humor | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 21 humor | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 21

ready as this audience that’s coming here to dream

February 2, 2010 By
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8YpOM7LVew

Hello and hooray from yours truly, Downspring #1.  If you don’t get the gist of my intro, not to worry.  At least you know you are not a clark.  Think of reading the Wakefield Doctrine like being in second year Spanish class with Mr. M.  You don’t need to speak English, you are here to speak Spanish.  Here we speaks the Doctrine……

With that in mind,   I’ve decided to suit up today.  That’s right – 3 piece.  (Yes Glenn, you love the tie.  Now assume the position.)  Where was I?…. Oh yeah….I have noted some frustration at the Wakefield Doctrine in the absence of comments from readers outside the sphere of those who contribute on a fairly regular basis.  Why the silence?

I do not think it is so much that readers don’t understand the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers but rather that readers just may not have confidence (yet) to make a statement on a worldwide platform and then find out – oops! I got it wrong!  No one wants to embarrass themselves in cyberspace, especially clarks (that’s correct – clarks do not possess high confidence levels. You can read all about clarks on the clarks page can’t you.)  Perhaps before making any misstatements, readers are simply boning up on the Doctrine. (No Glenn, I did not give you permission to laugh.)

 I find the more I read, the more I remember that which I have known – there are 3 distinct ways to view the world.  Reading the Wakefield Doctrine not only reminds me of that but actually validates the whole damn thing –  anyone can recognize, react to and even anticipate another’s behavior based on how that person interacts with the world.

Since the majority of Posts are written by the Creator clark, it takes no giant leap for me to understand all that is being said (you picked up that I am a clark by now, right?!).  Sure he can ramble, sure there are the obscure references to….just about anything but there is method to the madness (or is it madness to the method.)  All roads lead to the clark.  Whatever.  The point is (the) clark speaks most loudly to clarks just as (the )Roger undoubtedly speaks most loudly (and soothingly) to all the many, many rogers out there.  The Progenitor Roger’s Posts are amusing, easy to read and most importantly they are comfortable and relaxed – like getting co-ozy on a cold winter day.  No worries.  If we all do what we are supposed to do then it’s all good.  That leaves us with the scotts in the house.  (Stand up Glenn) 
There is no doubt in my mind that the comments contributed by the aforementioned scott would do anything but confirm that scotts rule!  But seriously, Glenn has had a couple of decades of this clark, scott, roger thing under his belt to know of which he speaks.  Or swears.

So what do we know.  A clark thinks (and thinks), they stand alone, scotts act and act out (and swear while doing it) and generally tell others what to do; rogers feel (deeply and with commitment), they unite and promote harmony (2 part, 3 part all the better).

Can’t believe it took me all these words to say:  we just want to keep reading Posts and Comments that validate this shit is for real. Look a little closer. You’ll see that it is.

Indulge me in a clarklike moment – take the movie Casablanca . (Who has not heard of that movie?) Who wouldn’t say that Rick Blaine is a clark, or that Victor Laszlo is a roger of the highest order.  And Captain Renault (Louie)? A scott?  What do you think?   

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

reading is FUN- damental

February 1, 2010 By

WARNING!   WARNUNG!   AWERTIMENTO!   AVERTISSEMENT!  OPOZORILO!   WARNING!
(bad Post writing ahead*)

(*I mean bad writing of a Post not necessarily a Post that is without merit**)

(**thought I should clarifiy that***)

(***…about the writing I mean)

 

Hello.

This is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) blog.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, fun and effective way for you to understand  those around you, at home, at work, at school and at play. This Doctrine contains principles that sound like any one of a hundred quirky little personality ‘thumb nail sketches’ that turn up in the back of TV magazines and at the bottom of the last page of a tabloid, right below the astrology column and the diet to the Stars features. And at first glance  the Wakefield Doctrine seems as catchy and vacuous as any thing you will find in your local free newspaper. You know what I am going to say next.  So, there is no need to.

