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

Hey! Blast from the Past… without any need to copy paste!*

Wait just a darn minute!! There was one! (A post with the key phrase has been found. Written April of 2011. Lets put it down there at the bottom so as to allow a visitor to believe there is a living person behind the tall, green curtain.)

Semi-symmetry (or, would that be trimmtry)

clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb**

clarks are heartless, scotts are cruel and rogers are mean***

What, about the triplets above, is helpful to the new Reader?

First, it serves as a reminder of the Everything Rule. Everyone does everything at one time or another. Even to the extent of the impression they project to those around them.

Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clark, scotts and rogers )

You shoulda called in last night!¹
We had a very interesting and, at times provocative discussion with RCoyne, DownSprings glenn and DS#1 on line and live!

The (discussion) began with the roger being asked why he persisted in efforts to get a collaborative project started over at his blog,  the Scatter Muffin, in the latest  Post.  He did not have a particularly good explanation, which, only naturally, caused the question to be asked by glenn and me, “Why the hell did you ignore both of our Comments’? This prompted a fairly technical discussion of the nature and practical (and theoretical) application of  rogerian expressions.  Both DownSpring glenn and I were interested in finding out if rogers used rogerian expressions as a form of aggressive strategy. RCoyne, he be sayin, “No!”

The Topic (of the Show) then shifted to finding out if  RCoyne knew the ‘meaning’ of the vacuum cleaner that formed the focus of his recent dream/Post topic. glenn attempted the gestalt strategy of asking him to speak for the appliance,  ‘zo now, mine little chicken and dumplings, I vant you to be zee vacuum cleaner!’
But to no avail. (Like DS#1 before him), our Progenitor went into extreme oversight-mode and mum was the damn word. Now at about this point in the Show, DS#1 joined the fray and, as is true of her kind (clarklike female), she instantly assimilated both the content and the context of the conversation. Of course, before you could consider one answer,  the topic moved on to the question, ‘What is the Achilles Hell of  clark/scotts/rogers‘. ( Now, we wuz treadin terra incognita, y’all)

The discussion became even more technical and before you could say ‘delusional-compensatory life-coping construct’,  the Progenitor roger and both DownSprings were totally gangin up on yours truly.

Keep in mind, these are the people at and around the Wakefield Doctrine back when it was still the theory of clarks and scotts and rogers, hell even before that. But they could give as good as they could take, even when the notion of a single descriptor ( of clarks, scotts and rogers) was put into the conversation. I mentioned, in passing a mere rhetorical filigree, if you will, that it would be useful to understand just why it was true that:

• clarks are crazy
• scotts are stupid
• rogers are dumb

Since Ms. AKH was unable to get in on the fun, lets ask her the question: is the above assignment of descriptions valid, or what? glenn made the excellent (and obvious) point that as descriptive terms go, these are considered by most to be “..really, quite pejorative. Most people will react to the connotations that are inextricably attached to these words, their use is fairly problematic“²

 

1) the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Live call-in show, nothing less than the coolest concept in the otherwise lame-intensive world of blogs, blog writing and blog readers

2) yeah I understand your reaction, you are right, that is the same DownSpring glenn who, like a profane  Eskimo, has 73 different words for Fuck, but pretty much likes to just use the word ‘Fuck’.

*not sure if we wrote specifically to the topic

** interestingly enough, rogers do not find this one at all amusing (yeah, scotts and clarks think it’s funny

*** ditto¹

1) You know, you’re absolutely right. We didn’t address the second triplet. Or, for that matter, how the Everything Rule applies.

Briefly now:

Everyone has, at one time or another, deliberately tried to hurt another person. Maybe they deserved it, maybe it was fun and maybe one was feeling bad and wanted to feel better. Doesn’t matter. What does matter, how this act/impulse/appetite manifests is determined by the personal reality of the one initiating action; action that, deliberate or not, is clearly inimical to the other.

Now that we think about it² does the act acquire it’s negative connotation from the actor or the object? Interesting. Remind us to re-address this question on a morning we have more time.

2) lol no! we think about the finding…copy and pasting in a RePrint Monday. Really!