et tu chewsdae? -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

ok, we’re getting a bit behind, lets get to the mail room!

Sure, we all know that Tuesday is the most clarklike day of the week. But like everything else about our favorite personality theory, it’s the questions we ask that lead to enlightening insights not the lectures we listen to or the text we memorize.

Let us grab a post from the 2011-2013 era (‘the write ever day Period of the Wakefield Doctrine) that addresses this topic

Tuesday at the Wakefield Doctrine (“alright, move along folks nothing to see here…that’s right just move along”)

January 8, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks… lol, the undeniable reality of scotts and the annoying certainty of rogers)Anyone seen a box of words? I am pretty sure I had some put away, under the bed or in the back of the closet, just in case. What’s the deal with the writing style of clarks and the non-use of contractions? We certainly don’t think like that! See? I used ‘don’t’ (as opposed to do not!). Well, the fact remains, I am missing a bunch of words and I really could stand to find them right about now.

Long time Readers know what’s coming next. But… we will let the new Readers enjoy the w…t…..f??! moment that comes with each and every one of these special Posts. Today’s Post is the blog equivalent of what, in the world of jokes and comedy, is referred to as a ‘shaggy dog’ story.¹ An example of such a story is provided in the footnote area. Better go down there right now, if you do not find yourself laughing (at very least chuckling) then you will not be amused when you have dragged yourself to the end of this rambling morass of a Tuesday Post. Serially. Better go there…now!

Still with us? Fine. Actually, the process of finding the shaggy dog reference in wikipedia and jamming it into this Post has gone a long way to get me out of the ‘what the hell! there are no words left in my (fill in favorite body-part here). But since you are still reading, it is only fair to give you something to take away, as a reward for your:

loyalty: which is a clarklike trait. notice we did not say it was an admirable quality …we did not!

stubbornness: scotts are stubborn, not for any reason that would produce a benefit, in fact, they should not be thought of as being stubborn for any reason, they just are

close-minded: rogers are the example of how being close-minded can be thought of as a good thing!

Now, rather than do the obvious and leave the above characterizations hanging out there, (like those still photos of scenes from X-rated movies that are used to illustrate the evils of ‘pornography’ btw: the people who use those kinds of photos are either scotts or rogers. And the reason we know this, is that there is a secret pruriency in the use of these photos that is beyond the capability of a clark. Seriously. Someone is standing in front of ‘an audience’, holding forth on the evils of the people who make such obscene movies and to better make their point, they hold up censored photos. Of course, even though the black-bars cover the offending body parts, a normal human being must, in their minds, provide an image of what is missing…otherwise the photo is totally non-meaningfull! And where do theses (mental) images come from? Exactly!)

Loyalty: this is a personal quality very frequently found in clarks, (about which) most people will say, “hey! that’s a really admirable quality!” …except that if you listen very, very closely you might hear them think, “...yeah, what elseare they gonna do?” ( hold your Comments until the end, clarks!)

Stubborness: all of us fortunate enough to have dogs, have played the tug of war game. Yep! your mind is now providing you with the image we are going for: ‘human hand holding pull-toy in the air, doggie suspended from the lower end of said toy…tail wagging the entire time’ scotts!

Close-minded (ness): Quick!! what’s 2 + 2? Right! Hey! what is 2 +2?? Still right!!! the best thing about rogers is their constancy …the worst thing about (HEY! 2+2…what’s the answer?!?) is their consistency! It is often said in these pages, the reason we have civilization is rogers…. and the reason we had the (Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the ban in the 1960s on girls wearing slacks in high school, the existance of Ann Landers, the Electoral College, Prohibtion, the War of the Roses and the discovery of radium)?… rogers!

Feel free to ask us Questions! Better yet, mark tomorrow Wednesday 4:00 blogtalkradio the Wakefield Doctrine 30 Minute Radio Hour!

1) In its original sense, a shaggy dog story is an extremely long-winded tale featuring extensive narration of typically irrelevant incidents, usually resulting in a pointless or absurd punchline based on a play on words in cliché form. These stories are a special case of yarns, coming from the long tradition of campfire yarns. Shaggy dog stories play upon the audience’s preconceptions of the art of joke telling. The audience listens to the story with certain expectations, which are either simply not met or met in some entirely unexpected manner. A lengthy shaggy dog story derives its humour from the fact that the joke-teller held the attention of the listeners for a long time (such jokes can take five minutes or more to tell) for no reason at all, as the story ends with a meaningless anticlimax. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story )

What some sources choose to believe is the archetypical shaggy dog story:

“A boy owned a dog that was uncommonly shaggy. Many people remarked upon its considerable shagginess. When the boy learned that there are contests for shaggy dogs, he entered his dog. The dog won first prize for shagginess in both the local and the regional competitions. The boy entered the dog in ever-larger contests, until finally he entered it in the world championship for shaggy dogs. When the judges had inspected all of the competing dogs, they remarked about the boy’s dog: “He’s not that shaggy.”