Month: November 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine

back to our little discussion, already in Progress… (yeah?!!? well!! (insert personal favorite sexual act/innuendo/slur/invective/bad words here) You!!?!

November 19, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

Today’s Post is meant to allow public space to discuss a Comment made by DownSpring glenn late last night. Given the timeliness and importance of the topic (the Wakefield Doctrine’s path to world domination) we felt it deserved a more prominent forum, the ‘trailing Comments’ format that follow each Post has a way of meandering. So following is glenn’s Comment and my (initial) Reply…jump in any time, binyons

“Nice” people don’t make comments. You’re not attracting enough assholes. Let me go wild on this bitch. I’ll draw assholes from every corner of the world. If you don’t put some fucking fireworks in this thing, it’s gonna sink of its’ own ponderosity. A few well-placed fucks. A rude comment. A wildly irreverent observation. Something’s gotta wake up these yokels. You’re BEGGING for commentation–and getting crickets….

Nah.
(Don’t get me wrong, I understand your motivation is a good one) but it is misdirected.
No matter how many lights and pennants flapping and those twirly things (twirling) you have on a car lot, if the buyers passing by are not interested, they are not interested.

(Hold on a minute glenn…)

Let’s bring ‘everyone’ (lol) up to speed. The issue being discussed is whether there should be limits on what is said/printed within the pages of the Wakefield Doctrine blog, both in the Comments of Readers as well as the content of Posts. Of course, anyone reading this knows that there is the gate-keeping function of (a) Moderator; to wit, you send in your Comments, the Moderator receives a Notice of Comment, and proceeds to Approve or Deny said Comment. First case, Comment shows up at the bottom of the Post, second case, nobody but the Moderator (and the Commentator) ever knows it existed. (Oh yeah, editing a Comment is possible, and the fact of editing does not need to be apparent). (To anyone other than Moderator and Commentor).

So, we all know that glenn has written Comments. He has, in fact, participated in Posts and has an issue with the fact that many of his Comments have not made it past the Moderator. The reason being simply that the Moderator felt that (these) Comments were ‘outrageous’ simply for the sake of being out ‘outrageous’. The question that we have all discussed (DownSprings and Progenitors) is whether that is a correct policy.

This is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) …that is not to say that we should not have the scottian view evidenced, in these Posts (specifically) and this blog (generally) but this thing is about the Wakefield Doctrine.
It cannot be the:

scottian out-fuckin-do-you-believe-what-that-guy-just-said-rageous behavior;
clarklike too-much-information?-what-are-you-crazy?-hey-dude-you’re-fallin-asleep, content for it’s own sake nor the
rogerian of course I would be happy to contribute my view, I-can-see-that-you-all-recognise-that-you-need-to-bring-me-in, in case I walk away from the literary ICU work occurring just remind me that I care…there don’t you all feel better now that my voice is filling the jagged edges?

But in defense of the editorial policy to date (arrggh!!! {scott}) I must say there needs to be a balance.

What I feel glenn is missing is this: the Doctrine needs all three ‘voices’ afterall this is the theroy of clarks, scotts and rogers by definition all three elements are necessary. But the point of this is that just because glenn is a scott does not make his personal expression of the scottian nature the best example of the ‘scottian nature’. Just as I know that as a clark, what I contribute to these Posts runs a significant risk of being dense, unclear, in-direct and otherwise not rogerian or scottian. But, while in the early days of the Doctrine (blog) the thinking was that these Posts would be a collaborative effort, that simply did not come to pass. So it comes to the Comments as being the venue for the scottian (and rogerian) voices to be heard. But more to the main point, when is indulging in one’s own (clarklike, scottian or rogerian) nature purely for it’s own sake counter-productive to our efforts with this blog?

(My own ‘issue’ with outrageousness is simply that it is a hunger, it can never be satisfied it must always grow. If I say “Fuck you”, at a certain point in time/with a certain audience, the reaction would be, “What did they just say?” There might be laughs, there might be offense taken, people might leave the room. At this point I suspect glenn will say, “yeah! that’s the point – they are paying attention” And I do not disagree. But it is a fact that the next time the reaction will be, “what? oh yeah…fuck you…great”. And where does that leave us? (One school of thought would result in: “Fuck YOu! You Assholes!!”)…do I need to spend any more time on my point?

