humor | the Wakefield Doctrine

may the circle be unbroken, by and by, lord, by and by

May 15, 2010 By clarkscottroger

…short Post today…much to do, much to do.

…a spirited discussion is threatening to develop in the Comments section of the last Post. All stemming from the question of (musical) artistry. Pretty simple question, wouldn’t you think? Well, actually we all know how totally subjective a label of ‘good art’ or ‘bad art’ can be, but what is most enjoyable about the exchange is the demonstration of the applicability of the Wakefield Doctrine (…sigghhh…tap, tap, tap…) and how, whether the participants are aware of it or not, they are demonstrating that the underlying concept of the Doctrine is quite valid. (…another longer way of saying this is…), you must forgive the impatience of youth that our Miss Sullivan is evincing in her charmingly…hey! a brown fox just ran through the woods behind my yard (…was it a speedy, russet-hued fox ^^… ). No, seriously! I did just see a fox run by, with something in it’s mouth…the beauty of nature. ( …so a little litera veritas?… )

So, as I was saying, a short Post this am. We will be posting an Interview with (Friend of the Doctrine) Mel sometime next week, ( ask him if he really is a cook or is he a CEO of a large Wall Street outfit who gets his karmic jollies pretending to live in the midwest… ), let’s not be rude, we must be good hosts or we will not get anyone else to consent to ‘come on the Doctrine‘…and you know what that would mean… (more of these painfully patched together, hope no one pays too close attention to the amount of space devoted to trying to establish another ‘voice’ in the form of a high school student…a girl high school student, no less…my god have you stepped back and read this yet?… ) well, yes, yes I do know what you mean.

But what are they going to do? Stop reading? No, no, wait… let me… “as if” (lol). Hey, that was fun, I like assuming another persona ( …err other persona here…you are drifting out of the eccentrically amusing lane and are scraping the side moldings on the guardrails of mental stability…do you read…over… ) No, seriously. I have had some conversation with other ‘people’ at the Doctrine about this, about Janie and them. They (the DownSprings and Prognitor that I speak with) all just nod their heads and make what they think are ‘I’m listening’ noises, until I stop talking. Well I appreciate their input. I don’t know what I would do without their invaluable input and support. Really, I can’t imagine what the Wakefield Doctrine would be without them. (…yayy!! not a single word in italics…I am one impressed construct... ) But I digress and I really have to get out there and do whatever it is I do in real life.

(…the Doctrine lesson…? you did create me to keep your focus…and that ‘real life’ thing? we need to talk… ) yes, of course.

I think the lesson today is what I mentioned earlier about the discussion going on in the Comments in the last two Posts. Ostensibly an argument over who is the better musical performer, Louis Prima or Erika, what I am getting from this exchange is a validation of the notion that we experience the world differently, this notion is the foundation of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). So good work to those who took the time to contribute to this thing.

A little weekend music? some light and not requiring a lot of thought? on the ‘pop’ end of the spectrum?

Nice…not exactly pop music but…what it that? another? (I apologise if this has been used in a previous Post) (but it is not as if any one is going to write in and say something…)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWnBD6n9j74

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: humor, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

oh, oh, one of ‘those’ Posts

May 14, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Yes, this is one of those Posts. Totally driven by a random song heard on the radio.

So, since it is Friday and we have ‘made it’ through a week, let’s just relax and watch some videos and consider the issues confronting the Doctrine, all in a laid back way. (When was the last time you heard that expression)?
I know, let’s do a Post using made up questions from Readers!

Q: What is it about the frenetic energy of the scotts? That Prima guy in the video from yesterday, all over the place, is he for real?
A: Glad you asked (lol). Yes, he is ‘for real’ (“what is this ‘dated idiom’ day?”), setting aside the ‘why’ of the question, this excessive activity is of a twofold nature. One – scotts (and if anyone doubts that Louie Prima is a scott, then get the fuck out of my blog) just have a lot of energy and virtually no (interior subjective) life. This energy comes out in a form that is purely physical. Watch Louie in the vid, he is the star of the show; he is on stage and clearly the center of attention, but it is not enough, (it is never enough). So he waves his hands and arms, does everything/anything to assure himself that everyone is watching. (Not quite accurate, there is not enough established mental life within to justify the idea of ‘assuring himself’.) He can’t help himself. Anyone with a 3-5 year old boy or a puppy will recognise this behavior. Glenn has submitted the tee shirt phrase (…when are they coming out?! I want one now!…) : Scott: I scream therefore I am, which is a great one for his people. But, relating to scottian energy levels you also have the expression: “a scott alone in a room…isn’t”

Q: OK, I can dig that (…!!60’s anachronism Tour bus…now arriving at Gate 69!!) Then how do you explain that second video. Why would someone be so very weird on purpose. Can’t she see everyone laughing?
A: Ah, you mean the clarklike female doing the cover of “If six were nine”? Lol. This ( I would love to be rogerian enough to claim that this choice was consciously deliberate), is a perfect comparison of a clark and a scott. It is also an (equally) perfect illustration of the limitations of a scott. (I assume that Readers have spent enough time in the ‘Pages’ to know the characteristics of clarks, scotts and rogers…)

So let’s talk about these two videos/musicians.
Both are performers. Both are presenting (their) own interpretations of a song, but more to the point, both are performing for an audience. The distinction is made because to perform implies that the performer is aware that others have done what they are doing and they (Louie or Erika) must distinguish their version. (“Make it their own”, as glenn is fond of saying).
But look at both of these performances, side by side.
Louie is only concerned with making sure that the audience pays attention to him. What a scott. Since this is music, the test is: close your eyes…listen. What do you hear? With Louie Prima’s performance, what you hear is mostly the audience…laughing at his antics, and occaisonally applauding. That and a ‘hit all the notes,( sort of), singing’, because as it totally clear, Louis is singing because that is the thing that he does as an excuse to get up in front of the audience. (The audience is applauding in recognition of a song they have heard before). If we are talking ‘artistry in music’, one can only say, “poor Louie, poor, poor Louie”
Now to Erika. The total opposite. She is all about performing a song creatively. She is barely aware of (an) audience…she is totally into her music…from her vantage point (which we all know is in far, far, outer space.) What a clark. (Slight digression: clarklike females have special characteristics that are culturally driven, to wit, the clothing. “Hey Erika, did the Salvation Army thrift truck crash into your house this morning while you were getting dressed? Damn.)
But let’s pay attention to what she seems to be doing.
(At this point our scottian Readers will be at a disadvantage. They tend to know what they like and ‘fuck all that other crap’ serves to deal with other music styles).
Anyway, speaking as a fan of Jimi Hendrix, the things this Erika person is doing is at a (comparable) skill level to Louie’s playing to an audience. The sounds she creates…with some toy amplifier…just incredible.
But to look at these two, side by each. They are perfect examples of their type, no… they are perfect examples of the characteristic expressions of their type.
The scottian performer: in a conventional setting with supporting performers who ‘know their place’, Louie wears the costume appropriate to his milieu, and he has only one concern: to make sure the audience reacts/responds/pays attention to him.
The clarklike performer: small venue (surprise!) with supporting musicians who are clearly all rogers (who probably feel sorry for Erika and are there to provide her with their superior musical support), Erika seems to wearing whatever she bumped into at home, (with some sort of dress to make sure no one thinks she is weird). And her only concern is to perform the music, to create something that is true to the original, but clearly a creative act.

God, I love this Doctrine thing. I mean, seriously, this little discussion about two wildly different musicians in terms of clarks and scotts is a totally impressive testament to the validity and efficacy of the Wakefield DOctrine. Tell me I’m lying…

Ok time for one last question…

Q: How long are you going to try and keep this one-a-day pace up?
A: That was a stupid, self-serving question…try again

Q: Given the musical topic what kind of videos will you have to close, can you discuss them first, before we listen?
A: Yes, yes we can. The first is a really odd choice ( lol, as if…)

(If you did not immediately think of Madeline Kahn…you need to go watch Blazing Saddles again)
(btw this is the song that attached itself to me yesterday afternoon, like one of those little ‘landmine’ shaped stickers you get walking through a field…)

Ok, (I know that you did not sit through the whole thing…)

Anway…running late for work…Steven…take us out…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1HYUyhujl4

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, humor, the Wakefield Doctrine

You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out

May 8, 2010 By clarkscottroger

(…”lets, start a blog…it will be fun….how hard can it be….”)

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a fun, unique and effective way to view the actions and behaviors of those around us….

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a fun, unique and effective way to view the actions and behaviors of those around us….
totally new way to look at and understand the behavior of those around

Hey Studley, United Kingdom!!! Roger (yes, the Progenitor roger) says, “who the fuck are you”

(I told him, no we don’t have the Readers to spare, but he was all, nah fuckem what are they gonna do, make a Comment, as if)

The Wakefield Doctrine is a…theory, (no, its not the Theory of Relativity, now thats a theory!)

