Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
Good (WDSN) Drive last Night! Even with the impending Time Dislocation, we had a (nearly) full house (more accurately ‘car‘ ); presenti were ( in order of appearance): DownSpring glenn, Molly, DS#1, Ms. AKH and Alex. We totally had a good time, topics ranging from, the Doctrine in the workplace, the 3 funniest movies of all time, home remodeling, trains and their impact on local culture, employment demographics in the mountain states, roasts of beef and 2 sensible, if not overly exciting side dishes, euphemisms for masturbation, the question: ‘if you knew the world would end in a couple of hours would you tell anyone’?, the lack of hats in Wyoming, the motion to send Molly a (nearly free) Wakefield Doctrine hat (for her damn head) was appuyée et adoptée.
In other words, a typical Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive!1
In this here week here ( that seemed to have started without me), we can look forward to:
- more about scotts than you ever really thought you needed to know
- including, but not limited to the question ‘why do they always have to take it just a little too far?’
- a wrap up to last week’s roger-say-what? to include the return of a feature to these pages that everyone loved (last year)
- ‘Tag-a-roger Day’ actually last year this was manifested as, find a clark day and tag a scott day,2 but what the hell (and besides, rogers move way, slower than do scotts and they have none of the imagination of a clark )
- practical applications of the Wakefield Doctrine
- Video Friday (FOTD Alex is threatening to appear as a guest on Friday’s show….stay tuned)
1) typical, very odd…totally fun
2) couldn’t find the Post of ‘tag a scott day’ but screw it, they just like to hear their name called…here’s Post where we actually ‘talk’ to a couple a scotts… in fact we should re-assign today’s music vid to them whats scottian
About clarkscottroger
dit,dit,dit lol…..Ace Attorney or Mr. Beckett’s guy?* I suppose it be a generational thing that distunguishes a reader’s identification with “Godot”. Yet, the story be timeless, no? The message be the same, yes? Timeless, no doubt about it. Kinda like the Doctrine.
*Referring to lead pic, yo.
P.S. Speaking of Saturday Night Drive……maybe we should have a “Be a clark Day, Be a scott Day, or Be a roger Day. It would be a given that “whoever” you choose, it cannot be your predominant “worldview”(clark, scott, roger). It must be one of the other two aspects of our selves.
Being a clark and working the retail circuit, I could be relatively comfortable being a roger for the day. (now that’s all day.) Damn. Could I really handle that? Could I walk among the rogers and pass as a roger for an entire day? Could I resist my clarklike tendencies long enough to be able to do that? I am thinking yes. The more difficult for me would be trying to “pass” as a scott all day. Now that would be exhausting for any clark. Huh….
hey roger!! progenitor dude! would you care to enlighten-ify our Newer Readers as to the way-understated, incredibly rich-in-nuance-expression that DS#1 has thrown out there….. ‘dit…dit…dit’
(damn, I loves a good rogerian expression!)
Known as ” ellipses” in the real world, and one of my favorite devices in punctuation; kind of like tapping your brakes before you roll through a stop sign…designates a slowing down as opposed to a dead stop.
And if you had to vocalize an ellipsis, you would say…dit…dit…dit….
what the hell is ‘…dit….dit…dit’? how about ‘…. ‘scotts…scotts…scotts’
How the hell can I harness (as a scott) my clark-like tendencies which, btw, happen to be my second strongest of the remaining two (clark and roger)? I’ve been trying and I just can’t get ‘clark’ to come out. Maybe it’s the ‘other world, string-theory, time-line’ deals that encompass the mind of a clark. We scotts are all about the here and now. Not only that, but we’re petrified (yes, it can happen to a scott in this particular case) of getting stuck in the mind of a clark. Roger? Impossible. Unless given an extremely strong sedative.
Two (2) Comments:
@ the roger, yeah totally love the punctuation thing, but the thing about rogerian expressions is that they have a sub-text, to me the really crazy thing is that the responsibility of ‘understanding’ (these expressions) are totally left to the listener. It is almost as if the roger (creating the rogerian expression) has dispelled his/her responsibility merely by the act of uttering the expression. What the world does with it does not seem to matter(to the roger).
@AKH: she there….don’t you worry about that…it is one of the beauty parts of the Doctrine in that it allows people to self-improve themselves without having to give up most of the things that they are used to and/or enjoy doing… you do not have to leave behind what you are (at least what you think you are) in order to take advantage of the Doctrine… the thing about self-improvement Doctrine Style is that it results in an enhancement of what we are, not a replacement.
As to your difficulty in ‘getting your clark to come out’… why are you sounding surprised? Try and get any clark to do something, just because you want them to…lol as if Your clarklike aspect is there, a part of you, but being a clark, you need to find a way to communicate, to talk to to engage…get to know her…then and only then will (she) let you borrow her clothing and worldview*
* about the clothing…don’t be too quick to laugh and remember other than the rogers lining up outside you door, there are a bunch of scotts and clarks to play with
The problem AKH is having is the same reason that ‘Be A Clark Day’ or ‘Be A Roger Day’ is all a bullshit notion. We scottians just don’t see the need to to devolve…(<—ellipses are NOT rogerian- they are scottian hammers) even for just a second.
… (<— scottian reminder that we are still lurking around with something to add) Saturday night- someone asked if Life Of Brian would still be funny today. Here's your damn answer:
The Sermon on the Mount http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg2GVWHGKY
If you don't think that shit is hilarious, you got a major problem.
First things first (hammer, hammer, hammer) Brad’s opening notes. Was I the only one hearing Stevie’s Superstitious?
Al! It was me on Saturday night. I see you got my blurb on your FB to come on over here. Damn this Doctrine is no bullshit.
…yes, yes you were… lol
Alex, dude, totally disagree with (your) interpretation of ‘…dit…dit…dit…’ (my experience) with the scottian appreciation of tools is simply that, to a scott everything is a hammer… lol but what self-respecting scott is gonna employ a hammer using lower case letters …’surrounded’ by ellipiseses*
* ellipsis aka ‘the gentle punctuation’…lol
Clark, I have to disagree here. In my world, the ellipsis is indeed a scottian hammer. Not only do I, and other great writers, employ the ellipsis as a sudden break in the the pace—a storm-trooper in punctuation— but the tool is handy for abrupt right turns, leading the reader into a dark vat of fuckery.
But so are the buzzsaw dashes- actually, more like surgical saws. And the stop sign fragmented sentences. Are dashes and fragments rogerian as well? Do they not soften the blow? I think not.
Let’s not forget the power of one sentence paragraphs.
The world is not a bubble bath where we can hide and wallow in our muted whimpers over a squashed kitten we saw up I-75 as we drove home from work…unless of course you are a roger. Then you will soak in those suds…blaming the world because you had one too many stop signs and arrived too late to save the kitten.
No…the world has balls, and so does the ellipsis. In fact, the ellipsis has THREE balls! Does it get more scottian than that?
I’ll give the rogers passive voice. I mean, it fits- considering you try to hide the action taken on the object when you write passively.
I am here to stake a claim on the ellipsis as scottian domain!
Speaking of staking a claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0R3OjMcOqg
…prevailing thought is that Kevin Smith is a roger…. ( oh, I’m sorry! I meant) ‘testicle, testicle, testicle’
I am inclined to go with this view, keeping in mind that while we are (pre)dominately one of the three personality types, the other two remain dans un état d’attente
there has been commentary in these pages regarding the ‘natural’ writing style of clarks, scotts and rogers. the most readily identifiable is the roger, at least to the un-tutored eyes of us reglar folk around here and such…there is a ’rounded-ness’ to the voice…let me cite one of the Progenitor roger’s first efforts here at the Doctrine:
Technical competence notwithstanding, the mark of the writer’s personality type is un-mistakeable! Spot that roger a mile away, so accessible and so comforting, the slow death of the herd, one might say.
HEY HEY HEY
(s-i- g-h-) Yeah, when a roger is not overly verbose (is that even possible. lol) a marvelous thing occurs while reading his/her words – soothing escape. Not to say terror and fear is not among the feelings while reading the words of a roger, but the overall effect irregardless, is, how shall I say, disarming?
P.S. Thank you Mr. C. for reminding everyone of “the power of one sentence paragraphs.” Write on!