I am not really trying to debate glenn here in this, his point is valid and any discussion resulting from the views of all three (clarks, scotts and rogers) is a good thing. But I will say this, glenn does the ‘outrageous’ thing better than anyone around here, he will make me laugh and the Posts I write are better as a result. But Ms AKH is a scott. And while her grasp of the technical aspect of the Doctrine may not be up to glenn’s level (hey AKH! Wakefield Mall 7:45 pm Saturday November 20, yo) she brings the ‘edge’ that glenn rightly asserts is necessary to this blog attracting Readers, but does not throw any away cause they didn’t find the joke funny. Not saying this is all calculated by AKH, but the idea is that our responsibility as Progenitors and DownSprings is to take our understanding of the Doctrine and our own natures and present it in a way that is not too personal. You do that I will try not to preach…(yeah, right)

now somebody go get roger…I last saw him in the back yard…talking…with a bunch of squirrels, 2 or 3 rabbits and a whole bunch of cats…he was leading them down the street, something about, “now when we meet Ken Burns, say you’re with me”

A little illustration if I might? A whole bunch of rogers, playing in total frickin unison, with a scott up front doing whatever it takes to get noticed and one hapless clark, desparately trying to get people to believe that he is in control of the mess..

…that’s the clark on the left, just nearly out-of-frame

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TWrxH1IBwQ

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, predicting human behavior, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

almost cut my hair, it happened just the other day

November 17, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Ahh! “song lyrics inspired” Posts. This takes me back to the early-Doctrine days. As a matter of fact, I was reading a Post only yesterday that was written on Nov 28, 2009 and while it didn’t have no pitchas and not even a single music video, what it did have was some interesting content. I was briefly tempted to cut ‘n paste that little darlin and try and package it for (re)consumption.

Re-run style.¹ My “conscience” got the better of me unfortunately I sat waiting for the McMuse to come to the drive-through window.² But before I get too distracted, let me make a point about why these Posts continue to show up on this here site here. Simply to make enough information available about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers available to the random visitor, the occasional web surfer stopping by to listen to a music video and maybe the photos caught their eye.

To that end, let me present a quick couple of scenaria involving clarks, scotts and rogers. On the other hand, let’s don’t. Let’s keep talking about ‘the TV’.
Below I am referencing old, you-can-buy-the-compete-series-at-FYE television shows. Let’s start small, 3 shows from 3 decades and just spot the clarks, scotts and rogers. ‘Cause no matter how old or young you are, TV is the commonality point for all of us, like it or not.

Hart to Hart (wtf?)

Jonathon Hart… roger Mrs Jonathon Hart….clark and Max scott

Spenser for Hire(alright, a little less…old)

Spenser…roger Susan Silverman….scott Hawk….scott Sgt Frank Belson….clark

Friends (LHF, but we got to start somewhere) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Nc0FAk74c

Rachel…roger Ross…roger Phoebe…clark Monica…scott Chandler….clark Joey…scott

Time to wrap it up and head out into the (rainy) day.

Mis-ter B! You gots some music for these fine, fine folks here?

1. Re-run for our younger Readers the term referred to the part of the year when all of the previous season of television shows would be on the air (again). While this is still done, what makes those ‘repeats’ more noticeable was that back in the the day, before cable TV, the three networks would be the sole source of TV programming and there was a ‘Season” which usually started the week after school started and ended in the early spring. All new shows (except around Christmas) maybe 26 weeks worth of shows. In any event, summer time was so the season of re-runs, which was good because then you didn’t sweat staying out late and missing any shows. Nowadays seems like the seasons are 6 episodes long and mixed and matched so you can’t remember if you are watching the new season or just happened to miss most of the episodes of last season. (The genius of modern marketing, “if you haven’t seen it before, then it’s new to you!”)
Speaking of modern cable TV programming…I want to report a miracle!!
…Or a crime, not sure yet. The cable networks are either doing a ‘loaves and fishes’ with programs or it is tampering with my memory. I will admit to being a fan of a few TV shows and watched them when they were new. But would someone please tell me how Fox can run back-to-back episodes of ‘Bones’ or ‘Buffy’ five nights a week (except for one night a week when there are double back-to-back frickin episodes) and not run out in three weeks?! That is just numerically impossible! So either they are messing with the audience’s memory or it is a miracle, in which case the least the Pope can do is come on TV and announce it. (“Pope Week” back-to-back episodes! See the best of the best episodes of “All my Apostles”)

2. of my imagination³

3. you know, like I was just sitting and trying to think things up
yeah, like a metaphor⁴

^4.or allegory… damn, can never keep those two straight

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

jeez, that Wakefield Doctrine guy was right! they’re all over the place!

November 15, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

Today’s Post is kinda ‘old school’.
(In the early days of the ‘Doctrine blog), the writing process would often begin with a song fragment popping up in my head, usually just a few words, a slight impression of the melody. For reasons still unexplained, this un-heard/un-remembered song would acquire a quality of importance, which would, in turn, morph into a wholly un-justified sense of urgency. I would find myself feeling that if only I could find this particular song, then I would have what I needed to start writing the Post. Of course, with the google, all that was required on my part was a clarklike sense of purpose* combined with a rogerian-class memory for music** and scottian sense of urgency.***

Today has been like that. With the new mandate to stick to teaching/educating/enlightening the world about the Wakefield Doctrine, I am not all that sure what I will do with the music video when I find it. You often read in these Posts, that if only you could hang with us (the progenitors and DownSprings and FODs), in realttime/in-person, you would get a sense of the “fun of the Doctrine” and all the theory and the rules and the information would just fall in place. And that is still so true a statement.
Consider the learning of a foreign language, yo… you could sit alone, in your room with language tapes and memorize the rules of grammar and the vocabulary and you will eventually learn the language…if you really, really want to! But instead, suppose you just went to a place, the Czech Republic say, and you hung out with people who spoke both your language and the language you wanted to learn, damn wouldn’t that be so much quicker and easier! (Show of hands…who the hell among you Readers does not think that the ‘immersion’ approach to learning language is so the better way?)

Well unless you folks are willing to move to and/or visit “Wakefield”, we are just going to have to find another way to let you get that ‘immersion’ vibe. If you are willing to journey to “Wakefield”, be sure to include Saturday night as part of your stay. If you are here, we will take you along on the ‘trip to Wakefield’. Really.

So, until that happens lets try this: get the following scenario in your (damn) head, we are standing in a room full of people, comprised of some friends, some acquaintances, some strangers. It’s a two level room, very open and from where we are standing there is a good view of everyone present. Lets say (for s(s) and g(s) ) our group includes Ms. AKH, DownSpring glenn, Joanne and the progenitor roger, and, of course, the ever faithful DS#1. Our conversation has no particular topic until, someone comments on how there seem to be more scotts than usual.*
None of this ‘setup’ has anything to do with what we are trying to do with today’s Post. I just thought you Readers would get a kick out of a sense of hangin with the DownSprings…

Instead, we all pile into the car and head to “Wakefield’ and rather than try to reconstruct the conversation that would fill the auto I am posting the following three videos. One for each of the three personality types.
Anyone out there who wishes to Comment, do so and I will leave your Comment in place and cut and paste it into this Post in an attempt to replicate the experience of discussing the Wakefield Doctrine in a real-life setting. Hey DownSprings!! Progenitors! A little help here…a little commentation won’t frickin kill ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxClwkSEh50

(Comments insert here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7YBaiJMnik

(No, I don’t think I’m being overly obvious….roger)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzxF-M2erx8

Hey, glenn! don’t you think that with dark hair and a tux Joe Walsh is the spitting image of your boy, Louis?

Hey honey!! Get your hat (for your damn head) we’re goin to Wakefield!!

Step right up, folks!! The Wakefield Doctrine Ride-For-Understanding-the-Three-Personality-Types is about to leave.

* as in, “are you seriously going to spend even a minute of your decreasing lifespan doing that??!
** as in, ” don’t bother me now, can’t you see I’m busy here??
*** as in, ” I’m bored!! where are the loud noises??! can I say ‘fuck’ now??! can I, huh?, come on you said I could….jeez you’re no fun any more………fuck!

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, Personal, personality types, predicting human behavior, psychology of personality, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

“…and thats why he’s so mean!*” Hey! wait just a minute!

November 13, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Welcome …etc

I want to apologise to any Readers who have found themselves saying, “hey I’m not looking for a comedy blog or a music appreciation site, I don’t really need the wryly witty musings of a frustrated writer!” This morning I find myself sitting at this computer saying to myself, “where did I get off track“? Vanity apparently is so more insidious than I would have thought. Staring at the monitor, drinking coffee and while waiting inspiration a Post to show up (…a lot like taking a copy of the New York Times into the bathroom, you really hope that it will not be necessary, but are resigned to the fact that it will), I caught myself critiquing ideas in such terms as, “nah, that’s not funny“, ” yeah but, they’ll never get that TV show reference“, and “I think I might get away with that“.
The question rose in my mind, quite without welcome, “just when did I stop trying to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) as a new and exciting way of thinking and instead decide that every Post that showed up on the site had to be amusing“? Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being amusing. If we were to meet in person and hang out, you would find yourself laughing at least once; but the question I cannot avoid asking myself is, “What is that I think people are coming to this blog for? Funny/wacky/weird Posts or are they here to learn about the Wakefield Doctrine? Well, the ‘sign on the door’ says that this is the Wakefield Doctrine, it does not say ‘the Entertaining and Random Musing and Literary Stylings of…”
I realized this morning that the Readers who have come to this blog over the last 12 months did so because they were interested/curious/intrigued by (this) idea of ours. The idea, quite unique and definitely worth investigating, that there really were three personality types and that the description of the three types was kinda fun and funny, but mostly, this Wakefield Doctrine actually worked, it delivered the goods.

The problem may not been all strictly the price of vanity, ( “hey! great Post!” “where do you come up with those videos“, “that picture on the front? funny!”), in my own defense I will say that a part of my motivation for trying to be amusing and funny is simply that I am a clark. And we (clarks) like nothing more than to know things, lots or things, different things and most of the time useless things! It did not take long to see how well received some of the funnier Posts were and it only made sense to try to write more of those and to try and not be so…dry…pedantic…clarklike! But in all fairness, a huge part of my drive to write whatever I thought would get read came from the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine is fun.
We (Progenitors and DownSprings) do laugh when we get together! People who learn about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers do get excited about seeing it work in real life.
In a way, glenn was half right (as usual) when he complained recently that these Posts have lost the spirit of the early days of the Doctrine blog, that in losing this supposed spirit of subversiveness the whole thing was in danger of losing relevancy. To a small degree I agree, the early days of the Doctrine did have a sense of stick to basics, i.e. clarks create, scotts sell and rogers gather the masses. That, by the simple fact that none of us had ever tried to create something like this blog, everything was new and exciting and risky. (Of course, life is like that its ownself! And while one might argue that uncomplicated, unencumbered and un-restrained child is the epitome of spontaneity, I would just as soon trade in some free spiritness in exchange for not thinking that reaching into my diapers and throwing feces at asserbys is the height of humor. But that’s just old clarklike me).
In any event, it is time to get back to the basics. This is not to say that we be returning to the writing style of the first Post(s). There have been changes in how these Posts are presented, changes that not only make reading them more enjoyable, (the the photos and the videos), but also make the writing of these things less than a total chore.
Sorry for getting dazzled by the bright lights, the fame, ‘you like me, you really, really like me’… I believe I understand now where I have gone off track.

My job is to tell you about the Wakefield Doctrine (theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). The goal of this blog is to show (a) way to view the behavior of those people (in our lives) that will help you to make sense of their behavior. I will present the theory and the Doctrine and you will find it helpful and usable and fun (or not). We will leave the charm and psychotic-affability to the rogers and the scotts can take care of the leadership and seduction-as-an-end-in-itself. Both are blessed with talents that only they enjoy.

But it is Friday Saturday. Enough with the lessons ‘n learning. Well, maybe a little learning.

Here is a quick ‘elevator-ride’ description of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers):
…picture a large parking lot, maybe one quarter of the spaces are taken, mostly towards the stores…there is a red ball in the middle of the open space the ball is rolling with the wind, stopping, rolling again with each vagrant breeze…
a scott will notice it first and be immediately on the alert, he/she will simply stop in their tracks and look around, trying to see the cause of the ball’s motion; they need to know is it a threat or not? that is their priority. (If it proves to be harmless and they have the time and/or an audience, the scott will pick up the ball and throw it)…(thereby establishing their dominance, lol)
a roger will eventually notice the ball, if there is a pause in their conversation with whomever they are talking to, they too will look around the parking lot, but unlike the scott they will look only at the other people, does the ball belong to them? do the other people fear the ball?, who seems to be in charge of determining the ‘threat-level’ of the red ball? If no one emerges as being in charge (a scott) or the other people are not showing any interest, the roger will put it all out of their mind and get back to their busy lives, (if asked they will blame the ball for making them late)..
a clark will notice the ball………. eventually, (once they notice it) they will immediately try to determine how the other people in the parking lot are regarding the ball, the main concern for the clark is determining if the ball belongs to anyone in the parking lot or if there is a danger that someone will blame (the clark) for taking/stealing the ball, if a crowd has gathered (rogers) and if there is no one in charge (scotts) the clark will speculate aloud about the possible origin of the ball, if however, the clark comes upon the ball and the parking lot is totally empty, the clark will still speculate about it’s origins (aloud or silently, depending on mood) will look around to see who is secretly watching, consider taking the ball home but will leave without it.