(Welcome to my world. Lets get all stream-of-consciousness, litera veritas on your asses…) (…tell me you are not going to another one of these, inside-the-head-of-the-writer Posts…”clark to clark”….it…(stop)…has (stop)…been…(stop)…to death…(err stop ”done” or as our Second Life friends would say *done)

OK, its official. I have just spent 20 minutes surfing on the key words: blog, Post writing, idea generators. Damn, am not sure if I should be good or bad. ( but then, I am a clark so that is as it should be). Unfortunately nothing came out of these sites, which were for the most part, blogs with Posts written about how to get over ‘writer’s block’. (Hey it worked for them). Not sure how I feel about using the term, ‘writer’s block’, seems kind of , I don’t know, presumptous. It is not like I am claiming to be a writer, not in the sense of a real writer.

There! Thats our theme for today’s Post:

How to Know if this Wakefield Doctrine thing is worth bothering with and all…

Alright, its very simple. If you are still reading this thing, then it is worth bothering with…

WHAT?! Thats it? Thats your contribution? That is all you have for anyone who has been considerate/kind/thoughtful/curious/inquisitative enoug to stick with the ‘hey stay with me now, I really will have it together soon’ Post writing? This is the reward?

Hey, look, I’m not fuckin forcing anyone to read this fuckin thing…you try writing a Post a day on your own and no I am not counting our Garrison-fuckin-Keilor wannabe who gets bored enough from time to time and out of nowhere decides that his Post has to be presented to what he assumes (and how the fuck do rogers maintain an assumption of such global proprotions for as long as they do?) that everything will be waiting so he get his little Post sent off without the slightest hint of, ‘gee, the blog is still there, I wonder why that is…)

Alright, that was my periodic, is-he-doing-that-for-effect?, outburst Post. Am tired of this thing.
Hey, there should be some ‘other-generated’ content coming up in the next few days…

The Spelling? The punctuation? THe editing? fuck you…do it yourself.

PS: To try and put some shine on this trainwreck of a Post, lets go to 1974 and listen to a leading rogerian musician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-E6FDf9GkA

* (You put your right foot in,
You put your right foot out;
You put your right foot in,
And you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!)
(‘Hokey-Pokey’ Written By: Roland Lawrence LaPrise, the Ram Trio (with Charles Macak and Tafit Baker), recorded the song in 1949, copyright in 1950, Acuff-Rose Music Inc.)

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: humor, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

poln upanja to hoteti obstati prepovedati vstop z napisno tablo to vdihniti narod v razložiti

May 7, 2010 By clarkscottroger

So the question I ask myself now, as I do more often than you might think is, “so what is it about this Wakefield Doctrine thing do you think would make any one want to know more?” Or more succinctly, “..so what?”

A legitimate question. Afterall, despite how some Posts are funny, and some are thought-provoking and many (many) are very weird, the question always comes back to, “so what”? Why should anyone care? (More to the point), why should anyone, after reading today’s (or any other Post) think enough of the Wakefield Doctrine blog to actually say to someone, “hey, I read a blog that I think you should read”?

This morning, that is the question. And since I have nothing else in mind, I might as well try and answer the question.

No. Stop. Wait… this just in… The above is not, I repeat, not a valid basis for this or any other Post in this here Wakefield Doctrine thingie. Unfortunately for many of you who are reading this, the reason (that this is not a valid basis…) also precludes an explanation of why (it is not a basis…). Sorry. Hey, I don’t make the rules, I just type this stuff. So, let’s move along here, nothing to see, give the Post some room to breathe…

I originally envisioned this blog to have Posts (truth be known, when I started this thing I did not have a fuckin clue of what a Post was or did or it’s intended use) and Pages. (To the right of this Post you are reading, below the globe and right under the words: ‘Table of Contents’) (“Good Reader, take a penny please”**)
…as I was saying, originally my thinking was that the Pages would be where people would go to reference the information on the Wakefield Doctrine, and they (the Pages, not the people) would form the foundation of what would eventually become the book, the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). Like so much in life, that was the Plan but the reality is that very few Readers go to the Pages. (Regular Readers know where I am going with this)…pull out the old material, put a clever label on it and fill up the page. So please allow me to re-package/cut ‘n paste one of the first Pages of this blog. (And the one that produced the first “hey I read your blog, pretty funny”, which no surprise, sealed my fate; to be locked in a daily struggle to get someone/anyone to say “hey, that was really funny”)

With apologies in advance to Jeff Foxworthy and a humble admission of a lack of literary technique, we will use his:
“if you… you might be a redneck'”

If you immediately stop surfing the channels because you come upon a show that uses only black and white documentary photos and film…you might be a roger

If you love Christmas lawn decorations and cannot imagine having too many lights… you might be a scott

If you find a flyer stuck under the windshield wiper of your car and you take the time to read it… you might be a clark.

Someone gets your name wrong and you answer to it without correction… you might be a clark.

As a child building model cars, the extra parts were put back in the box along with the re-folded instructions for future safekeeping…you might be a roger.

