You know, this Wakefield Doctrine  has been a constantly changing effort to describe a way of understanding the behaviors of those around us.  The people we love, like, hate and ignore.  And the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is now and has always been intended to be a help, a tool, a guide and even, (to some clarks), a vehicle to radically alter reality.

The idea is that the Wakefield Doctrine appears to have enough ‘value’ and ‘validity’ to the people that come to be familiar with it  to stand on it’s own.  Meaning that when a new person learns about the Doctrine they do not need the constant reinforcement (of mechanisms such as this blog). There are, no doubt, people in other countries who are at this moment coming to realise that their boss is such a roger or that the new girl is so clarklike or even that they find themselves wishing that their spouse not be so scottian.

And that is the goal and the purpose of the effort behind this blog and all of the Posts.  The good ones, the funny ones, the interesting ones and the stupid ones, all share the common goal: let people understand the Wakefield Doctrine and improve their lives.   Sometimes an idea is there for a Post but it lacks something,  just does not have enough… whatever it is that makes you glad to hit  PUBLISH.  But the interesting thing, (probably totally familiar to real writers), is how hard it is to throw away a particular effort.  All of this is a long way around to getting in a premise I worked on this morning that simply does not have the legs to be a standalone Post.  But, as I said, you really hate to waste a perfectly(well maybe not perfectly) good set of words.  So the following is the Post that did not make it into the big time.*

For an example of what does not get into “Print”  consider the following draft Post:  which would have been titled

the Wakefield Doctrine (‘Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command.  And your old road is rapidly agin’…’)

…janie…janie…   …janie!…(‘is she sleeping again?..’)…janie…  …JANIE!…

…(strange people…everyone… only 3 names….)  “1717  by the leadership of Charlemagne!”

Sit down, Miss Sullivan.  That is not the correct topic, much less the right answer.  You would do well to focus more on your school studies and less on that rock n roll music and those secret teachings…
Remember class, term papers are due in a week and the finals are not that far away.

(Hey! Britney wait up!)

Since the point is to promulgate the Wakefield Doctrine (or ‘wkaefeillen doctryne’, as they say in Slovenia), here is an excerpt I found in a very early Post.  Hey it has ‘Bullet Posts”, so you know it has to be clear and concise. (That little joke goes out to Denise at work (who never reads the Doctrine because it does not have enough categories and she is such a scott but don’t you think the criticism about the number of categories is just a little rogerian?)

So for the impatient readers (yes, I mean you, scott); following is a quick, ‘down and dirty’ guide to identifying the clarks, scotts and rogers around you:

• rogers use the pronoun “I” more than the other three
• scotts use nicknames (particularly diminutives ‘clarkie’, ‘phillie’)
• clarks maintain the least eye contact when talking to you
• scotts are the ones who can tell a joke properly and will insist you listen and (usually picks a joke slightly over the edge of appropriate)
• rogers will always have the news on what so-and-so said to such-and-such
• clarks have a posture that is hunched at the shoulder and when seated will appear too relaxed, to the point of slumping in the chair
• rogers are very usually the ‘middle management’ types who will convince the upper management that cubicles are the best way to arrange an office space
• clarks…conversations…sentence fragments…

*looky here: