clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 68 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 68

come on now, sorry folks but it is time to move along, time to go home…time to go on

October 7, 2010 By

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

Show of hands, who out there visited the Doctrine the first time in the last week or so? That many?

Well, if you visited here and saw the dvd of Bella and stayed to read the Doctrine, I suspect there may be questions. And as for questions, (those) we do very well here. Answers, not so much. But we try.  And we are aided by the Wakefield Doctrine, which if you read and consider it’s basic premise, the Wakefield Doctrine provides a resource  (of answers) that impresses even me. And god knows, clarks are difficult to impress.

In any event, we thank DownSpring Phyllis for sharing her DVD of Bella with us. There is a ‘human element’ to the rogers among us that seems to lend a certain ‘accessibilty’ or, (if I may attempt at a rogerian expression) rogers have a certain ‘congenital warmth’  in how they relate to others that is un-mistakeable. This is a characteristic not shared by clarks, or scotts for that matter. Although, when it comes to communicating with the others, our scottian friends make up in volume what they lack in warmth and sensitivity. ….oh, oh…do I hear a Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day off in the distance?   ( … om madre de dios, que es otro examen sorpresa, y no he estudiado!… ).
So, here is the Lesson of the Day. If clarks, scotts and rogers were at an athletic event and were waving pennants and cheering their team, what would it look like?

clarks: (2 possibilities):  A) a bunch of rogers with $5.00 bills sticking out of their pockets would wave a “Go! clarks” pennant 3 times, look around, start talking to their other rogers and forget they have anything in their hands and “go clarks” end up under the bleachers…to be found later by a clark, who would gather them up quickly so that no one would see them and get embarrassed; B) among the rogerian banners and pennants being waved from the full bleachers, in the upper left corner there is one pennant that says “go clarks….”

scotts: they don’t need pennants, or if there is someone near with artistic skills, the scotts will have them (probably a clark) write words on their faces and chests in body paint. Mostly, “Kill”, and “Go Team! (KILL)” but for the most part the scottian element at the game will be happy shouting, “KILL (other team name here)” or “Get in the Hole”!!! or ” eee haaa” or similar ‘inchoate-high-volume-noise-meant-to-designate-a-perceived-freedom-to-act-in-any-manner-that-occurs-to-the-scott-in-question’ ( … aiiyee, Miguel! esta palabra, ‘incipiente’ ¿Qué quiere decir?… ).  Guess it is kinda hard to put into words, but then again, they are scotts…

rogers: you know that  ‘wave’ thing that stadium goers do? Stand up and sit down in sequence?…rogers!   And the thing where the crowd holds up black or white cards that, when seen from afar (there is a hint right there) the whole half of the stadium appears to be spelling out the Pythagorean theory complete with proof and citations …rogers!   Hell, for that matter, every marching band in the western world… you know, the ones who insist on doing an arrangement of “I Feel Good” (James Brown) complete with choreography and solos by the horn sections and everyone, including the overweight tuba-playing guys, doing the splits at the end?…rogers!  Real simple concept here, if it is complicated to the point that you lose track of the original reason for doing the thing and requires a level of coordination that would make a school of albacore blush in shame, then you are talking about rogers…

So, there you have it! In time for the football season, you now know how to identify clarks, scotts and rogers at the (high school/college) football games.  (… yes? Britney? you have a question?  the female clarks, scotts and rogers?  Why of course they are there!! The Wakefield Doctrine is, after all, gender neutral!  Let’s take the easy ones first…. {very funny Jimmy, besides the scottian girls…} the cheerleaders.  Not counting the male cheerleaders, who are rogers to a “man”. The girl cheerleaders will have the rogerian females on the ground-level of those formation things. Can’t afford to have anyone lose their focus and wander off, the rest are little scottian girls being thrown into the air by clarklike females (with the extra sparkle-things on their showlaces and their hair a little weird).

I am sure there will be questions…that is why we have a Comments section right below here.  Go ahead. Are those exchange students finished writing yet?

Mr. B? Something to wake these students up! They all have gym class next!

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

(oh man, you are so going to hell)…Ahem! When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” Jesus in John 6:12

September 28, 2010 By

Who am I to disagree with a major religious icon?  Recycling is our duty as passengers or as the crew of Spaceship Earth?! (…hey I wanna be Spock!!….) (…hell no, you always get to be Spock…give someone else a chance to be Spock  )…(Kirk  he is such a roger!! )….(Hey! wait a minute! the whole damn cast of characters in the first Star Trek…frickin rogers! nearly every one of them!  damn, how did we not notice that before!!!)