You think that Slacker was the greatest movie made in the 90s…you might be a clark

You think that the 107 episode, Directors cut, 15 DVD un-abashed edition of the compilation (with Writers notes, including what he had for breakfast and voice-over reading of the credits by someone who knew someone who was a re-enactor who actually got hurt at an event) of all Ken Burns films, PBS episodes and commercials that last longer than most readings of the Iliad, is the greatest film of all time…you might be a roger

If you happen to be at a golf tournament and feel that it is expected of the members of the gallery to yell anything (including but not limited to “get in the hole”)…you might be a scott.

So, to tie all this to the Wakefield Doctrine ( ’cause god knows we can’t not get the message out…) the Reason you should tell someone today to go to www.wakefielddoctrine.com and read it is: because you are among the first to know about this thing and whether you are a clark or a scott or a roger, you recognise that there is something about it that is fun and useful. You know that there are rogers out there, and you know you are most likely a clark or a scott. Now, I know what you are afraid of, why you are not sure you want to tell someone to go and read this… you are afraid that they will but will come back and and say to your face, “what the hell, that was really stupid”. I understand how you feel…but…we will give you a haat! (for your damn head), if you do.***

OK. I’m out.

*(translated from the Slovenian…’hopefully this will be the Post that inspires people to Comment’…)
**(You want to appreciate how really awful Jethro can be? That phrase, ‘take a penny, please’, I originnaly heard used by the staff in an institution for autistic people that I ‘worked at’ years and years ago. I spent a week there, interviewing and training but never actually became a staff member. The phrase itself was employed as part of the ‘conditioning’ in the behavior modification process that formed the basis for the treatment model used there, at that place, kinda.)
***(some conditions may apply, mostly you have to write a Comment or get these new Readers to write a Comment)****
****(for the last time, yes you have to put your email in to Comment and no I will not put you on a list, but how the fuck can I send you a hat (for your damn head) if I don’t know how to reach you and you don’t want to put your phone number in the Comment.

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: humor, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

hurry up

May 2, 2010 By clarkscottroger

(let’s try to get away with another one of these…)

So, where is this all going? Why the increased rate of Posts? Is there a deliberate Plan behind the clearly substantial effort to create a sense of building momentum? Does anyone really think that there is a payoff to the setting up of a premise like this Wakefield Doctrine? How many questions will be posed before the writer can find a way to tie it all together? If this sentence is considered a question, then is a ‘corner’ being turned which is allowing the writer to slightly change the subject? Do they really think that an entire Post can be built on a sequence of rhetorical questions being posed by the writer? Does the writer know the definition of the word rhetorical? Do we detect a wavering in the focus of this very strange Post? If we are wrong about that, can we really trust our instincts about anything we read? And why is it that questions posed in this odd manner deserve even the slightest of our consideration? That was a pretty weak question, wasn’t it? You other Readers are in agreement with me, aren’t you? Does anyone know what the grammatical term for a question ending in a pronoun is? I feel less compelled to keep reading this, don’t you? Can we expect any of this to have anything at all to do with this Wakefield Doctrine thing? That is not an unreasonable expectation, is it? Do you think an effort to stop reading is worthwhile? Didn’t it seem like a dialogue was about to be introduced? Why do you think that it was not done? How is it that they insist on imparting new information about their precious Doctrine in every Post? If they will do that now, do you think it will be about a clark? Or about the rogers, you think? Aren’t most people more interested in the scotts? Does anyone else think that last series of questions, a little on the cheating side? Am I wrong on that? What information could they possibly communicate? In the form of questions? And what is the deal with the video to open this Post? Isn’t that the music from a car commercial? Why would he use that? Does anyone doubt that this is a clark writing? If the Readers could vote on this Post, would you vote to delete it? Who else is waiting for a punchline? Why does this author assume we are still reading? Can I ask a question? Would my asking a question amount to compounding this increasingly annoying Post? Is that further proof that this is a clark writing? How is this going to end? Is there more of a Doctrine lesson to be exposed? Will there be a test at the end of this Post? Why would the Doctrine be preferred over any other philosophy? Who in their right mind thinks of this as a philosophy? Why do they call it a Doctrine? And if it is a Doctrine, why do they also call it a theory? Who are these people? What do they hope to get out of this? Are they cultists? Are they trying to mess with our heads? Does anyone under 50 use that expression? Do you think the writer is getting tired yet? Know what I will do the minute this is over? How can you know how to answer that? Isn’t it kind of presumptuous of you to think you can? Where can I file a complaint? Who doesn’t know a clark? I think they are done with their little game, don’t you? You wouldn’t be messing with me too, would you? If I frame an un-answerable question, they have to let me go, don’t they? What is the unifying purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine?