?
My, what an article today. I don’t always keep up with your posts and was quite surprised to see our mother in this article. Guess I hadn’t thought about her being a Clark, but makes sense. And yes she was a damn good teacher, lucky kids that had her.
Lately the more I read I’m beginning to dislike Scotts and I know there are a few in my life but guess that can’t be helped. I also find it odd that I have commented as often as I have. Do have an issue (is it because I’m a Roger) but I am having a problem with the F word being used so often – find it offensive and not necessary.
Will try and keep up with all of this – quite interesting this morning. Look forward to the Roger interview. An aside, but was thinking about all the Clarks in my life – need a few more Rogers:)
I have an f-word for you. “Fair” Rogers LOVE that word. Rogers actually believe there is a thing called objective fairness. “Ha” I say–and hasten to add, “Ha”. Rogers are always trying to get people to be “fair” with them. What a crock! Fairness is the most subjective concept. Rogers almost always feel that people are not fair to them. And therefore Rogers feel perfectly justified in judging and condemning everyone at least some of the time–maybe all of the time. Rogers can be such infants in the real world. Their rage at the “unfairness” they encounter justifies their “unfair” dehumanizing of others. Again I point out that as a culture, we have become alright with the idea of torturing others–especially others who are different from us–religiously, racially, culturally… This is the inherent evil in the rogerian viewpoint. Their take on torture is that the tortured must be a “bad” person–therefore, a person who has no right to not be tortured. Therefore–not a person– because they are “unfair”. Rogers may be the organizers and keepers of order in the world, which is a strength, but, within that very strength is the capacity for extreme evil–disguised of course as something that is needed and proper. Then they go get other rogers to agree with them. Roger DO run the world–and that is why the world is so perilous and cruel. To a roger, cruelty against a bad person–does not count. It is not really cruelty. Herd animals who cannot think independently and rationally are dangerous. Herds stampede sometimes. Mindlessly. Like the way the rogers in power in this world are all so eager to see “bad” people punished. The herd gone wild. I used to think that as a nation we would one day look back on this period with shame. But now I know that will not happen. As the herd continues to stampede, the rogers in charge will become more cruel and vindictive–and, the world will be a more orderly place–but a more dangerous place as well. Rogers know no shame. Fuck.
You go Glenn! You Headmaster of the School of Fuck.
You are astute in the identification of the rogerian concept of “fairness”. All the children screaming on the playground “hey, that’s not fair!” were indeed little rogers.
Payback is a bitch, isn’t it?
(was not sure whether to Reply as clark or clarkscottroger, but I am begining to suspect that ‘that is a distinction in my mind only…’)
Thanks for the Comment. And I was as surprised to see her turn up as you were! The nature of writing a Post (at least for me) is that more often than not I am sort of ‘along for the ride’. Strange feeling, you should try it.
The issue of liking/disliking scotts/rogers is, I suspect a price those of us wishing to participate in this little experiment must be willing to pay. You may have missed the discussion early on in the Doctrine, but the topic of ‘what is appropriate and what is not’ came up very early on and the consensus is that anyone wishing to (participate) is making the statement that they can deal with it. (Whatever it is…)
The only rule I think that is left here deals with ‘title of Post’, meaning the subject can be anything, but the title is always ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (subtitle)’. Always. Otherwise no rules.
That is not to say that I would not exercise editorial privilage, but unfortunately for you, I have not seen anything in these pages that approaches ‘un-acceptable’.
More rogers?!! Are you frickin serious (is that a more acceptable form of expletive?…I do not think so personally, because people who use ‘substitute’ expletives are kidding only themselves if they think that the word they are not saying is not in fact playing in the head of every Reader.)
But, the fact is, most of the population consists of rogers.
You bring a valid point to the discussion; here in the early stages of the Doctrine we tend to exaggerate in order to make clear abstract qualities. “Rogers are so meticulous or so detail oriented” and the same with scotts (hey just consider the video I used to show a scott).
But we are all above average here, by definition, I fully expect everyone to be able to see beyond their initial reaction to what is being said in these pages.
Seriously, had you considered writing a Post?
I would be happy to assist in an set-up/editorial capacity.
In fact, that is how your Progenitor got started with his Posts. I think you could write a good ‘article’.
Let us know…
(was not sure whether to Reply as clark or clarkscottroger, but I am begining to suspect that ‘that is a distinction in my mind only…’)
Thanks for the Comment. And I was as surprised to see her turn up as you were! The nature of writing a Post (at least for me) is that more often than not I am sort of ‘along for the ride’. Strange feeling, you should try it.
The issue of liking/disliking scotts/rogers is, I suspect a price those of us wishing to participate in this little experiment must be willing to pay. You may have missed the discussion early on in the Doctrine, but the topic of ‘what is appropriate and what is not’ came up very early on and the consensus is that anyone wishing to (participate) is making the statement that they can deal with it. (Whatever it is…)
The only rule I think that is left here deals with ‘title of Post’, meaning the subject can be anything, but the title is always ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (subtitle)’. Always. Otherwise no rules.
