This will be a simple, photo-filled Post today.  Everything will be tied to some part of the overall theme (Jeopardy), which is both a game show and a modern manifestation of a basic human need to know things.  I know what you are thinking, “oh shit, it’s about clarks again, when will he get back to talking about that funny one (scott) or that friendly one (roger)”.  All in good time, but this blog here is here (in general) and this Post is here (specifically) because the Wakefield Doctrine is here and for various reasons there are people expressing an interest in learning more.

And as Alex Trebeck and Art Fleming before him would say, “if you do not phrase that as a question, then you are a total loser”.

Answer: I do not have the faintest clue.
Question: Why the hell are you writing about this?

Oh yeah, the original question was why is the socratic method.  Yeah we get it so far, could be fun and cute, but the bearded, roger in the first photo…who the hell is he and why is he there?  That, as my old, old Readers will immediately recognise is Sebastian Cabot, the quintessential roger from the films and TV of the 60’s and 70’s.  He is there simply because he looked like Socrates. (ya gotta pronounce it So-crates, from Bill and Ted, anything else sounds silly).

Answer: More pictures and less words.
Question: Why are you still writing?

If I may return to the topic, which  is the Wakefield Doctrine and in specific, why the question and answer approach.  The only answer is that at present my ability to write as anything other than a clark is somewhat limited.  I use the modifier “somewhat” simply because clarks do in fact believe that they are capable of doing virtually anything.  This is not the kind of ego most of us would tend to think about, “I am the greatest (fill in the blank) in the world”.  Rather it is a statement of the unlimited potential if you are always asking questions.  blah, blah blah.

The Doctrine lesson is this: for each of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) there is a characteristic quality”

What is the difference between a quality and a characteristic?
A quality is an ‘inherent or distinguishing characteristic, a property, or a personal trait’. Quality denotes the character, disposition, or nature of something. A characteristic is ‘a feature that helps distinguish a person or thing, a distinguishing mark or trait’. Quality is slightly more inclusive than characteristic. Characteristic’s meaning is more about a distinction.

(Thank you Mr. Dictionary.  The above, btw is totally worthless and taking up space, which I suppose contradicts my characterization of it’s worthlessness as a quality.)

The Wakefield Doctrine actually is very straightfoward on this issue, it states: clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. Everything else follows from that.

Hey! here’s a first for the Doctrine.  I went looking for a music video and it was one that I already used.  Now the rogers are beginning to gloat and the scotts are not paying attention….(hold on…insert hypersonic whistle here)  now we have their attention…”no, scott  this does not mean that I will be putting any fred eaglesmith in the Post”.

“Its monstrosidous”! lol  (…lol It’s a finger of speech.)

Audrey is so a clark.

…now Tim  here   an….tis….a pation!