Month: December 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine

(no title) no, really…all I got is (no title)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2767r_biz-markie-just-a-friend_music

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

You know how sometimes these Posts start out with: “Sorry, don’t have anything prepared, please bear with us….” and how then the Post continues noodling around looking for a point, eventually finding it?
This is one of those Posts, except for the ‘eventually finding it’ part. To demonstrate the sincerity of this the following Post will present all the ‘pre-written, dead-end ideas, rehashed content’ in “block” quotes. All in the interest of full disclosure and total respect of the Reader, yo.

(this first is from frickin Saturday…thats when I still believed it would be a normal Post)

Things that the Doctrine tells us that we know are true, but can’t yet prove it:

the percentage of clarklike females married is significantly lower relative to the scottian females or rogerian women

scottian women are insecure on the matter of intellect and scottian guys on the matter of friendships

the ‘more fortunate’ a roger gets (in life events, good fortune, success) the more guilty they feel

clarks do the best with getting sick and/or otherwise being (temporarily) impaired

rogers make the best crippled people

scotts are the best handicapped (from birth) people

the direct knowledge of the implications and other uses of the Wakefield Doctrine are beyond the capacity of the present authors

today’s Post will be among those included in any future retrospective in the Chapter: Odd Posts

awareness of the Doctrine among clarks will be the basis for it’s popularity growing

scottian women have the highest rate of multiple marriages (relative to the other two) rogerian females, the lowest

Things that we know about clarks, scotts and rogers that we did not know 12 months ago:

rogers have the most accessible (blog) writing style and as such represent the authorship of the blogs that are read by the largest group of blog visitors

scotts have limited blog writing skills due to the ‘once removed’ nature of the written word

clarks believe that a blog will compensate for ineffectuality in communicating in the real world

So, that got us into Sunday. Still not worried. Sunday is often the time some of the better, more introspective Posts make their appearance. But Sunday also saw the arrival of full-out whatever-the-hell-kind-of-bug-is-being-shared-at-the-office “cold” symptoms. Fortunately DS#1 was standing by with a partially completed Post…well the start of a line of thought…lets just say a jumping-off point for any clarks who happen to have a scott or a roger tied to a chair in the basement. Yeah! that is best lead in for the next “little Post That Could!”

(yeah, it took me all this week just to crawl this far. I thought I was a goner)

Always a friendly “welcome” from the Wakefield Doctrine, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. This tidbit is a mere Post-ette. Regular programming will return tomorrow. Recently, in a clark on clark telephone call (with the progenitor clark), I ruminated aloud a recent interaction with a younger (male) scott at my place of employment wherein the scott (paying customer) spoke to me (cashier), in a bid for reaction, in an exaggerated type of voice/diction. (‘yes, he was acting juvenile but he is a scott after all…”) I made the transaction with nary a smile and returned his change adding (with nary a smile) “funny man“. He looked at me with his intense gaze and challenged me by asking “did you just call me funny man?” I responded “yes, yes I did.” He left by saying “thank you funny woman.”

WTF is the point of that ditty? It prompted a conversation about instinctive body response v. cognitive behavior choice. Was it Live or Memorex? I had long since identified him as a scott. Not difficult to do. In the workplace he is always followed by his co-workers. Literally. He is also the first to make the joke(s) and yes, often implied/literal inappropriate with the predictable follow-up from his acolytes. Point 1: how does one get to the point of instinctively reacting to a scott in such a way that said reaction nullifies the scottian expectation and causes the scott to “react’ instead? Can you put a scott off guard? Point 2: what does it take to re-teach the body/mind, re-shape one’s core response(s) to other people?

Enough…”content”? What? shit….

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

Hey, when in doubt go with the youtube standup video.

Alright. People…lets quiet down now…I think we are back on track, this will go out this morning and with any luck I will have another couple of Posts this week that will bury this trainwreck and we can lurch onwards towards Christmas.

stop kickin! stop screamin! this is the right thing to do

Hey.

New to the Doctrine? yeah? if that’s the case, you kinda might want to click on over to the Table of Contents or maybe AKH’s little column (Hey a scott is Talking!). Today’s Post is the type of Post the ‘regulars’ usually refer to as …”? oh, one of those Posts…” There is a lot of useful and accessible information elsewhere in this site…just not this Post.

Still here? if we had a Complaint Department, or if anyone was inclined to write a scathing Comment to the effect of “..deliberately obtuse?…”contrived ‘n confusing”…”I waded through all that other stuff, for this?”…”hey dude! where the hell is my understanding everyone around me”? we might be saying:
“I’m sorry, you seemed to have stumbled upon the Wakefield Doctrine on one of our more…introspective…days”.

Hey! Readers! come back! (lol) Really, it will be alright now…we will stop with the, the…clarklike stuff. Promise.

Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day: clarks: (what the fuck is the deal with those people)?

Of the three ( clarks, scotts and rogers ), clarks are the creative, introspective, hard-working, self-sabotaging¹…people, the most likely to hear concerned family and friends say, “if-only-you-would-stop-being-so-weird, you could much happier”
If you are reading this blog on your workplace/classroom computer, it is fairly easy to spot the clarks where you are. The way to do this, however, is not for the faint of heart, the technique for flushing out the local clarks is something you must do alone and by yourself, (so ditch the roger, scott). First of all, get yourself to a vantage point in your area/office/classroom, a spot where you can see most of the people (in your immediate area). Second step, stick your fingers in both ears and look around the room… The first person you stop at is your clark!

Pretty simple, isn’t it? You now know who the clark in your area is. To confirm your suspicions take a closer look at them.
If it is a clarklike female you have there, you don’t need any other characteristics to confirm her type…fashion from the androgyny collection; hair and make-up from the ‘what are you staring at’? line from loreal and (for the fun of it) look at the feet. Go ahead! The only foot covering you will not see is a black stilleto-heel, (unless it has sequins, LEDs and possibly a couple of those little streamer things we used to put on bicycles as kids).
Hello, Ms clark!
The male clark? you will spot him the same way, ‘cept when you turn back after you take your fingers out of your ears, he probably will not be where you last saw him. You can flush the male clark from his hiding place by simply saying (loud enough to be heard/not loud enough to make people think you are talking to them) anything… sarcastically. Pretty much any topic will do, “glad it is Christmas, was started to get bored by the music in the supermarket” or “I really need to get to work”. The guy who looks up (then makes it look like he was glancing at something near you), he is your clark.

You want other ways to spot the clark in your life?
If you are a scott, the clark is the person just outside of the circle of rogers that you always arrange have surrounding you.
If you are a roger, the clark is the person you really get a kick out of and find creative and funny and smart and sincere, right up until there is a scott in the room.

The strength of clarks is that they are immune to the forces of peer-group pressure/the weakness of clarks is that they are never a part of a peer-group
The weakness of clarks is that they seem cold, emotionally crippled/the strength of clarks is that they are rational and thoughtful and patient
The strength of clarks is that they can tolerate the predatory cruelty of the scotts and the personal meanness of the rogers/ the weakness of clarks is that they tolerate the….

Ok. Get that janitor out here. Mr. B yo! We needs us some music to find our way out of this metaphorically jungle-like confusing environment that clarks laughingly call home.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcw4ii_blake-shelton-hillbilly-bone-feat-t_music

1) sabotage: may derive from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, feeling the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete; (or even)
the word derives from the late 19th-century French slang use of the word sabot to describe an unskilled worker, so called due to their wooden clogs or sabots; sabotage was used to describe the poor quality work which such workers turned out.