That is not to say that I would not exercise editorial privilage, but unfortunately for you, I have not seen anything in these pages that approaches ‘un-acceptable’.
More rogers?!! Are you frickin serious (is that a more acceptable form of expletive?…I do not think so personally, because people who use ‘substitute’ expletives are kidding only themselves if they think that the word they are not saying is not in fact playing in the head of every Reader.)
But, the fact is, most of the population consists of rogers.
You bring a valid point to the discussion; here in the early stages of the Doctrine we tend to exaggerate in order to make clear abstract qualities. “Rogers are so meticulous or so detail oriented” and the same with scotts (hey just consider the video I used to show a scott).
But we are all above average here, by definition, I fully expect everyone to be able to see beyond their initial reaction to what is being said in these pages.
Seriously, had you considered writing a Post?
I would be happy to assist in an set-up/editorial capacity.
In fact, that is how your Progenitor got started with his Posts. I think you could write a good ‘article’.
Let us know…
Guess it all comes down to individuals – have I used “fricking” in my life time, sure – tho I prefer “freaking”. But guess I just have a problem with it being right out there. It’s just a personal thing – don’t like the actual word, if that makes sense.
As far as me writing a post, don’t know that I would be that good at it -but will give it some thought.
Guess it all comes down to individuals – have I used “fricking” in my life time, sure – tho I prefer “freaking”. But guess I just have a problem with it being right out there. It’s just a personal thing – don’t like the actual word, if that makes sense.
As far as me writing a post, don’t know that I would be that good at it -but will give it some thought.
it sounds like your mother was a wonderful person:)
That she was – there was only one of her!!!!
it sounds like your mother was a wonderful person:)
That she was – there was only one of her!!!!
Appreciate the Replys.
The Interview with the Progenitor roger will be out late today.
(with the able support of AKH, I might add)
Look forwards to any and all Reply/Comments, as it (the interview) is not ‘about me’ but it is an example of the worldview of the the rogerian people…your people Mjm.
The idea behind trying this ‘literary device’ is to describe rogers (or scotts or clarks for that matters) by using their own words, reactions and responses.
The Doctrine says that you should ‘identify’ with rogers responses far more than say Glenns’ (used effectively the same questions and format).
But keep in mind, the Doctrine says that we all posess the characteristics of all three, it is just a matter of a predominance///further complicated by the fact that if you can follow any of this, you are not a ‘average’ roger (or scott or clark)
Stay tuned…be sure to venture your opinions (not that rogers have strong opinions) (I certainly would not be suggesting anything like that) (lol)
Appreciate the Replys.
The Interview with the Progenitor roger will be out late today.
(with the able support of AKH, I might add)
Look forwards to any and all Reply/Comments, as it (the interview) is not ‘about me’ but it is an example of the worldview of the the rogerian people…your people Mjm.
The idea behind trying this ‘literary device’ is to describe rogers (or scotts or clarks for that matters) by using their own words, reactions and responses.
The Doctrine says that you should ‘identify’ with rogers responses far more than say Glenns’ (used effectively the same questions and format).
But keep in mind, the Doctrine says that we all posess the characteristics of all three, it is just a matter of a predominance///further complicated by the fact that if you can follow any of this, you are not a ‘average’ roger (or scott or clark)
Stay tuned…be sure to venture your opinions (not that rogers have strong opinions) (I certainly would not be suggesting anything like that) (lol)
This Post was enjoyable in a sideways sort of way. Anyone who may think they know what that means, I say “welcome fellow clark”.
The theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, is an enjoyable way to remind myself of myself. To occaisionally step outside myself, turn off the volume, hit replay and watch the film that is my life. To remember that evolution is key and awareness of others and their particular “world view” (and subsequent behavior), whether it be scottian or rogerian, is an integral component in that evolution.
This Post was enjoyable in a sideways sort of way. Anyone who may think they know what that means, I say “welcome fellow clark”.
The theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, is an enjoyable way to remind myself of myself. To occaisionally step outside myself, turn off the volume, hit replay and watch the film that is my life. To remember that evolution is key and awareness of others and their particular “world view” (and subsequent behavior), whether it be scottian or rogerian, is an integral component in that evolution.
Alright!!!clarks…
Now if there are any rogers or scotts reading this (in what remains of the day) would you be so kind as to translate the prior message into a language commonly used on the planet earth, it would be appreciated.
(come on Slovenians, I know yours would be a welcome viewpoint. The Doctrine is culture and gender neutral, tell us how the above sounds to those from away).
Alright!!!clarks…
Now if there are any rogers or scotts reading this (in what remains of the day) would you be so kind as to translate the prior message into a language commonly used on the planet earth, it would be appreciated.
(come on Slovenians, I know yours would be a welcome viewpoint. The Doctrine is culture and gender neutral, tell us how the above sounds to those from away).