relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 4, 2022 By clarkscottroger

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

Started to feel a little guilty about not writing a totally-new post.

Almost immediately, the thought, like a scott in a junior high school cafeteria*, followed, “Come on, if’n we were in a class and the professor said, “Today we begin our study of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ so get out your Lindys** and write:

Two households, both alike in dignity, / In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, / From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, / Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.”

(Oh No! He dih’int!***)

To assuage my guilt a little, allow us to take up an insight contained in Phyllis’s comment to yesterday’s post:

I think one of the best parts of being a Roger is the ability for time to have no meaning: “..As it was in the beginning, is now and ever will be, world without end amen.”

This insight into the reality of the Herd Member is quite provocative, as the Doctrine reminds us that each of the three predominant worldviews constitutes fundamentally different realities. Heck, we’ll go a step further and say: The fabric of reality is woven from different thread for clarks, scotts and rogers. Perhaps simplest to say: clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. The reality(s) of the mind, the world of the body and the life of the heart.

We’ll close this Original Content¹ with an assertion that emotion is hypo-chronologic.

Damn! There is a good reason for reprints!

All in favor of a post from 2014, elevate them appendageses….

Hey… the comments to this post were awfully interesting, so this link should take you back to the original, and the comment thread.

(sure, there’s a connection… but it’s really kinda…totally obscure, even for the Doctrine)

Today will we repeat what is implied throughout the Wakefield Doctrine: there are three worldviews that we are all heir to, that we all find ourselves growing up and developing in from a rather young age: the world of the Outsider (clarks), the reality of the Predator (scotts) and the life of the Herd Member (rogers). Each of these three have qualities that good and admirable and each of these three have weaknesses and indulgences that are not so good and admirable. None of the three is better than the other two. Observant Readers will detect a (slightly) overlapping symmetry to the three worldviews, that when balanced would result in an healthy and life-optimising person. (yes, that is a made up word). But that’s not important now, what is important is that we make sure all our new Readers understand that, rogers are not the ‘god-I-hope-I-don’t-turn-out-to-be-one-of-them’ personality types of this here Doctrine, here.

So to review:

rogers (adv rogerian; pronunciation: ‘roe -jeer -riann’)

The ‘initial metaphor’ for a roger is that of any animal that naturally associates with it’s own kind in a ‘herd’. The primary characteristic derived from this metaphor is one of ‘belonging’, being a group member, similar in all important aspects to the others in the group (herd). ( In contrast to the clark personality type, a roger, especially when in the context of the herd, is never, ever an Outsider.)

The predominant characteristic that is attributed to the rogerian personality type is that rogers experience the world as an ordered place, the nature of the world, (to a roger), is that it is quantifiable, definable and predictable. To a roger the world is, basically good and it is a place of Rules…provided, of course, the rules and guides and laws are recognized, expressed and followed.
This perception is paired with a drive (within the personality type) to impose order, through rules and laws on the world.

While clarks ‘gather by themselves’ and scotts organize ‘as a pack’, the characteristic grouping of rogers is the herd.

rogers are the friendly ones, of the three personality types, the person you will mostly likely recall having a long, pleasant, you-know=I=can’t-really-waht-we-talked-about, conversation with

rogers are the warp ( or maybe the woof! lol) to whatever social fabric you might care to consider, be it civic, religious, scientific or other cultural expression

rogers require rules and traditions, they are, in fact, the only ‘reason’ that human civilization has any continuity whatsoever

rogers are behind the creation and perpetuation of, virtually all human institutions, religious, civic, political

rogers do not create, they maintain, they assemble, they are the machine operators

rogers are the engineers, accountants and physicians

rogers are the judges, the firefighters and high school teachers (except for gym teachers)

(from: the Page on rogers)

And so, there you have it, rogers in all their hail-fellow/gal-well-met, bonhomme, ladies and gentleman! may I present: the people person, Mr Precision, the pain in the ass, the woman who’s dinner table looks like a page from a gourmet magazine (and is equally tasty and enjoyable), the man who carves ships and manages to put them in a damn bottle (without anyone even hinting at a necessity to do so), the Mom who makes sure that her Child and those other children all wear the latest in Elementary School Fashion (provided the elementary school is in Calgary and the year is 1957), the father who promises to teach his son to work on cars but forbids him (the son, not himself…he has other things he forbids himself, much to the dismay of the Mrs.), to even touch the tools that are totally clean and (some) hanging on the pegboard over the spotless workbench, matching perfectly to the silhouette outline, the girl elected Chairperson of the Yearbook Committee two years in a row!, the linebacker, the catcher, the girl who will become an engineer because it is such a stable and reliable line of work, the friend you had that was your best friend up until a scott enters the scene and then, depending upon gender (of the scott, not the friend) you would end up: beat up and ignored or ignored and beat up! rogers represent the majority of the population and we would not have the user-friendly and increasingly impersonal conveniences of life without them.

lets try this:

Court Room: the Judge is a roger, the Clerk is a clark, the Bailiff is a scott (the Prosecuting Attorney is a roger and the Defense Attorney is a: clark if mostly unsuccessful or a scott is often successful(when not being barred from the courtroom)

Operating Room: the Surgeon is a scott, the Nurse is a clark and the Anesthesiologist is a roger

Construction Site: GC (general contractor) is a scott, the finish carpenter is a roger and the guy who does the cleanup is a clark

Local gas station/repair: the Owner is a scott, the mechanic is a roger and the kid who keeps trying, unsuccessfully to get a job there is a clark

the Best Date ever, before the age of 23, she is a scott and you are not, the Worst Date ever she is a roger, and you are not

the King and Queen of the Prom: (Junior Year: she is a roger and he is a sc0tt Senior Year: she is a scott and he is a scott)

….hey! I’m doing all the work here… you want more examples? write a damn Comment and request or better yet, give us one that we don’t have yet

That’s enough for today.

You know Musicians right? the ones that are exceptionally skilled at their (respective) instruments… that’s right! rogers!

* in a line at lunch, the one who, in the process of cutting to the head of the line, elicits laughter from most of the kids he bypasses and, even, the women with the hairnets on the other side of the counter, thats your scott. no malice, just in a hurry

** the pen of choice of nuns everywhere… but, of course, we’re referencing high school, so better make that a Bic

*** well, actually we did kinda compare ourselfs to Mr ‘speare…lol

1) lol… yes, I do have a tertiary rogerian aspect

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: relationships, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types

Reprint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

December 27, 2021 By clarkscottroger

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

(well, because absolutely nothing says decadent excess better than a Faberge egg)

This is a Reprint Monday post utilizing a Tuesday post from 2016.

We trust no one will have an issue from this, close-but-not-quite, symmetry. (There’s an old saying, “If you think something is related to something else and are surprised, you just haven’t been paying attention.“)

Anyway. This post does require some familiarity with our little personality theory. However, as we’re stated countless times before, ‘Anyone coming back here a second time and reading the entire post is either a clark or a scott (or roger) with a significant secondary clarklike aspect’. Rather than the obvious, ‘What do you mean, secondary aspect?’ Let’s spend a minute considering reality.

For the Wakefield Doctrine, all reality is, at it’s heart and (on) the most intimate level, personal. Not ‘personal reality’ in the sense that one can claim fantastical abilities and magical powers, rather it is ‘personal reality’ in the ‘What the heck is that supposed to mean?!’

… (damn, always a way bigger topic to explain than it is to know), the point is: each predominant worldview, be they the reality of the Outsider(clarks) or the world of the Predator(scotts) or the life of the Herd Member(rogers) is as real as… real as burnt toast. Not a list of interests or inclinations, drives and impulses, tropisms or talents… the world(s) as described for each predominant worldview is as real as real. Than you very much. Furthermore, what makes us clarks, scotts or rogers, is not these qualities, inherited or imprinted but, what makes us clarks, scotts or rogers is growing up in one of the three worlds (personal realities). Because, this growing up always entails developing effective (give or take) social strategies and ways to interact with the world around us and the people who make it up.

A scott acts the way they do because such behavior is most likely to allow them to survive and thrive in the eat-or-be-eaten world of the Predator. And so it is with clarks and rogers. We are all sporting the personality type best suited to the reality in which we grew up and developed our style.

The take-away here? With an understanding of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine we are able to know more about the other person than they know about themselves. More to the point: we are able to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. And, by doing so, better know ourselfs.

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

(new readers? note the throat tendons)

With all gratitude to Lewis Carroll and his timeless question, ‘why is a raven like a writing desk?’ I would pose the semi-rhetorical question: What does a scottian woman sound like when she tries to speak rogerian?

“Now has never been a better time to…!”

See?! See what I have to contend with? A reality full of Doctrine remnants, relics, and large-sorta-like-in-the-movie-‘Alien’-these-scary-organomechanical structures?

I’m at work today, trying to earn a living. In the process doing the thing that I do, stumbled upon agent website and written across the front, the above (example is abridged) statement, accompanied of course with a very good photo of the afore-referenced scottian female.

If you’re here (and still reading), I’ll assume you’re familiar with one of primary (and, frankly, endearing) characteristic traits* of those who live in the worldview of the Herd, the rogerian expression. It’s a form/style/idiosyncrasy of language totally specific to our herd-based brethren. Hell, I’ll go further and say that hearing a genuine rogerian expression makes it a leadpipe cinch that you’re dealing with a roger.

But a rogerian expression is more than simply a curious (and amusing) quirk in one’s choice of words. It is not an error (grammatical, rhetorical, any other -cal), it is a deliberate use of the ‘wrong’ words. It is also quite the aggressive act, because even, (and especially face-to-face), the roger employing the expression will exhibit not the slightest sign of self-consciousness or un-certainty. If anything, they will be ‘on high alert’. We students of the Doctrine are trained to watch the roger in a situation where a rogerian expression is being deployed, because we know how everyone else will react. rogers will appear not to notice anything out of the ordinary and the clarks and scotts will be laughing in delighted surprise. Don’t believe me? Here, in the block quotes, are a few of the rogerian expressions that we’ve recorded.

…looking at his paycheck, a roger was heard to say: ‘oh man! Look at how much they deducted for aggravated security’

…talking about a new DVD release for a movie: ‘no, I’m going to wait until they release the un-abashed edition’

…about to talk to a client: ‘I know I have to give them the bad news with the good news, I just won’t baby-coat it’

(and the most recent recorded rogerian expression)…

…writing in a blog about how egotistical certain real estate agents tend to be an unknown roger wrote: ‘ I have to say that, as a professional class, most agents are much too self-absorbent…”

But this post is not about rogers and rogerian expressions, it’s about scotts and their misuse of language. A scott will misuse language incidentally, on his or her way somewhere else.* The key difference may seem subtle, as in both cases the malapropism represents an act of aggression. The rogerian expression is a way to exert force within the herd; the goal being to establish dominance over other herd members. Unlike the scott, rogerian dominance is a re-orienting of the focus of the members of the herd, as opposed to the starkly and very intimate one-on-one domination by a scott.

So what does this say about our scottian woman? You best bet is to smile and say, ‘there is no better time than this to do whatever it is you want me to.’

* see?!! it gets under ya skin, I tells ya!

** if you said, ‘yeah 20 feet through the air, on their way for a permanent landing the neck of their unfortunate prey’…. gold star, yo.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, psychology of personality, relationships, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

Black Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- primal reprint

November 26, 2021 By clarkscottroger

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

Welll!! You gotta read this here reprint here.

It’s from, like the first year of the blog. November 24, 2009, to be precise. And it’s basically an interview post. With a (self-identified) scott and a roger.

Check it out

…(That was a refreshing little naplet, blogorically speaking. But now, back to the work at hand…)

Welcome! Especially to our new friends in Australia, and Israel and of course, our friends in Slovenia!

Today we have kind of a special treat. Two of our Downsprings¹ are helping us out by participating in a little… T&A? err, PTA?, I got it! Q&A!

We have had people tell us, after a recent Post(…breaktime…), that they felt they got a better understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine when it was discussed in a context that was ‘applicable’ to everyday life. (Yeah, like in everyday life people decide to sneak up on a certain class of person and do something indefinable to them and then report back a score). Sure thats an everyday application in, maybe say, Zanaxville.

Anyway, we have a set of questions about the Doctrine that was presented to Joanne and Glenn (our Downsprings) and their answers are recorded in the following interview.

A little background first.
Glenn is probably the leading scott in terms of possessing both knowledge and (a practical) understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine. As a matter of fact, he helped instigate the process whereby the Doctrine was taken out of the realm of oral tradition and brought into the ‘real world’ of this blog. You will have to make allowances for him, after all he is a scott.
Joanne comes to us from the interested observer category, she has been witness to over 25 years of discussion and development of the Doctrine. Enhancing her position as a Downspring, Joanne offers as much a normal persons interpretation and application of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers as we have in the group. She is a roger, but with a skepticism of the whole thing that helps us stay in touch with the thinking of the everyday person-on-the-street, in terms of applying the Wakefield Doctrine.
(They are both behaving quite well and are deserving of our respect and admiration.)

(To the interview):

Which of the three are you?
[Glenn]     Scott
[Joanne]    I am predominantly, a Roger.

What is the ‘best’ single positive trait or quality do you have as such?
[Glenn]      I’m wicked funny
[Joanne]    I am sensitive to other’s feelings.

The most negative single characteristic or quality?
[Glenn]     I can be reckless—verbally and behaviorally
[Joanne]     I pay too much attention to detail, although, sometimes that is a positive trait.

Which trait or personality quality do you have that you feel is most mis-understood by people of the other two forms. (For example: clarks don’t get this about me; or rogers don’t get this about me.)
[Glenn]     Clarks don’t understand that I act mostly out of a desire to have fun—not out of a desire to hurt anyone. Rogers don’t understand anything. They eat the grass and wait to be killed. They LOVE to feel like victims, so they perceive everything a scott does as “cruel”—and then they have a feelings festival—hurt, angry, sad, –the equivalent of a roger orgasm. Fuck them.
[Joanne]    The attention to detail is always misunderstood by the Scott that I am around often. Just try observing me and the Scott trying to put something together. We were putting a shed together one time, and I was standing in the corner frantically reading the directions while the Scott was banging nails. I kept telling her to stop..and finally convinced her to read the directions first. I seem to be less sure about discerning clarks from the other two. I’m not sure which people I know are clarks, so I can’t comment on how they misunderstand me.

If someone were to ask, ‘what is the surest way to spot one of your kind in a crowded shopping mall?’ what would you tell them?
[Glenn]     Anyone talking to more than one person—and holding their attention.
[Joanne]    I’m not sure about that one.

You are at the funeral of a friend and are asked to say a very few words, complete the following:

My friend was a clark and I felt…
[Glenn]     that he mostly enjoyed my company—and was more loyal than your best dog ever.
[Joanne]    ummm…let me think about that for a while.

My friend was a scott and I felt…
[Glenn]     an attachment to him based on competition—which evolved into respect as the years went by.
[Joanne]    I will miss my friend for her ability to just wing it in life

My friend was a roger and I felt…
[Glenn]     guilty that I didn’t indulge his incessant need for emotional validation and support. I feel bad. He thinks I found him to be a pain in the ass. He’s right.
[Joanne]    I will miss my friend for … so many, many, reasons. There were so many wonderful things about her..thoughtfulness, empathy, sensitivity….etc.

Finally, tell us what you think the practical value, if any, of the Wakefield Doctrine is.
[Glenn]     When rogers piss me off, I remember that they are rogers and cannot help it. They are doing the only thing they can do.
[Joanne]    It’s entertaining and I think if we know which type someone is, it may help us to understand their behavior and possibly not take some of their behavior personally.

(Now say good night to the Sloveniaannnns)
[Glenn]    How do you say “fuck you” in Slovenian?
[Joanne]    Good Night, Slov

Wellie, wellie, well. Was that not nice? There is much here that can be discussed and elaborated upon. But the primary goal was to help the Reader ‘hear’ the Doctrine actually applied to a situation that all of us might experience. I am sure there will be questions.

There is a space below (this Post) for your Comments. Do not, I repeat, do not be shy or bashful. We would love to hear your thoughts or questions. If you have any ideas for an extension of the (above) series of questions to our Downsprings, by all means ask.

1) Downspring is a term to designate a member of the group of people made aware of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers by one of the Progenitors. In the context of this blog, there are three Progenitors and four Downsprings (Glenn, Joanne, Denise and Phyllis) all seven people have full access to the blog and creation of the contents.

obviously this is the only appropriate tunage

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: relationships, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

Monday Reprint -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 8, 2021 By clarkscottroger

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

Today is Monday. As regular Readers will acknowledge, that makes what follows a reprint Doctrine post.

Nothing wrong with that. What we have this Monday morning is what we call a reflexive reprint post. This would be a reprint inspired by a contemporary post. In today’s case, one written by someone else.

Co-Sixiac*, Paul wrote a most enjoyable post today centered on the fairy tale, Rapunzel. It, (his post), reminded us of two things: 1) how abusive cultures and their standards of behavior can be towards children can be and b) how much we enjoy writing about them. So head over to Paul’s for a warm up, (he does mad research on the variations on the story), and then come back here.

Lets see what we wrote in April of 2013

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

Melanie and Janine and them wrote a Comment saying how much they enjoyed our little look at the Fairy Tale ‘Hansel and Gretel’ and went on to say how they were looking forward to today’s Post as we continued our analysis of these cultural icons vis-à-vis the Wakefield Doctrine. Being a clark and all, I am certainly not one to ignore a request, even if I did have a perfectly good ‘re-print Post’ all set to go for today. It was a Post from the first full year of the blog, replete to references to the foreign exchange students at Millard Fillmore High and there might even be a mention of our favorite valedictorian, and all-around cool co-ed, Janie Sullivan. It (this Post that was to have run today), even had something resembling a survey meant to determine personality types. The writing is a little rough, but it was fun to read. (Have I indulged in being rogerian enough in my un-gracious acquiescence to Melanie’s and Janine’s request yet?) No? Well how about this: for a personality type that is hardly ever accused of wearing our hearts on our sleeves, clarks place the feelings of others way, way before their own. Even if the other person does not explicitly state that their feelings or emotional state are at risk, clarks will invariably think, ‘it would be awful if their feelings were hurt’ or thoughts to that effect. Simple empathy? …or the hint of something deeper, something more inextricably tied to the worldview of the Outsider? Well, think about it… but first a little Fairy tale Doctrine-style!

Jack and the Beanstalk: (that’s right!, this is a movie now), I guess I don’t have to expound on the role of Fairy Tales as indoctrination for the totally impressionable members of society. Well, yes I do. Ask yourselfs ‘who, of all the potential audience for these tales of violence, greed, subservience and rogerian membership is the one group (demographic, if you will) who has zero choice in being exposed to the sick, sick message that most of these tales are disguising?
Give up? The most impressionable! the ages: (negative) six months (‘Look honey! I bought the complete Grimms Fairy Tale on dvd, so after the baby arrives, you can just hit ‘Play‘) to 18 months (“…leave the dvd running with the volume real low… it will lull her to sleep, it’s been such a long time, sure! leave the door open, we’ll only be a room away) to 2 years ( “would you read to the baby? I so have to get back to the gym just take whatever you are reading and sit with her, put the dvd on and you can read your book and he will think you are reading to him…“) to 3 years (“…no dear, there is no such thing as a troll under the bridge, no matter what the big kids are saying“).

The victims are always the defenseless children. So, back to Jack and the Beanstalk. That is certainly an uplifting tale of triumph over adversity, beyond criticism or reproach, non?

(as always from Wikipedia*)

Jack is a young lad living with his widowed mother. Their only means of income is a cow. When this cow stops giving milk one morning, Jack is sent to the market to sell it. (“Carlos Castaneda wrote a series of books about learning about right living, in one of these books, he relates how a brujo offers a young man 2 gourds in exchange for help carrying them to market. The young man agrees and when the task is complete accepts his reward and takes the gourds and opens them. He sees only food and water, and, expecting gold or other tangible rewards smashes both gourds on the ground and walks away. Am I the only one to see the short-sightedness in Jack and his mom’s instant reaction to the change in the cow?”) On the way to the market he meets an old man who offers to give him “magic” beans in exchange for the cow. (Chase Bank is currently advertising a wonderful new feature of their credit cards…direct deposit of paychecks. That’s correct, you can have the ease and convenience of having your earnings be transferred from your employer to Chase, as the radio ad holds, ‘leaving you time for the important things in life’)

Jack takes the beans but when he arrives home without money, his mother becomes furious and throws the beans out the window and sends Jack to bed without supper. (“…what a bitch! you sure she isn’t really Jill and this is a way messed up couple and she has, like family issues and maybe a substance abuse thing going? rational response to a disappointment, Mom!”)

As Jack sleeps, the beans grow into a gigantic beanstalk ( lmao…not even going to go near this one… hey! Janine! …you got any Reader overview on this? ). Jack climbs the beanstalk and arrives in a land high up in the sky where he follows a road to a house, which is the home of a giant. He enters the house and asks the giant’s wife for food. She gives him food, but the giant returns and senses that a human is nearby:

Fee-fi-fo-fum!

I smell the blood of an Englishman,

Be he alive, or be he dead,

I’ll have his bones to grind my bread.

However, Jack is hidden by the giant’s wife and overhears the giant counting his money. Jack steals a bag of gold coins as he makes his escape down the beanstalk. ( As well he should! He was a guest in the couple’s house, given food and shelter…of course he would steal from his hosts)

Jack repeats his journey up the beanstalk two more times, (!!!) each time he is helped by the increasingly suspicious wife of the giant and narrowly escapes with one of the giant’s treasures. The second time, he steals a hen that lays golden eggs and the third time a magical harp that plays by itself. This time, he is almost caught by the giant who follows him down the beanstalk. Jack calls his mother for an axe and chops the beanstalk down, killing the giant. The end of the story has Jack and his mother living happily ever after with their new riches (Happily) (ever) (After) ( magic beans = 1 cow, giant beanstalk = hyperactive hormones, opportunity to steal = the hospitality of non-larcenous childless couple, live happily ever after =Priceless)

… forget the analysis, if there was a full-grown blue-fin tuna in my 3′ above ground pool and you handed me a fully loaded shotgun… it would be less obvious than the message of greed and avarice and violence and self-gratification at any and all costs than this child’s tale. I mean, really. lol luckily, we have the Wakefield Doctrine to make sense of it all!

Oh yeah… who’s who? Jack is a roger, his mom is a scott the giant is a roger and the giant’s wife is a clark

…now go to sleep, tomorrow is almost here

* one of the special group of writers who participate in the Six Sentence Story bloghop.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, psychology of personality, relationships, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

ttt…TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 7, 2021 By clarkscottroger

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

We are surely in the time of year, here in coastal southern New England, when we separate the men-from-the-boys… the women-from-the-ladies…. er…the tender feet-from-the-Eagle-Scouts (eww worse)… wait, gimme a minute. (ok, you’ll hate this prozeugma ), It’s a time when the distinction between a clark with a secondary scottian aspect and a scott with a secondary rogerian aspect becomes graphically clear.

When it comes to writing a post of Ten Things of Thankful (TToT), the autumn season, imho, puts an inordinate strain on our capacity to feel gratitude. Never a overwhelmingly obvious personal quality, the cold temperatures and inhospitable conditions, combined with the sun setting at four o’clock, (and racing towards noon with every passing Fall afternoon); I’d say, among clarks-who-write-grat posts, the time of year is like juggling eight, pissed-off tarantulas.

1) Una. Who, while comfortable at virtually all temperatures, is not, however, a fan of rain. (ok, just a little non sequitur(ish) but it’s true. Having the extra-long coat is probably the reason. The photo at the top of the post illustrates the primary reason our dogs have been my role model. Sure, she knows that snow turns into water eventually, but….snow deep enough to create speeding-dog-wakes-and-plumes?! Eternity in an hour, yo.)

2) Phyllis. Way more tolerate of the lower ranges of temperatures than we are. She does not, however, share our enjoyment of the higher, now sadly left in the previous months, heat range.

3) the Wakefield Doctrine. Everyone knows that the Wakefield Doctrine is gender and culture neutral, we figure it’d be waste of a TToT theme to not mention that the Wakefield Doctrine takes no position on the seasons of the year, vis-à-vis any proclivity of the three predominant worldviews: clarks(Outsiders), scotts(Predators) and rogers(Herd Members) towards a certain time of year.

4) Six Sentence Story a place to read short-short-(really short) story(ettes) and a place to learn and practice one’s own abilities.

5) Serial stories: ‘the Whitechapel Interlude‘ and ‘the Case of the Missing Fig Leaf‘

6) The library project, Part II Now that we have removed the stump. the next step is to level the 14×16 area where the structure will be place (once they’re delivered crushed rock to form the base.

7) the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules) The BoSR/SBoR is not simply license to ignore convention, run roughshod* over the practices and processes emloyed (and exhibited) by the participants. Beginning with the founderini, Lizzie it has been a virtual Philosopher’s Stone (for some of us).

8) the spirit and tenor of this collection of bloggers who view the process as a win-win, not matter what some of us come up with for content. This attitude is what make this the ‘hop what it is.

9) something something

10) Secret Rule 1.3 Because what kind of bloghop would this be if’n we didn’t have Secret Rules. We’ll tell you back up in Grat 7

* interesting, the term dates back to the 1800’s when the nails that held the iron shoe would be left long, projecting from the hoof. This resulted in better traction for the horse and more damage to the undesirable that the horse rider felt the need to ride over. Hence the historical designation ‘Age of Enlightenment’.

music