Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
so …these early-weekday Posts seem to be more and more difficult to write. Naturally, I immediately go to the Question of why? [Allow me to interrupt myself. clarks ask why, scotts ask what and rogers ask how, right?… well, actually it goes a little deeper than that, but I need to complete this here Post here.]
where were we? the Question is, ‘is it true that these Posts have been more difficult to write’ [Wait just a damn minute!! Did you see what I just said? wtf??! hey, if we didn’t all ready have a Wakefield Doctrine which includes three worldviews, i.e. reality of the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) and the Herd (rogers), I could have re-discovered clarks with that single, awkward (and incomplete) sentence there! “is it true that these Posts are more difficult to write”?!? Holy shit!! what kind of person, in a sincere effort to discover some inner truth, proceeds by way of:
- starts with the pluperfect conjective form of a question and proceeds to stick about six layers of qualifications and conditions on top of it
- makes it sounds like a question, but doesn’t given the slightest hint who the question is being addressed to
- and…and! is this even a question!!??! frickin clarks! you know the worst thing about clarks? the persistence in our attempts to secure validation from the world that we imagine we know is around us! damn! if I had a nickel for every time I posed a secret question about what I thought I should be doing, I’d be a millionaire! you know what I mean about secret questions…. like the characteristic smile of the clark: press the lips together, aim it at the people you want to believe are being friendly and hope for the best
alright….sorry for the rant. (not really, but it sounds good to say). and since were on the subject of apologies!!! here:
- clarks apologize too sincerely
- scotts…. well, come on seriously! who can stay mad at a scott…. they roll over, offer their soft under-belly let you stand over them for a symbolic second and then its “come on!! come one!! lets chase something!!!”
- rogers… don’t even get me started, rogers apologize the way a good hooker has sex, totally satisfying and convincingly …until you get the bill
lol
hey that was fun!! no, there is no underlying rationale to today’s Post ‘just a havin fun’ as Johnny Winter sang*…oh it must have been 40 damn years ago!
Hey!! Experienced Doctrine Readers!! you guys know this shit… why doncha go ahead and finish this Post for us (in the Comments, of course), I’ll even leave you some spare words (left over from the beginning Part iv)
: a) am I confused as to my audience and therefore conflicted in what to say? or 2) am I just at an ebb in the cycle that has existed since the very first Post was written? or c) am I just wandering, rhetorically speaking, in today’s Post, hoping to stumble upon an idea, a theme, a thought ….a hook for today Post?
the Answer is:
* yeah, down here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbwHlU_oDMQ
About clarkscottroger
You have a problem and you wanna know what it is. I will now tell you and make it very clear, so that you no longer have any concerns. Your problem is very simple: it is this, It is caused by the changes due to DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME having taken place.
HAVE NO MORE FEAR. eventually it will go away.
fondly , woof
Jny
thank you for that, I smiled (actually), specially at your sign-off
you guys is fun
you may think we are fun but we are your “clarkies”
sort of like moonies only chunkier
Jean
funny you should use that term (‘clarkies’) it is a near-primary characteristic of the scottian personality to prefer the diminutive form of (people’s) names
I was about to pose the question: can anyone tell us why this is…. then I remembered how astute you Readers is these days and thought, ‘clark they know already!’
no only do we KNOW, we CARE !!! xoxox jeh bow wow wow!
If I hadn’t already discovered and identified myself as a Clark, this sentence would totally have done it for me:
” What kind of a person…: starts with the pluperfect conjective form of a question and proceeds to stick about six layers of qualifications and conditions on top of it.”
Katia
it’s like music sometimes, you know the feeling that an aspect of something (written) begins to remind you of…
“persistence in our attempts to secure validation from the world that we imagine we know is around us”
THIS!
Aaaaaaaaaand I suspect your answer consists of varying amounts of all three of those reasons.
I’m too stupid to know what ‘pluperfect’ is.
Lizzi
(how surprised was I when I wikipedia’d the word… which is a memory fragment that I attribute to my high school Latin classes and it turns out to almost, kinda meaning what it seems (in a certain light) to imply!!)
plusperfect : supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Why.. That’s what I ask myself each morning when the alarm goes off.. Especially if I’m sure I haven’t slept and hubby swears I snored :-)
Stephanie
ah ha! are you still good with scott as (your) predominant worldview (having a strong secondary clarklike aspect is totally indicated, if so) or maybe clark with a strong secondary scott?
Jean, u alpha commentator you! I so envy the certainty of a scott!!
And Katia’s comment….this Doctrine shit is so….it. There’s an identification I often feel when I read comments by other clarks that somehow makes me feel better. For knowing there really are a lot more people like me! LOL
Hahah! Denise xoxox!!! it’s jean . Proud to be a member of the A Team, like Mr. T !
How could I forget to mention #3?! How right you are. And I would challenge anyone to prove this not to be true.