the Wakefield Doctrine (…and now we see as through a glass, clarkly)
As established by the roger (Progenitor) in the last Post, all (living) things must evolve. And while not technically a ‘living thing’, this blog is hereby granted ‘honorary-for-the-purpose-of-holding-a-thought-together’ status. (Whew!) Further, the term ‘garage band blogger’ has been coined and is the keystone metaphor for this process of promulgating the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, all while creating an entertaining (read: lots of readers) blog.
So what does this mean? It means that the format of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) will change. And since we have not formatted the specific changes yet, now is the time to vamp.
(In sitcoms, when the writers needed time off, there was always the ‘flashback’ episode. So without further adieu…)
Let us consider the world that we all experience in common.
You know, none of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is meant to be used to explain the day to day world ‘out there’. The Doctrine is not about politics or economics, it is not about how to earn a fortune through the internet or how to find god and a peace within and it is certainly not about the path to enlightenment. It is about how we can learn to see the world differently. Only by setting aside our most basic assumptions, we can arrive at an appreciation and understanding of the people we live and work with every day. And after all, it is the people we live with and the people we work and play with that make up the world. They are the world. Not the people described in the newspapers or on television or the internet, they are the background noise. Nothing overly real there.
(So, how are you today? That video at the start of this Post? Jeez, I don’t know.)
(It just seems to set the tone of this Post better than anything I could think up myself.)
While at times, with authors changing, this Post seems to run the gamut of style and ease of reading. The goal of each Post is always the same, and that is to present the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to widest range of readers. This process is not always so smooth, sometimes it gets a little clunky,but it does not give up just because of poor writing.
So as we continue to stagger from ill-conceived idea to badly executed allusion, for your consideration: Woody Allen on evil.
(The point of this Post? Hold on, I’m getting to it.)
‘Hey, hey Mr clarkscottroger! Is this going to be one of those Posts where there is no point only a series of clips from movies that you string together in the hopes of meeting your self-imposed goal of writing at least one Post a week?’
Yes, yes it is.
(Damn, still nothin.)
I know! Lets do a Poll!! (they take up space and the crowdlette loves ’em).
Now that was fun, wasn’t it?
(Still a little too much white space showing. Got to get to work, no time for youtube, I know! Another Poll!!)
So there you have it! Proof of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers; incontrovertible evidence of the efficacy of the Wakefield Doctrine for the self-development of marginal personality disorders.(Better be safe: HEY SEARCH ENGINES!!: Britney Spears, Obama, foreclosure,free computers, teenage vampires. )
the Wakefield Doctrine 
Hey Glenn,
Thanks for the Comment. Only drawback to you ‘all action/all steak’ guys is you don’t think.
Your Comment is buried at the bottom of the Reply section on Page 9 (Discussion). Where you put it because that is where you ended up on this visit, probably a bookmark thing.
No body is going to see it.
(Get one of the people in your frame of reference who is capable of a little more than act-stop-act and get them to tell you how to place the Comment here, at the end of the current Post, where most people will look.)
(BTW with rogers, I sometimes do the edit/move the Comment for them (See the last couple of Posts). But as you so clearly and decisively make the point :
“Not enough scotts contributing. Rogers and clarks get all caught up in “writin’ fancy” so people will like them. How sad! Scotts usually start writing with an important ingredient that clarks and rogers apparently consider optional—A FUCKING POINT”
Only draw back, nobody to read it. But then again, you know what they say,
‘a scott alone in a room, isn’t’.)
clarkscottroger
October 27, 2009 at 10:34 am
Glenn said
October 28, 2009 at 12:58 pm e
Thanks for responding. I don’t get the “Mr. Wayne” reference. I’m a country boy. I don’t get out much.
There, there.
Don’t worry…
clarkscottroger
October 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm
(If I may continue with my Brian Epstein hat)
From the Roger;
Thought I’d get this out before the Clark does.
” Sizzle sells the steak”.
I want to attribute that quote to Alex, a guy that Clark and I worked for in sales a couple of millenium ago. A major Scott, Alex made a mechanical science of selling ice ( or whatever)to eskimos ( or whoever). A lot of freakin’ eskimos bought a lot of ice, or hats, or steak. It was actually time-share, and Alex wrote the pitch that was used in presentation. If you did it his way, you sold shit and made money, and got to keep your job. If not, then you didn’t last long. I didn’t get too far with it. Clark did much better. But Alex was fucking unbelievable. Alex would have an eskimo in a cowboy hat buying a side of beef on ice to take with him on vacation in Newport, and all happy about it, too.
Oh yeah…the point. Point is, you can’t just throw something out there without some sizzle, or you’ll end up with a truckful of whatever at day’s end. You have to set up for the close, or there won’t be one. Cowboy needs a hat, but secretly still wants one that looks cool with all his other cowboy shit. That would be…too much cowboy, not enough hat…
Clark
October 28, 2009 at 6:43 pm