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

Still haven’t settled on a title/label/subtitle for this series. (First, Second and Third)

(We have found, mostly through writing RePrint Mondays that a ‘previously on…’ is an enormous help in this type of blogging. Not, as you might think, tho’ in turn, not totally incorrectly, simply put: to remember the narrative that preceded the current post* is sufficient, however, to read the actual text is conducive and, therefore more to the mood/spirit/’yeah! that’s what I was going for’.)

previously on…

Will not go into the full Wakefield Doctrine origin story. It’s: Here. We’re making reference to it today only because this post is reminding us of how unlikely it is to have written more than 2,913 posts and received in excess of 32,000 comments!¹

But that’s not important right now.²

The point that is elbowing it’s way to the topic section of this week’s Memoir post is: there is no way I would have been capable of writing this blog without some serious serendipity.

But, with the idea that today a new Reader might be standing in the upper back of the room (stadium-slant auditorium of course. hey, it’s our fantasy) lets wrap up this week’s train wreck with:

The thing about clarks that is both wonderful and maybe a little sad is that we find that discovering novelty in understanding an otherwise, mostly, incomprehensible world as being fun. Fun in the sense of a five-year-old opens a Christmas present. Promise. Excitement. Satisfaction. All drive the Outsider to smile when encountering either a novel aspect of the world or find ourselves down a path we had not consciously intended to follow. Hence the predilection for quantum story telling (i.e. we forget or willfully neglect the fact that our listeners have not encountered all the facts). And…and! the ease with which we go all neologism on spelling and data and facts. To the point of this paragraph: clarks have a lack of concern about one thing: our commitment to curiosity.

The ‘little sad’ aspect of this, we’ll leave for another Tuesday.

* my dear sweet god! is that the level of entanglement inherent in the literal representation of my writer’s thought process?!?! ba’kha Yeshua** (John 11:35)

** and there it is! the purpose of seemingly random thoughts thrown at an LCD blackboard! to remind ourselfs of a particular stream-of-thought in a section of a river with no name (aka ‘Where we were trying to go with this post’)

1. ok, being raised with proper blogger manners, half of the 32k would be my replies to comments. that still leaves 17k*** of real people. So, lets consider if it’s possible for all 15,000 to be ‘I want the time you stole with that post that made no sense whatever, I want it back!!’ comments. lets do the division. Round up for the math 3,000 posts divided by 16,000 comments ….
2. Airplane! of course.

*** who said that a clark’s propensity for neologisms was limited to words? (malapmath might be the proper term for deliberate incorrect math and stuff. sure let’s go with that)