Plain to See, Simple to Understand, Easy to Apply…the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine Plain to See, Simple to Understand, Easy to Apply…the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine

Plain to See, Simple to Understand, Easy to Apply…the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Listen, before we go any further…I need one of you Readers to do me a favor. Thursday is here already and I got nothing for Video Friday!  Some questions (written as Comments or just email me here) would really help me out here, any topic any format…you ask the question and I will answer it live on the video to be played on (this) Friday’s Video Post.  There are almost no questions that are not answerable, so write us with your queries. For a format, I will read the question ( and I will identify the questioner by the name on the Comment or email, so if you want to remain anonymous, leave your name out. Pretty simple, isn’t it?)
                         hey,  thanks (in advance)!

Speaking of improvements…did you notice the 3 new Sections on the Main Page?  Below this Post, in the center on the ‘landing page’ you will see new sections: What (is the Wakefield Doctrine), How (do I use it) and Why (is there a Wakefield Doctrine). Even though we do have an ‘About’ page on the Doctrine, lately we are getting more ‘requests’ from Readers to make the Wakefield Doctrine blog more…’Reader-friendly’  …more direct and instructionational,  even though all the information is there…well, you know how rogers can be!  In any event, there are 3 sections that will have concise, direct and useful information on the Doctrine and how to get the most from your visit to our little blog.  Speaking of growing in popularity, if you have any suggestions as to the information, FAQ, instructions that we should include in these new sections, give us a shout! Will be happy to accommodate*

Hey! New Readers!!   Here’s how it goes with the Wakefield Doctrine site:  those new sections? … they will answer your immediate questions.  The Posts? …the Posts should be thought of as a continuing conversation about the Doctrine, the blog and things in general.  Now, a clark would ‘get’ the Doctrine  just from reading the Posts…a scott could, but is too impatient and doesn’t really care all that much about ‘getting the details’ and a roger?  wellll they would most likely object to the whole layout of the blog,  simply because it is not tidy enough and they do not see a line gathering at the door.

Speaking of doors and lines and  rogers!!  We all know how they love restaurants, but if you need to find a bunch of rogers in a total hurry, drive around your area on a Sunday morning and look for the (physically) smallest restaurant with the longest line extending out the door.  There be your rogers!  Serially, I have witnessed little diners, that clearly have a capacity of 16 food-eaters and there is a line 30 people long. What the hell!  And you know they are rogers, cause (of the people standing in line) they are very small groups, mostly couples with an occasional 3rd person** and they are keeping to themselves while standing in line. ( Actually they are surreptitiously judging the dress and demeanor of their fellow rogers).  Of course, you would know if there were a scott among them by the surreptitious stares of the male rogers and the fawning expressions of the female rogers.

So let us know you are out there. If you have information that will be helpful to include in our new sections, write a Comment and we will convert it to content (even give you credit for the info/insight!).

Hey!! don’t forget the Questions for tomorrow’s Video Friday!  Come on…the clock is ticking.

* after all, I am a clark  (ha ha)
** a spare clark, of course!!

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one