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) can tell you about people in everyday situations. You will be better able to predict the behavior of others using the precepts of the Doctrine. There is a bunch of information relating to a description of the three types that you need to know, but for today this little example will serve to answer the question: ‘what good is this thing, this Wakefield Doctrine’? In the coming days we will try to present descriptions of what makes the clarklike person a clark, a scottian man or woman a scott and how to identify the rogerian personality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmtkCrau9Xo

* a line from the totally amazing Fire Sign Theatre From the ‘album’, “All Hail Marx Lennon”

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Personal, personality types, predicting human behavior, the Wakefield Doctrine

Posts, Posts, Posts,*

November 10, 2010 By clarkscottroger

But seriously folks, this Post-writing gig, while fun, satisfying and totally ego-enhancing gets to be a grind.
So today we will have a Contest! Today is the start of the:
The First Annual ‘Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) Hey! I Can Write a Better Post than That Contest’!**

In any event, the rules of the Contest are simple. Write us a Comment with a brief description of your idea for a Post, we will re-print all the entries in a new Post and everyone in the blogosphere gets a Vote! The entry with the highest Vote wins and that person gets to write a Post and get it published on the Wakefield Doctrine! Now some of you might be thinking, “sure, we come up with a great idea and write a great Post and you get all the traffic and Reader Comments, how fair is that“? You know you might have a point there, but why don’t you go ahead and read all the other Posts in the Doctrine and count up the Comments. In any event, you get a damn byline, what the hell do you want?
As to Reader participation the last Post was a pleasant exception. Nearly everyone had some interesting Commentation….(btw), it has been brought to my attention that some of the clever sayings created by us here at the Wakefield Doctrine are beginning to appear out there in the real world. People! we want to know when that happens, no make that we need to know when that happens! Just yesterday, a scottian woman I work with told me that she heard the expression, “Yes. Yes I did hear that” on some TV show. Of course, since she heard it on television she insists that we did not coin that expression here at the Doctrine! If anyone hears mention of the Wakefield Doctrine or the theory of clarks, scotts or roger in general and/or expressions specific to these Posts, i.e. “he is such a roger“…”what a clark“…”not too scottian, is she?” out in the real world, please for Jethro’s sake write to let us know.

Enough of that, back to the Contest. hey glenn!! this Contest? “some Rules may apply“. Why doncha let the Readers know about rules that may apply? We want your ideas, we need to expand our horizons, to break out of this fuddy duddy rut that certain DownSprings are insisting we are in, here at the Wakefield Doctrine, now sit up straight in your chairs, no laughing or giggling and pay attention.

All of this ‘out with the old’ attitude can be laid at the feet of those two rogers, Mel and the (progenitor) roger. At the start of this week, Mel has been posting some decidedly accessible Posts…all about feelings and happiness and gratitude and stuff…(for you new Readers, Mel is a Friend of the Doctrine and writes a blog, Spatula in the Wilderness. He used to be an actual wielder of said implement running a kitchen in a hospital in “Michigan” But recently he changed jobs, went corporate but his blog is still most excellent. Did notice however, that Mel responds to Comments even quicker than before, ‘hey Mel, fun having access to the net all day long, no? Now get those reports on my desk!’ )(lol)

So Readers! Send us you Post topics.

Two Post ideas that I really would like to try. One is from the progenitor roger: “Ten Important Things in My Life that I have Forgotten” and my own contribution: “That First Band/Album That changed the course of My Life.”

Ten Important Things in My Life that I have Forgotten

the first girl I had a crush on
what happened to that girl/crush
who I bought my first car from
when it was that I first started thinking about the Wakefield Doctrine
my High School Graduation (I did not forget the post-ceremony party….wish I could)
what happened to my (childhood) belief in religion
the last time I played music on stage
the first time I realized that I was a little… different?/weird?
what the most fun I have had that was not inextricably tied to a significant mental/emotional/physical price
why the fuck I thought this was a good idea

You know, I think I am skating closer to the edge of personal involvement with this 10 things I forgot idea, what say we just call it a day.
Mr. B if you….what? Contest Prizes? damn! you’re right…lets see…what can we give out…(lol, ’cause Western Union is too old a reference)…I got it! a nearly free hat (for the first 5 entrant’s damn heads)!

** (or as the Progenitor roger would have it the First Annual WDTOCSARHICWABPTTC… actually it sounded better over at the Depression Concession).

No, glenn there is no connection between this choice of video and Robyn Hilton (damn you google! clarks cannot impress anyone anymore with obscure references.)