The topic of today’s Post is: Discourse and Discussion  (quick definition so we will not get any shit from people saying that this blog is amateur scholastecism),
discourse: from the Latin discursus; the act of running about. Sociologists and philosophers tend to use the term discourse to describe the conversations and the meaning behind them by a group of people who hold certain ideas in common

Alright lets start there people, the sooner we get through the “serious” part of the Post, the sooner we can get to the music videos. This the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. The question before us is:

What is the goal, the perceive object of the act of conversation/discourse for clarks, for scotts and for rogers? (and as a follow-up question), What does the Doctrine offer to aid the person trying to effectively communicate with a person of the other type (clark, scott or roger)?

First up, clarks. clarks value knowledge information above all, therefore they will attempt to bring as much fact, knowledge, information, inference and implication as possible to the discourse (see?). You will know a clark by the fractured sentence structure. Their goal is to offer (the listener) the maximum choice in paths to take, because (to a clark), everything branches off everything else and each branch offers some information that is discrete from other (branches). That accounts for the (heavy) use (as opposed to light use) of parenthesis. It is a clarks way of saying “hey! by the way, had you considered this…?
Sample: “what is it that real people do with all the time in between sentences?”

Second up, scotts. scotts need to know: are you predator or prey; are you dominant or submissive. For that we require a verb.
Sample: “Hey!” secondary example: “pretty simple, isn’t it?”

Last, rogers. rogers are not using words to communicate or carry specific questions, rogers use words to exist. They live in a purely social world, one comprised of people, however these people, all being rogers do not interact. Instead the rogerian members of the herd are relating to each other…and s0 the only thing to talk about is the past. The past of each of the other members of a herd is the topic of all rogerian discourse. That is why rogers tend to be good at writing, they are laying out a world, not imparting information. It is a fabric of emotion.
Sample: “did you hear what she said about him…?”

Now you know how each of the three converse/communicate/engage in discourse/run about. What good it this information? Glad I asked. So you can understand the other person, knuckleheads! There is this old saying, “clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb”
Why is it necessary to mention this?
Because the best tools in the world are useless without the skill of the person using (them).  And skill in the use of tools involves understanding the material/the object that the tools are being used on as much as (understanding) the tools themselves.
You know that clarks are trying to impart too much information, so take what you need and ignore the rest.
The scott is barking aggressively at you, so decide if it is in your interest to be prey or predator/submissive or dominant and bark back  or roll over.
The roger is spreading information throught your workplace about you, and you do not want that. Take a clue from terminex and contribute information into the network of your own, it will work its way into the social matrix and maybe surplant the bad information.

That concludes the Lesson of the Day. Now to the entertainment portion of the Post. We have a mix, two music video and one movie clip for the scott, the roger and the clark. (In that order, in case, you are a new Reader)

(Now roger)

(Before you ask, I’m sure there is a perfectly good reason to have a double-neck guitar consisting of a bass and a telecaster looking guitar…)
(Actually the simple fact that it was the 1970s should suffice to account for it…)

oh clark! you will enjoy this (and the rogers and the scotts will totally flee the room, lol)

Hey! Got a minute?
(Tell me you have ever heard that expression used as a preface to an enjoyable conversation?)
Its just that the ‘quality of writing’  of Comments, given how long we have been at this, really sucks.
And it is not as a rhetoretician do I say this thing. I will be the first to say that, if I was taking a writing course, I would consider myself lucky to get a C- (and that only on the basis of the sheer volume of the stuff I put out there).

HAving said that, if I were a new Reader I would be looking for that little fucked up “F” icon that facebook totally plasters over everything they piss on. 
(Seeing that in print, I realize that I might not be giving the rogers who inhabit Facebook (and the scotts there to prey on them) enough credit).
Its just that after nearly 12 months of practice,  the Comments submitted still sound like a bunch of grade school kids left alone in the auditorium with the PA system on…HEY!!! HEYY!! Listen To me….NO!! dont listen to HER!! Listen to ME…Ca Ca!!

Cut it out.
Evolve yourselfs. If this ends up being a vanity published blog of an over-ego endowed clark, then so be it.
But if you want to see your thoughts in print in front of 50 regular Readers, then you are going to have to do better…

…oh yeah…tomorrow is Phuck you Pfriday