(let’s try to get away with another one of these…) 

So, where is this all going?  Why the increased rate of Posts?  Is there a deliberate Plan behind the clearly substantial effort to create a sense of building momentum?  Does anyone really think that there is a payoff to the setting up of a premise like this Wakefield Doctrine?  How many questions will be posed before the writer can find a way to tie it all together?  If this sentence is considered a question, then is a ‘corner’  being turned which is allowing the writer to slightly change the subject?  Do they really think that an entire Post can be built on a sequence of rhetorical questions being posed by the writer?  Does the writer know the definition of the word rhetorical?  Do we detect a wavering in the focus of this very strange Post?  If we are wrong about that, can we really trust our instincts about anything we read? And why is it that questions posed in this odd manner deserve even the slightest of our consideration?  That was a pretty weak question, wasn’t it? You other Readers are in agreement with me, aren’t you?  Does anyone know what the grammatical term for a question ending in a pronoun is?  I feel less compelled to keep reading this, don’t you?  Can we expect any of this to have anything at all to do with this Wakefield Doctrine thing?  That is not an unreasonable expectation, is it?  Do you think an effort to stop reading is worthwhile?  Didn’t it seem like a dialogue was about to be introduced?  Why do you think that it was not done?  How is it that they insist on imparting new information about their precious Doctrine in every Post?  If they will do that now, do you think it will be about a clark?  Or about the rogers, you think?  Aren’t most people more interested in the scotts?  Does anyone else think that last series of questions, a little on the cheating side?  Am I wrong on that?  What information could they possibly communicate?  In the form of questions?  And what is the deal with the video to open this Post? Isn’t that the music from a car commercial?  Why would he use that?  Does anyone doubt that this is a clark writing?  If the Readers could vote on this Post, would you vote to delete it?  Who else is waiting for a punchline?  Why does this author assume we are still reading?  Can I ask a question?  Would my asking a question amount to compounding this increasingly annoying Post?  Is that further proof that this is a clark writing?  How is this going to end?  Is there more of a Doctrine lesson to be exposed?  Will there be a test at the end of this Post?  Why would the Doctrine be preferred over any other philosophy?  Who in their right mind thinks of this as a philosophy? Why do they call it a Doctrine?  And if it is a Doctrine, why do they also call it a theory?  Who are these people?  What do they hope to get out of this? Are they cultists?  Are they trying to mess with our heads?  Does anyone under 50 use that expression?  Do you think the writer is getting tired yet? Know what I will do the minute this is over?  How can you know how to answer that?  Isn’t it kind of presumptuous of you to think you can?  Where can I file a complaint?  Who doesn’t know a clark?  I think they are done with their little game, don’t you?  You wouldn’t be messing with me too, would you?  If I frame an un-answerable question, they have to let me go, don’t they?  What is the unifying purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine?

(Whew!!)