(Ahem!!)  Trying to recycle a Post here, people. Don’t get off on a clarklike tangent as to who was the clark or the scott or the roger in Star Trek…. (now that you mention it, even Spock is clearly a roger what with that engineer thing…yes I know that rogers are the emotional ones, but we are talking predominance here, people!)

So, before we do our ecological duty ( …Hey Meester Jimmee principal Clark, ha dicho deber … ) and recycle a Post. Does anyone here know why rogers come up with rogerian expressions?  To be fair, let me re-phrase that:  what aspect of the rogerian experience acccounts for the totally indicative/characteristic rogerian expression? (Don’t forget, there is a Page on rogers that has a whole bunch of these statements. Go and read them.)

Now, back to our regular Post which is a repeat but it does have Robin Trower as the guest musician.  Nearly Free hat (for your damn head) for the Reader who correctly identifies Mr. Trowers’ type.

 

(Well, oh kay… interesting note to start a Post on… but stranger things have happened in and about the Wakefield Doctrine)

(…”this just in”…’clark…the seventies…were…thirty…plus…years ago’…stop…’please, stop’…)

Hey Reader! Yeah you!
Do you believe that your (personal) history defines and (pre)determines your future or what? Is there such a thing as the momentum of habit. (The ‘momentum of habit’  is the notion that what we are is simply a more elaborate form of what we have always been.) (Cheery thought, no?)

Well? Do you think it does?  (Don’t you dare touch that “Back” button.)
(in a fairly creepy, sudden shift to a calm tone…) Do me a favor,

…Look back on your life. Try and recollect the things you have done, the places you have lived, the people you have known, since as far back as you can.
Now, erase the names of the people, delete the addresses of the locations and take off the labels of the things you have done (job title, education, religious designations). You can still remember your life, can’t you?
Even with names and labels removed/deleted/eliminated, you know that you have been alive, with a life that is yours and yours alone. You know, even without the names, you lived in one place (or many different places), you knew some people (or a lot of people) and you spent your waking time doing this (or doing that).
Your ‘life story’ runs from the first (and often sketchy) times you remember as a child through and right up to now.

Pretty goddamn ‘straight’ line isn’t it?
(Come on roger, stop protesting. You know what I mean. You are capable of this.)
Look at your life in terms of how many different interests and activities and ways of investing your time is evidenced. How different was your life when you were 7 years old compared to when you were 17 years old? (…or 27 or 77…)
(Yeah, yeah scott, I get the   “I gots the girlfriends/boyfriends thing”    Does not matter. Lose the names, and they (still) are people you shared yourself and your time with, no different than a best friend in second grade or a spouse in middle age or the person in the bed next to yours in the nursing home.)
What I am trying to get across here is that the important thing  is not the names of the people, places and activities that comprise(s) your life.
Rather, I am asking you to consider the question, what did they (seem) to add to your life, why did you give them your time!?

I want the Reader to consider their lives without the qualification/rationalization/justification that we all impose when we reflect on our lives.

… ‘he was a great friend, even though he was an asshole’… ‘I really liked spending time with her, but I had to because she was family’ … “of course we are happy together! We have beautiful children and a nice home’… ‘I know this is a boring job, but I will stick with it, because otherwise, what will I do?…’maybe I can still pray and maybe its not too late for me…”who will take care of me if I get sick?’…

(These little quotes barely  hint at the myriad of ways that we employ to make the fact that what constitutes ‘our lives’, the essential nature and character, if you will,  is the same today(as you read this blog) as it was on your very first day at school.)

So?
So what, what is wrong with that, at least I have a life that I can look at and say, ‘hey I’m not doing so bad’!

(You are correct, scott… roger?, you can come back in the room, we have stopped talking about life as if it were totally unpredictable and un-certain. We won’t talk about interchangeability any more.)

Well, that was fun, wasn’t it?  (Yes, I am seriously getting ready to close out this Post for today.) (No, I actually don’t have a more satisfying denouement for today’s Post)

(writer leaves, house lights stay off…)

Alright, alright…

If pressed, I would have to say the point of this (Post)  is that our essential natures (clarks, scotts and rogers) will determine how our lives are experienced and will force a consistency throughout the years (of our lives).
Having said that, I will remind everyone that the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated (yeah! he said predicated, he must be back from wherever…) on the idea that we all have the full range of potential, we are all (potentially) clarks and scotts and rogers.
And despite how this Post reads, we always have the potential to feel, act, or think in the manner of the other two personality types. In fact, that really is the purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

Treaty of Tordesillas, and a side of Fries?, damn thats good eatin!

September 12, 2010 By

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). Here you can find: 

  1. fun
  2. constructive and useful insights
  3. information that will help you change your life for the better
  4. a secret club that has it very own branded line of clothing
  5. a system of personality that will allow you and your friend to feel totally superior to, like, everyone else
  6. the answer to your worst nightmare
  7. the 411 on Pope Alexander VI
  8. fun
  9. did we mention that Pope Alexander VI was really a Borgia? (and such a roger!)
  10. …and fun

 So, what’s with the Pope and his Treaty of Torteas? (you mean the Borgias? the cool, scheme-to-takeover-the-world, even though at that time the world was about the size of “Michigan’; family of amped-up rogers?) Yes, we mean that Pope and that Treaty. The reason we need to bring in the papacy on this is that we are starting to get people sending in photos of the Wakefield Doctrine hat (on assorted damn heads). This is a good thing, and if we believe in anything, we believe in taking what is ours. Go back a couple of days in the Posts, you will see that we (have decided) that the Wakefield Doctrine is claiming rights to the whole world.  (You rogers out there?, sitting there smoking a pipe or crocheting the pictorial history of your family into the 100 square yard quilt that you plan to bring to the next family reunion, to you rogers we say, “yeah, well we have a Pope backing our move! A Pope who is not only in the history books, but was the head of a global religion, if that were not enough credentials for you people, this Pope’s real last name was Borgia“.  (boo ya!)  But don’t believe me, here is a reference from Wikipedia that is the basis of our claim:

 

The first conquests were made by the Spanish and the Portuguese. In the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, ratified by the Pope, these two kingdoms divided the entire non-European world between themselves, with a line drawn through South America. Based on this Treaty, and the claims by Spanish explorer Vasco Núñez de Balboa to all lands touching the Pacific Ocean.(…think of Pope Alexander VI here as the Ray Kroc of the ‘land grant’ biz)

So to get all simplified and scottian about this thing, just send us a photo of you and your Wakefield Doctrine hat (on your damn head) in front of a recognizable landmark, geographical feature, local shopping mall, whatever, and we will give you ownership of that there place there (in your photo). 

Mel! dude! this “Michigan”? all yours buddy… Joanne? District of Columbia? yours if you want it!  Jason? the West Coast has not, I repeat, not been claimed yet! Yours for a photo…Ronin! send us the photo and “ole Man River” he be yours, eh? And from the looks of the photos leading this Post, our own DS#1 is down in FLA sayin, ” You want at that  Fountain of Youth, binyons? ya gotta talk to me!”  (Hey, anyone looking to stock up on elderly Canadians…dial DS1-555-1212.)
Come on Progenitors, DownSprings and/or Readers, is there a part of the world, that you been hankerin for?  Maybe as small as your own neighborhood or perhaps something in a medium-sized continent. The Wakefield Doctrine can make it yours by Right of Hat.

Hey, you don’t have to spell your name de Gama or Cortez to get in on this sweet deal! Send us a photo of your hat and whatever is behind it is yours.*

Let’s get this thing goin!

Mr. B?

(Cortez, yo think you missed some… hey if the level of cultural strength is evidenced by this songs’ lyrics, how hard can it be to claim your territory by Right of Hat?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN0UZ1EM-Jk

*indigenous peoples, chattel, trademarks and other rights may be subject to some….negotiations…the Wakefield Doctrine guarantees all rights to those people, places and things possessing of and by virtue of common law interpretation as being clarklike, scottian and/or rogerian.  Hey, all Cortez had was a letter from the Pope in a language the locals couldn’t read…and a bunch of guys on horses with coffee grinders on their damn heads!

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

Class? it’s Saturday!! no frickin way…what, did Nixon get elected*?