If you have decided to read a little bit more, this Post will cover two points: why you should read the rest of the content of this blog and what are the upcoming Posts going to be in the next week. (Coming attractions, if you will.)

Lets do this thing.

Doctrine  (dok trin) n.  A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
Wakefield(wayk feeled) n. A name for the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers picked simply because it sounded more credible than:  the theory of…

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains we all experience the world/reality differently and that our personalities arise from the particular way we experience the world. Further, the Wakefield Doctrine proposes that there three characteristic  perception of reality we all have can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers. By understanding the reality, the world that an individual is reacting to, we can understand the choices they make (their behavior). What follows on these pages are various efforts to convey the application of the Doct

Hello? Helloo! Is this thing on? Hey you! This is Janie Sullivan, and I need your help. I am in the process of being written/created/developed/fleshed-out or whatever the hell they call it in Creative Writing 101 when a new character is created and added to the narrative. Yes, that Jane in Rogers CSR 101 class. Why thank you! Being referenced all of 3 times and being used as a totally lame narrative device does mean I must be totally special.
You think?  Nah, they’re both pretty harmless, but that clark guy is edging towards ‘spooky-ville’ what with his totally constant fixation on ‘need to write more, need to write different, need to get more Readers’!
“Clozaril spill on Aisle 4!” Jeez, reality is a bitch, huh?  The other one seems much nicer, the Teacher. Seems so friendly, no harm there. Except that Civil War thing…”21st Century paging Mr Roger, your hobby is being recalled by the gov’t, Department of Over-specialized Interests, due to the fact that the other guy wants to play with it.”
Anyway, as a newly created character, I am getting a lot of interest from both writers and them both being such WMOGs (well meaning old guys) I am worried about what the plan is for a back story for me… so real quick here is the basic:
Janie Sullivan, AP student at Millard Fillmore High am very popular :p, my gpa puts me in the top 1 percentile. My BFF is Britney and I have not yet decided whether to go straight (to college ;}) or to spend time travelling. You know me from my ‘function’ as a character in the CSR 101 series of Post created by roger as a device to explain the Wakefield Doctrine. Thats it.  A little 2 dimensional? ….Ya think?
(So here is what I am asking, sure this is all about the Wakefield Doctrine and how it will change how you see the world. But if you are reading this and want to indulge these people then give me a better back story. You know…total athletic talent, parents with interesting jobs and/divorce, something anything.)  Gotta go….AFK

(Wellll. Lets just quietly and quickly close this Post before we get reported to Amateur Writers Guild for crimes against creative constructs.)

Oh! oh! the second thing!

In the next week we should have a couple of Posts using Roger’s  CSR 101 storyline as the backdrop for both Glenn and AKH writing a Post!  Separately, that is, (Two scotts writing one Post? That’d be metaphysically absurd, (to steal a phrase from Firesign Theater).) It’s not that 2 scotts could not write one Post, its not even that they would fight. It is about the collateral damage…the effect on those around them as the requirement of dominance ranking exerted itself.
You know how when you are with one friend who is a scott? You have fun, the scott is always doing things, moving talking never, sitting still. Action for action sake. And you either go along for the (thrill) ride or you try to focus all that energy into some sort of deliberate effort that you can enjoy. (If you are a roger or a clark, respectively).  Well, ever notice that when a second scott enters the scene, everything changes? At first there is conflict between the two scotts (establishing dominance/submission rank), but after they have that worked out, all of a sudden there is this very aggressive scott running around getting into everyone’s face. That is the submissive scott. (Remember the Warner Brothers cartoon that had two dogs as characters? One was a large Bull dog (Spike), the other a small terrier-looking thing(never quite got the name). The plot always had the dominant scott (Spike) slapping the small dog for his efforts to impress Spike.  “Hey Spike!  I know what to do!!.  (sort of an aggressive, barely more intellectually-capable, but way more aggressive Lennie from ‘Of Mice and Men’).
Thats the change to the local social environment when you have 2 scotts working one area at the same time.  Not that much fun for the non-scottian people.

Anyway, look for a couple of Posts from these two. The ‘set-up’ will be essentially the same, guest lecturers/teachers in rogers class in the Wakefield Doctrine (CSR 101). Should be fun. 

REASSURANCE!   BERUHIGUNG!   RASSICURAZIONE!   RECONFORT!   POZAVAROVANJA!   REASSURANCE!
(Remembered good idea Glenn had*)

(*I agree, most ideas from a scott would not go in the comforting bin first off**)

(**I will tell you, let me get out of this ‘are-there-any-gimmacks-that-you-won’t-try?’ gimmack)

We were talking Saturday about the Doctrine, Glenn is always coming up with ideas for Posts, most crazy, some not crazy, a handful occasionally interesting. (Hey Spike! I got a idea for a Post!! I got one you’ll like to write!!!)  Anyway, the idea was suppose a clark tried to impersonate a scott (actually his words were ‘hey what would it sound like if a scott tried to do a roger? or a clark?). You get the idea.
Not a bad one at that.
Yes, clark, we know that we are already all three, predominance of one…yeah I read front page real good. But the value in the suggestion is the level of development in the person doing the ‘imitations’. As with so many things around the Doctrine, you will tell more about the person doing the experiment than the supposed point of the experiment.

Anyway I bring that up not to pat Glenn on the head (Good scott! Take a penny, please!). But to tie it to the coming Pos

HEY!  HEEY!  You are stuck with this corney ‘character-talking-to-imaginary-Readers-interupting-equally-imaginary-Narrators’ so listen up! ?People? (Janie here again), I think I  told you about the future for me, but as far as your precious little Wakefield Doctrine, no one has determined my ‘type’. Normally that would have been one the first things the writer would have set up. OH! Did I just use the word normal? Pardon me while I lmfao. Normal! Sheeit Look at your goddamn crooked feet. You got no ears on your cheeks at all. Just a hole like.
Well, if I am stuck acting out for the benefit of that bunch of wackos, then I reserve the right to decide which one of your precious 3 types…
…Nah,  maybe later.
Ta!     

This might be a good time for some music….Mr. B if you please….

 

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

I know, I know…don’t overthink it

January 29, 2010 By

This actually is one of those Posts.

I suspect most blog writers/Post authors have the topic in mind when they sit down at the keyboard, or at very least have the ‘overarching theme’ of the blog itself in mind when producing content.  And, for the most part, that is the case for my efforts here at the Wakefield Doctrine.  (Will not speak for roger, but as the other writer of Posts he seems to have a clear idea in his mind when he starts to tickling those plastic teeth.  (For young Readers…that is an oblique/archaic reference to playing the piano)

But as I said, this Post is not one of those.  This Post started with a song fragment in my head this morning.  (Very strange phenom, not even a  word of a lyric…just  “ahh UUmmm…think I…” and of course about 5 seconds of melody).  But I knew the name of the group doing the song,,,  all I needed. Internet.  Google.  I suspect that few of us (including myself) fully appreciate the effect/impact/ramifications of this existence of this much information made this accessible.  But that is for another Post.  A Post that is coherent and planned.  Not this Post

So.  There it is.  Youtube.  And not just the song, but a damn video.
(BTW noticing there are commercials showing on these things.  Yes, a little annoying, just click the little ‘x’ knucklehead.)

So I am confronted with the quintessential 80s semi pop group.  And the funny thing was my initial reaction was, ‘damn, this is kind of gay’, afterall ‘this is the Wakefield Doctrine which not only is very cool (to the 27 regular Readers) but it is a serious and not totally unsuccessful effort at explaining human behavior and reality.’  You know, …the secret of the universe.

Huey Lewis and the News.  But there he was on my computer.  Being cute and clever and doing his own “if we were genuinely cool this would be a ZZ Top video”.  But like most of  my experience with this Wakefield Doctrine thing, what I write in these Posts are not always a matter of conscious choice.  The cat says do something with Huey Lewis, then I do something with Huey Lewis (Ask roger).

I was hoping that by now I would have something to hang this Post, an idea or a theme to make it more than a music video.  But nooo.  Nothing.  I suppose I could use up some white space making self-referential statements about (my) life in the 80’s.  But I got nothing.

…So there you have it.  Todays contribution to the effort at the promulgation of the Wakefield Doctrine (love that word)(promulgation). If you like Huey then I suspect this will be a good Post, if not  then it will be one of those that gets scrolled by, real quick.  (‘Oh yeah, that’s the one where he tried to convince us that there was something Post-worthy about having a song fragment as the basis of an individual Post’) (‘eww’)

Well, you try writing three or four of these fuckers every week.  My respect for Mel and Jason and others who do write good, readable Posts on a steady basis increases every time I do one of these.  And to Roger who is beginning to get on a reg schedule of maybe two Posts every week, keep it up.

(Roger’s Posts are the ones in colored font.  Am grateful for his efforts, as a roger he has that ‘readability’ that seems to be a characteristic ability of his people.  The elements of his style may be a bit idiosyncratic for my tastes, but as he and I have discussed, it is about getting people to read these things.  Whatever writing style ‘gets them in the door’.)

So that’s all I gots (an expression of the Progenitor scott).  Read the Doctrine.  Understand that everyone around you today is a clark or a scott or a roger.  And that because they are, explains why they do what they do.  It is nothing personal.  (Hey! there’s my ‘big close’!)  (Damn, I knew if I sat typing shit long enough I would stumble on something that I would enjoying sticking in the monitors of computers all over the werld today!).

This clarks, scotts and rogers stuff?, you know “if you understand what type your loved one is you will understand why they do what they do…Blah, Blah blah?” well I still mean it, but behind all of it is the inescapable fact that you are one of the three (yes, I know you know that), but it actually means that everything that is happening to you in your relationships with people  is coming from your clarklike, scottian or rogerian nature.  Not theirs.

Thought I should mention that.

“UO ah uu  happy to be stuck with…”

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

And all I gotta do is act naturally

January 28, 2010 By

You know, this Wakefield Doctrine  has been a constantly changing effort to describe a way of understanding the behaviors of those around us.  The people we love, like, hate and ignore.  And the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is now and has always been intended to be a help, a tool, a guide and even, (to some clarks), a vehicle to radically alter reality.

The idea is that the Wakefield Doctrine appears to have enough ‘value’ and ‘validity’ to the people that come to be familiar with it  to stand on it’s own.  Meaning that when a new person learns about the Doctrine they do not need the constant reinforcement (of mechanisms such as this blog). There are, no doubt, people in other countries who are at this moment coming to realise that their boss is such a roger or that the new girl is so clarklike or even that they find themselves wishing that their spouse not be so scottian.

And that is the goal and the purpose of the effort behind this blog and all of the Posts.  The good ones, the funny ones, the interesting ones and the stupid ones, all share the common goal: let people understand the Wakefield Doctrine and improve their lives.   Sometimes an idea is there for a Post but it lacks something,  just does not have enough… whatever it is that makes you glad to hit  PUBLISH.  But the interesting thing, (probably totally familiar to real writers), is how hard it is to throw away a particular effort.  All of this is a long way around to getting in a premise I worked on this morning that simply does not have the legs to be a standalone Post.  But, as I said, you really hate to waste a perfectly(well maybe not perfectly) good set of words.  So the following is the Post that did not make it into the big time.*

For an example of what does not get into “Print”  consider the following draft Post:  which would have been titled

the Wakefield Doctrine (‘Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command.  And your old road is rapidly agin’…’)

…janie…janie…   …janie!…(‘is she sleeping again?..’)…janie…  …JANIE!…

…(strange people…everyone… only 3 names….)  “1717  by the leadership of Charlemagne!”

Sit down, Miss Sullivan.  That is not the correct topic, much less the right answer.  You would do well to focus more on your school studies and less on that rock n roll music and those secret teachings…
Remember class, term papers are due in a week and the finals are not that far away.

(Hey! Britney wait up!)

 

Since the point is to promulgate the Wakefield Doctrine (or ‘wkaefeillen doctryne’, as they say in Slovenia), here is an excerpt I found in a very early Post.  Hey it has ‘Bullet Posts”, so you know it has to be clear and concise. (That little joke goes out to Denise at work (who never reads the Doctrine because it does not have enough categories and she is such a scott but don’t you think the criticism about the number of categories is just a little rogerian?)

So for the impatient readers (yes, I mean you, scott); following is a quick, ‘down and dirty’ guide to identifying the clarks, scotts and rogers around you:

  • rogers use the pronoun “I” more than the other three
  • scotts use nicknames (particularly diminutives ‘clarkie’, ‘phillie’)
  • clarks maintain the least eye contact when talking to you
  • scotts are the ones who can tell a joke properly and will insist you listen and (usually picks a joke slightly over the edge of appropriate)
  • rogers will always have the news on what so-and-so said to such-and-such
  • clarks have a posture that is hunched at the shoulder and when seated will appear too relaxed, to the point of slumping in the chair
  • rogers are very usually the ‘middle management’ types who will convince the upper management that cubicles are the best way to arrange an office space
  • clarks…conversations…sentence fragments…

 

*looky here:

 

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

with apologies to Bob Newhart

January 24, 2010 By

(…yeah, one of those Posts)

Hello? 

Oh…hi!  No, not at the moment, just trying to come up with a new Post…

Post, for the Wakefield Doctrine…I thought you knew!  Yeah, we actually went ahead with the idea,  yeah online and everything!

No, not nearly…  not yet, (hehe)  but we do get about 25 readers every day… no I don’t know that many people…these are actual strangers who show up on our location indicator.

Yep, most every day…. not really sure why specifically…  just the most current Post for the regulars maybe the whole Doctrine idea for anyone stumbling across this thing.

…about the end of July.  Yeah, what we used to talk about….the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers…well I agree,  the new name does make it sound more credible.

What? No, no I don’t think ‘the secret of the universe…now give me money’ would look quite as legitmate as the Wakefield Doctrine…I suppose we will eventually but the blog site is free….

No.  I really think you would enjoy reading it….yeah roger is in this…in fact he is starting to write some Posts himself… no!  I think he just likes using the colored font….yes, he is that secure…

As a matter of fact you’re right….roger does have a way with telling a story…no, he has learned that ‘less is more’  ha ha.

Scott?  Actually been kind of busy… no, thats Glenn…yes he is a scott…it is a favorite word.

No no more than that.  We have a group of maybe 5, call them Downsprings….no Downsprings… they contribute on occaision…a couple of each…

So how is Hazel?  Oh, sorry to hear that…oh well what can you do?  Long time ago, a lifetime ago….

The picture?  Yeah that was taken in ’05 or was it ’06  somethings do not ever change…

Hey, if you ever have anything to add to the Doctrine write a Reply…. copyright?  We don’t need no steenkin copyright… Yeah, we would be shut down in a New York minute.

Denise? ..down in Florida… seems to like it very active in the blog….brought on board  that AKH  some major scottian potential there…yeah!  I do think in Doctrine…ha ha  at least it is something some else can keep track of…very funny.

Hey Barry, good talking to you…was totally stuck for a topic for the Post  and as cute as this premise is…the equine is clearly “morally, ethic’ly/  spirtually, physically/ positively, absolutely/Undeniably and reliably, Dead “….
                                                                                    “As Coroner, I must aver
                                                                                      I thoroughly examined her.
                                                                                      And she’s not only merely dead,
                                                                                      She’s really, most sincerely dead”

The direct quote from movie scripts?  …all the time buddy, all the fuckin time….thats right language too.

You should call more often will catch you up on this strange and brave and totally weird world…

oh…oh…oh before you hang up….tell the gang back in that truncated timeline that you’re  calling from…(that) we have met the Slovinians…and …they are a fairly cool bunch….

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