September 11, 2010 By

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). Aka the place you can come to:

  • read about yourself and all your friends and family
  • learn about the three personality types that account for everyone you know!
  • learn about yourself, why your best friend acts one way with some people and totally different with others
  • laugh as you read about the ways that you can recognise the other two personality types
  • say (nearly outloud) AHA! that’s why she seems like a stranger when so and so comes around
  • cringe as you see how your own type can act (and not realise how they look)
  • have fun with your best friend/partner/spouse as you accept the fact that all three types share all traits
  • simply discover the Doctrine and read and learn and laugh and cry and…..buy a hat (for your damn head)

Before we get into the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day, a note about our subtitles. We used to use a lot of odd punctuation and stuff so that it read more like a subtitle from the old days, like a Charles Dickens novel…SHIVERING HEIGHTS (or ‘how Pip discovers girls and Miss Haversham discovers Pip’) or something like that. But we have been advised by the Wakefield Doctrine Mistress of SEO,  Miz Becca to lose the elipseseses, ’cause the google be hatin it. We have total confidence in our Miz Becca and have ceased and desisteded on the funny punctuation. Unfortunately, it makes our jokey subtitle a little vague(r). Today’s case in point: * the juxtapositionof  ‘class on a Saturday’ and Richard M Nixon is a reference to presidential race in 1960, sort of. (Kennedy versus Nixon!!! The battle of the Century…come see the Cow-licked Catholic go nose to nose with the Battlin Quaker!! mafia money takes on white-bread paranoia…battle royale!!! Winner gets to send wife on an all expense-paid cruise of the Greek Isles courtesy of Onassis Tours)

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that, as kids in grade school at the time, our teachers tried to convince us kids that we should get out parents to vote the ‘right’ way. Whatever the hell they thought that meant. In my case, as a product of catholic schools (two or three Posts on that alone), it meant I had to know why Nixon should not get elected. The answer? Because he would have changed the laws and made us go to school on Saturdays! 

Sorry, off track there. Lesson of the Day? ( …why thank you! Miguel? is it? one of our autonomous exchange students?  Very good….That will be enough of that Jimmy! I think you should try to be more like Miguel and less like those rapper musicians and maybe you will get accepted to something a little more prestigous than our local Community College of River Isle…)

Today’s Lesson is courtsey of Ms. AKH and her new little friend CY. (Ms. AKH writes):

…”just got  a message from my friend CY. said she’s still reading and is
beginning to understand much more, but is still a little bit shy about
commenting. I’m sure with a little bit of gentle prodding we’ll hear
from her. She wanted to know whether or not being shy was part of being
a clark!”

Excellent question! And quite germane (…ger–main, Jimmie…I said ger–main…now you have the exchange students all nervous…please stop that and try and get along…)

Let’s start with a quick reference to the Page in the Doctrine devoted to clarks, to make things easiest I will give you a link. Go and read and then come back, the link is here. (And to be complete and sure of this, go here and take a look at the photos of actual clarks). Seeing how you are all clicking out of the Post on these field trips, when you are done with the clark Page,  go over to Jason’s site and leave a Comment, tell him we miss the Quotes of the Week and we  are waiting for the photo of his hat (on his damn head) go here.

Done reading? scott! go back and finish reading…ok, everyone on the same Page?

Before we start let’s all thank CY and Ms AKH for providing us with a starting point. (insert applause noise here) Anyway they are both right!

It is a basic premise here at the Doctrine that it is the individual who decides which of the three they are. Most of us (Progenitors and DownSprings) know the Doctrine well-enough to call it right each time, but we leave it to each of us to decide. This not only relieves the ‘pressure to understand’ but it inevitably validates the Wakefield Doctrine. A roger can call themselves a roger all day long, but eventually they will do something rogerian…a clark can work themselves up and get all aggressive, but sooner or later they will feel their heads swell up and their faces fall and realise that they just don’t have the stomach for still bleeding, freshly-killed roger…and scotts…for some unknown reason, in this culture at any rate, the female scotts mis-intreprete the whole predator-totally-in-the-here-and-now, hyper sexual characteristics and a lot of them get all self-conscious about it…then they get hungry… scotts tend to find their home the quickest of the three.

There! I hope this explains the Wakefield Doctrine to all to the new Readers. CY?, we are all confident that you will be an appreciated addition to the Wakefield Doctrine blog. We look forward to any Comments you choose to make and as we say around the Teachers’ Lounge,  “Hurry the fuck up!”

“Museek?” (…Why yes Mr Miguel it is time for that…) 

(that was for CY…for AKH we have:)

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

let’s join this Post, already in progress

September 10, 2010 By

( …I don’t know…well, don’t look at me…I’m not looking at you…yes you are…you are me, so how the hell can I be looking at you…huh? tell me that… )

Sea Monkeys

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and at present the scene of intro/retro/serio-comic/limited -pectations. Or something like that. You have caught us, and by “us” we mean the entity who is writing these (particular) words, which is not the exact same thing as the entity who is writing these Posts in general and totally not to mean the person writing (or attempting to write) the whole current Wakefield Doctrine blog. (Don’t get me started on the role of influences and/or implied interactions with both known and unknown people).

In the ‘early days’ of this blog, (ha, frickin ha,  “early days”, don’t make me laugh… this frickin thing has been around all of a total of 12 or 13 months, not exactly ready for the Smithsonian, yo). And yes, I am using the term ‘frickin’ a lot, and yes I am using it as a verbal placeholder for the word ‘fuck’, and no I don’t believe that this constitutes a less than honest use of language, only fuckin glenn is so self-limiting as to think that there is no such thing as over-using an invective, or any word for that matter. (And besides, with all the work AKH and DS#1 are doing to try and get the Doctrine more Readers and in general get us more ‘mainstream, they would both be all over me for getting us classified “Adult Content” or “Pretentious and Gratuitous Use of Vulagarity” or “Why Bother?” by the google search engine.

Well, Mr. Post Writer, now that you have successfully cleared the room of any new Readers, Visitors or anyone other than the regulars who are used to your specialbrand of meandering, overly self-absorbed Post writing that fortunately shows up on an unpredictable, but mercifully rare occasion,  What it is now? 
Before we get into trying to write a Post, one of my favorite rogerian expressions, just passed us by. The source of this rogerian expression, I swear I did not make up. There was a Comment written to a real estate blog from a person claiming to be a successful broker; this writer concluded his explanation of the personality of the average agent as:  “…and in my opinion and experience, I have found most agents to be much too self-absorbent”. Really. He actually wrote those words. (New Readers? If the concept of a rogerian expression is confusing, then clearly you have not done even the most basic of reading about the Doctrine. All the information is here, in these pages. What say you just stop here and go back and read each of the pages on clarks and scotts and rogers. It is all listed in the Table of Contents. There you go, go read quietly and come back when you have a little better grasp of this thing of ours.)

Damn, lost my train of thought. lol (yeah I know that is an outdated expression, that nobody uses anymore. Well,  fuck you.)

All of this (Post) is the result of letting myself get distracted by the ‘numbers’. (These would be the numbers of Visits and/or Readers…roger). And even though all of us know that it is not about the popularity of this thing, every now and then and on some periodic basis (fuck you , glenn) we get caught up in the “why bother? mood.  We get stuck thinking, no one makes Comments, no one seems to be interested, blah, blah, self-indulgent, blah.
But then…there is this Post. Clearly we have not given up yet. (For regular Readers,you can skip ahead at least two paragraphs, you know what I am going to say…”but there are the DownSprings”….”there are the Friends of the Doctrine”…”and the fun we have”…blah…more blah…screw it. Hey new Readers!…make a Comment and buy a hat.)

Thats right, I said buy a hat (for your damn head)!  (AH HA!!  the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day!!)

It is within the Wakefield Doctrine, the fact  that clarks maintain that to give and share with others is the necessary price to pay to be allowed the modicum of the appearance of the hint of being accepted by the rogers (mostly) and the scotts of the world. By definition, it is the clarks who will give without asking (directly) for anything in return. Unfortunately (for the clarks), the rest of the world will assign to these gifts the value implied by their being freely given. Zero Cost = Zero Value.  So to apply the Wakefield Doctrine to itself, (lol) we will be allowing people to purchase genuine (accept no substitutes, don’t be fooled by cheap, un-authorized imitations) Wakefield Doctrine hats (for your damn heads) for a low, low…hey if you have to ask…price of $19.51 per hat.

Come on down. Place your orders. Buy soon and buy often. Hey! don’t forget, Christmas is just around the corner. Someday you will say to yourself, “oye, for me I could have bought a hat for such a low price!”.

yo B get us out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu3put3QmYk

Dude anything other than scott-bait?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwo9lC6loY

Hey, I’ll take predictable! lol

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »