the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

Posts Tagged ‘Understanding Human Behavior

the Wakefield Doctrine 3 personality types: use it or lose it!

leave a comment »

Forgive the non-sensical Post Title. It is very early in the day and sometimes a silly title gets the words out of the keyboard more efficaciously than all the coffee in Canada. And that is the first goal. Words. Post. New Content.

This iteration of the Wakefield Doctrine is meant for the more seasoned Reader, those familiar with the basic tenets of the Doctrine, although a new Reader should get something from reading this thing.  As fans note immediately, this Wakefield Doctrine blog does not sport clever photos or have catchy music videos, just words. Some Posts have a lot of words, other Posts, not so much, depends. Today will be a brief Post. All this Post is meant to do is to encourage those of you who come across this thing and have sufficient curiosity and/or are intrigued by what we seem to be doing, to take a minute and write us a Comment. Nothing elaborate or insightful, we don’t need analyzin or dramatizin  just drop us a line* and tell us how we are doing.  Thank you.

And as to what we are doing, at least at this blog, is learning about the Wakefield Doctrine. Now you can say, ‘Of course you are’  or as the scottian Reader might express it, “no shit!”; allow us say that while the Doctrine is a  unique and useful theory of personality, totally ready to apply to your life situations, we here at the Doctrine are learning (new) aspects of it every day!  Just because Einstein wrote his famous equation (one afternoon after a nooner with Mileva), does not mean that we know everything about it (the Equation, not the nooner)! (Well, maybe some of our Readers are not familiar with the concept…nooner-istically speaking…we’re looking at you, clarklike guys!).

In any event, thats not whats important right now. What is important is that those of us here (Progenitors and DownSprings and Readers) are constantly seeing application and validation of the Wakefield Doctrine. As a theory of personality, the primary use and value of the Doctrine is to help you understand the behavior of the people in your life. Maybe it is better to say, the Doctrine can offer you a perspective on behavior that you don’t have and with it you can answer the question we all ask ourselves from time to time, the Question: “Now why one earth would he (or she) go and do a thing like that? I thought I knew them better than that!”
Once you learn the ‘basics’ of the Wakefield Doctrine, you will simply not be able to interact with people without thinking, ‘what a dick! that was such a rogerian thing to do’  or ‘damn, wanna turn down to ’12’ scott’? or even  ‘jeez, I did not know that there was even such a thing as sparkle-infused hair coloring! What is that shade called, metallic candy-apple red?’
The above examples are not exaggerations. They happen when you understand that all people are either clarks, scotts or rogers. The Doctrine is useful. The Doctrine is helpful. The Doctrine is fun!

So, what I started out trying to say was, ‘we welcome any observations or questions or thoughts you may have about how you see the world after you have read about the Wakefield Doctrine.’
We also recommend our DownSprings blogs that they write; like DS#1’s Girlie on the Edge  or Ms. AKH’s 3 Personality Types. Go read them things.

Stop on back, ya heah?

* ‘drop us a line’  how old is that expression!


the Wakefield Doctrine (…A Box of Fingers… ( …again)

leave a comment »

 From the Roger:

     Seeing as how the Clark has recently gone all” operatic” on your asses, and has inadvertently left that seldom-visited closet door ajar….

     Cut to black-and-white scene: 1961- the Wilson School in Rumford, RI has taken the only field trip in its history to hear the RI Philharmonic play stuff from Bizet’s ” Carmen”. At least one kid ( out of probable 200 or so) is vastly impressed.

     Cut to 2007, in color: the Roger, riding in traffic on Rt.2, listening to recently downloaded cool stuff on car CD , makes derisive faces at guy in next lane with horrifically loud system that is shaking the welds of his trunk apart, at an estimated 40% THD. What’s he listening to? Who cares? It’s re-arranging the frontal lobes of his brain, but sadly keeps falling back into the same relative position, hence the same result. SOS. And me? I was TRYING to listen to the LA Guitar Quartet doing stuff from ” Carmen”. Yeah, that’s right, MF. Opera done on classical guitars.

     ( Camera slowly pans from baboon in other car, to baboon in my car ( yes I know) , to passenger seat …zooms in on shoebox lined with aluminum foil, a Confederate D-guard Bowie knife ( look it up), a chaotic assortment of band-aids ( not a one with the Flinstones on it), two bath towels, a fifth of Tullamore Dew, and the ever-present roll of duct tape. Weird, annoying music from the shower scene in ” Pschyo” plays fervently and fades as I yet again pull into the Post Office parking lot. 

     This happens every few years or so.  I listen to a little too much classical guitar ( especially Spanish), and, in a fit of Van-Gogh-ish self-loathing, am driven to chop the fingers off my hand ( I alternate left and right) and mail them to Paco de Lucia in Andalucia, Spain. Because I occasionally channel the ghost of Andres Segovia, and he tells me it would be for the best. Because if I either can’ t or won’t use the damn things the way God intended, well…send them to someone who actually knows how to play. The trouble is, Paco keeps sending them back. Says he appreciates the thought, but it’s very weird, and I’m scaring the family. And that he plays just fine with what God gave him ( the sarcastic bastard). Plus, he always sends money to have them re-attached ( no miracle surgery, this is where the band-aids, duct tape, and Tullamore Dew come in to play). So, I try again, and after a while I begin to think that maybe I’m not so bad. Maybe I’ve got a few chops after all, those freaking crazy Spanish guys should just stay on their side of the pond and maybe get a Les Paul and a modeling amp that at least has a decent Marshall sample in it. Damned rose-chewin’- high-heel wearin’- bullfight-watchin’ MFs. Yeah. That’s right. Damn straight, too.

     Cut to Rt.2,  two years later; LAGQ is in the CD player again, because some punk on some back-water blog site had to go spouting off about opera… but damn, that sounds good…wait…Andres? Is that you? … no, no, man, I didn’t really mean any of that…what? No, I don’t know any ” Paco”…What?? You say “Esteban” wants them?…1% commission from QVC? Well… damn it, hold on, where did I put the %)&%* duct tape….

Roger’s Recommendations for the Operatically Inclined;

LA Guitar Quartet- Sequidilla, Aragonaise ( from” Carmen”) Youtube clips from 92nd Street Y; Overture from Rossini’s ” Barber of Seville”: Guitalion Quartet- ” Habanera” from Carmen; Soldier’s March ( play this stuff fairly loud- the dynamics are awesome). And , no, it will not break the welds in the trunk of your car.

the Wakefield Doctrine (“…I never give you my pillow, I only send you my invitations…”)

with 2 comments

Just to start the week on a more reasoned basis, this will be a short Post. With the simple goal of stating the Premise and the Principles, the Goal(s) and the Guidelines (of) the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

Originally conceived from the  observations of three friends and their distinctive yet complementary worldviews, the Doctrine has evolved into a coherent and cohesive description of the worldview of all people everywhere, as divided into three groups: clarks, scotts and rogers. The key premise to this, thing of ours, is that the way we perceive the world around us is the predicate to all behavior. Further, that while all people, male and female, foreign and domestic are born with the potential, the capacities represented by the three groups (clarks, scotts and rogers) it is only by the end of early childhood (ages 3 to 5) do we ‘become’ predominately one of the three of these personality types. Throughout our lives we repeat and practice and make ourselves completely a clark or a scott or a roger.

There are a certain percentage of clarks and scotts and rogers, who not completely and totally conditioned, are capable of seeing and accepting the possibility of differing worldviews (or more tellingly, imaging differing realities) that will be able to read this Wakefield Doctrine and get something from it. (Amusement, break from boredom, maybe even a baby-satori leading to a samadhi-ette like state). Suffice it to say, this blog has as it’s purpose, the presentation of the theory of clark, scotts and rogers to as wide an audience as possible.

So, whether you are new to this site or have been here before, Welcome to the Doctrine. Read, Learn, Enjoy (and buy a hat).

There will be longer Posts (mostly) and shorter Posts (like this one). Funnier ones and more serious ones. These Posts change, the contents of the Pages is more lasting. You will see tabs at the top of the page labeled clarks, scotts, rogers, so, which am I, about. Here is the more stable content, very helpful to ‘flesh out’ what we talk about in these Posts.

These Posts are intended to be ‘an overheard conversation’, a conversation between people familiar with the Wakefield Doctrine. Sometimes you will see Interviews, sometimes you will see pieces of opera (can’t explain that). But what is written in these Posts is more of a down-to-earth, easier to apply to ‘real life’ parts of the Doctrine. In fact, it is our belief that if we write a Post that is a faithful representation of the conversations we (here at the Wakefield Doctrine) actually have, it will be much easier to assimilate the whole damn mess. You should know very quickly what is meant by an expression like, ‘he is such a roger‘ or ‘she is so scottian’.

So thats all for this Post.

(Also we often refer to ‘Sloviiiaaannnsss’ that is an affectionate reference to the fact that we are seeing increasing numbers of foreign Visitors/Readers, among them folks logging in from Slovenia).

Any Questions, leave as a Comment. All will be responded to…

(The Doctrine is also beginning to makes it’s prescence felt in SL. So we like to say hello to Friends of the Doctrine there as well. Congrats to Jen on her good tidings, to Delilhah the very sucessful (and supportive) Creator and Landlady of Old NYC and Kino, a friend who has been selfless in listening to my endless questions and ‘thought’. Hey y’all!)

…And if nothing else is true about the Doctrine, this is: ‘we likes our music’ so here is a little from ‘the youtube’

the Wakefield Doctrine (…we of the university majors at Los Angeles, California who had a Harvard University Dean come to teach us…)

with 5 comments

…(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.

the Wakefield Doctrine (…and after this brief word from the roger, we will continue our discussion, ‘Where the hell is this thing going…’?

with 10 comments

(As previously noted, the Progenitor roger is more comfortable using Comments as (his) preferred form of communicating. While respecting that, I claim the right to edit, to the extent of copy/pasting (his) Comments into this Post.) (Other than ‘cut and paste’ and formatting as a block quote, there has been no change, alteration or modification to the Comment. It is, as the rogerian expression would have it, ‘complete and unabashed’).


From the Roger:
On my way home from work, I generally listen to a radio program called ” Fresh Air” on NPR. Interviews and articles on a wide array of stuff, hosted by Teri Gross. Today, she was interviewing Tracy Morgan, who was an SNL guy and is now on “30 Rock”. She has great skills as an interviewer, and always seems to get something good out of that scenario.
Sadly, even she was at a bit of a loss with Tracy Morgan. I can now honestly say that I have never heard a more hopelessly Rogerian Roger than this guy. OMG. Completely mesmerized with himself, absolutely awash in self-indulgence. Lots of dead air in this interview, because Tracy had to keep fighting back tears as he ranted about the only truly important thing on this Earth.
This sort of thing can send a Progenitor screaming in search of the nearest cliff. It is acutely painful to have to witness. I felt simultaneously angered and embarrassed. Angry, because these people are out there, and likely doing massive damage to anyone who has to interact with them. Embarrassed, because I see elements of myself clearly. This bad of a Roger should be simply cut from the herd and made to learn to survive on his own, or not. Whatever.
I’d like to offer a point of clarification, also, to people who may be new to this blog and it’s main idea. Yes, Clark-Scott-Roger are all somewhat static personality types that may seem almost stereotypical. But- and this really is the Point, if you would indulge me- as Progenitors, we all three have grown astronomically above and away from those one-dimensional caricatures. The ” original” Clark could never have dreamed of piloting a blog. I could never have gotten out of my own way enough to ever consider contributing to it. And even though the “original” Scott hasn’t said much in this forum, that in itself is quite telling. We have all…evolved. I myself could only quote a few significant particulars that may have caused such a dramatic and yet gradual change. Maybe just basic human nature; if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger. I am still fundamentally a Roger, but now have the bittersweet capacity to see the horrific learning curve that a fledgling Roger has to get through to survive. The poor bastards. If they could see all of that at one glance, that in itself would crush them.( Either that, or they’d get a gig on a network sitcom…)This would hold true for all three types, of course. But we all seem to have found our particular ways to change and still remain the same.
So, now we have Progenitors ( Clark, Scott, and I) and Downsprings ( second-generation cadre). Some of the Downsprings are actually better examples of us than we are. I sense that we might need one more descriptive term just to fit the newbies, though. Anyone have an idea? Or does “downspring” serve that purpose as well?
And just a last bit of field advice for those Rogers who are just awakening to these odd and awkward Clarkscottrogerian gems of truth; aim low, conserve your ammunition, and for God’s sake, stay off the radio.

When this blog first came into existence, most of the discussion centered on, ‘no way! You actually did it! Hey, let me try!’ You know, that kind of far-reaching, insightful thought. This should come as zero surprise to anyone reading this, because if you are reading this you are one of the 100 plus million blog writers that are out there. (And the beauty part, the fatal attraction of this world of blogs is the tendency to think, ‘jeez, I know I am not (fill in your favorite writer), but if I get only one tenth of one percent of those other guys to read my Posts, I’ll be famous!’)

The fact is, the internet is clogged with good ideas. The blogsphere has a tendency to look like a bus station from the sixties; busy, lots of interesting people, ‘hey is that guy throwing up over there?’ But hey so what?  Afterall, the Beatles spent years playing in basement night clubs in Germany and went through 18 drummers before they were an overnight success.

Rogers’ contribution today brings home the idea that no matter how good, how original an idea might be, without a clear presentation, it is worthless. Roger speaks of the fact that we,  (the clark, the scott and the roger), have all evolved. Have changed. Does that mean the title of this blog should be  ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and the people that they have turned into and the other people that seem to act like them at times and not like them at other times’)?

This is a serious question.

The thing of it is, the Doctrine, while it has become a public exposition of the personal experiences of three friends, seems to have legs in the real world. Allowing for the possibility of self-delusion/illusion/allusion, (NO! say it ain’t so!), We will persist in this effort to carry the message of the Wakefield Doctrine to the world at large, one Post at a time.

To the discussion at hand. Should the Doctrine include a new term or description to account for the change and development that we all go through in life?


(Now that was simple enough!)

(What do you mean, more explanation than that?) Alright. As to why it is not necessary to add categories or further elements to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Two reasons:

a) the foundation of the Doctrine. clarks, scotts and rogers represent ways of interacting with the world, and we are all born with the complete range of qualities. There is no purely scottian people or rogerian or clarklike. We have the potential (at a very young age at least) to become any of the three. It just seems  that people develop into one or the other or other;

b)by definition, the Wakefield Doctrine contains the elements of what (roger) is asking, i.e. what happens, what do we become if we, (as clarks, or scotts or rogers) develop? That answer is contained in the Wakefield Doctrine.

You know, in a stomach turning way, Roger’s question is a sign, a signal that we are reaching a point in this thing of ours where we must change. Grow. Do something useful. But, you say, shouldn’t we wait until we have readers, followers,viewers, hits, page visits, inclusion on many other blog writers blog rolls?

Again, no.

If the metaphor of being a garage band blog holds, then it is time to get a bit more organised. (You all remember that there came a time for the endless jams, pointless solos to end. Time to get a set list.  Stop the silly antics between songs.) So lets start to discuss practical application of the Doctrine.

uh, how about next Post? (meanwhile let me play this blues riff, its really something…)

the Wakefield Doctrine (…?)

leave a comment »

Welcome once again to the Wakefield Doctrine which is really to say welcome to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.  You/we have been introduced to the Progenitors: Clark, Scott and Roger.  Estimable personages they are.  Partiality aside, the theory put forth in this blog is both valid and verifiable.  In order to reach this conclusion, you the reader, must first read each page (including comments).  And then read again.

The Progenitors, as well as all contributing authors, have provided insurmountable proof that people behave according to their predominant world view (ie. that of a clark, scott or roger).  Here at the Wakefield Doctrine one can find true stories, film clips, fun facts and humorous anecdotes to support the idea that anyone can understand anyone else simply by knowing if a person is a clark, scott or roger

No one would argue that there are certain advantages to this.  Wouldn’t you want to:  Know ahead of time how your new boss operates?  How to anticipate his actions/reactions? (don’t get on his bad side unless you are immune to screaming and/or tirades) or Know exactly how the volunteer coordinator at your child’s school plans to keep everyone helping everyone else?( insert wide grin, saucer eyes, too pleasant voice) or What’s the best approach to the new employee – the one that seems shy, maybe a little distant, aloof even. (compliment her on her footwear or for him, throw out a quote from Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Pulp Fiction).

Good so far?  No.  Not for me.  It’s not enough.  It’s not enough just to know/learn who is a clark or who is a scott or who is a roger.  That’s the fun part.  What I want to know is how can I make this thing (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) work for me?

So the larger question remains:  how can I better myself and by extension my life by knowing who is the clark, the scott and the roger?  I/you have identified characteristic behavior, observed interpersonal dynamics of family, friends and co-workers (this can be both challenging and entertaining especially during the holidays and/or special occasions where there are large groups in attendance) and most importantly of course, identified my/your own self.

The challenge now is how to utilize the other two world views.  How do I, an admitted (but not yet committed) clark, wander the earth using my latent scottian and rogerian qualities to my advantage.  How do I think like a clark, act like a scott, and feel as a roger?

the Wakefield Doctrine (clarks talk, scotts act, rogers comfort)

leave a comment »

The primary and persistent topic of conversation here at the Wakefield Doctrine is:

…what do we say and how do we write it so that a total stranger, coming upon this blog, will Read, Understand and Follow (the directions) of the Wakefield Doctrine?

We know that once a person has grasped the basic concept, they will see the clarks, scotts and rogers  who are all around them, which will then lead to a deeper understanding of both the Doctrine and it’s application in their lives. Unfortunately, this medium (blog/written/by example), is difficult for those of us who, while we have an idea that is valuable beyond measure, when it comes to expressing the idea, we really can’t write so good.

Well, if the answer cannot be found in the Wakefield Doctrine, then what good is that? And the answer is…*

So, what do we think? (By ‘we’, I mean the represented constituency of the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. clark, scott and roger.)

(Lets just go ahead and ask them).


another of usShut up, shut up, I already said that I was the best of all you sorry excuses for persoinality types!!!! Just let me at those readers, I ‘ll make ’em understand, you’ll see. Just watch me.



yet another of usPlease, people, can’t we all just get along. I feel that you have upset scott, it reminds me of a story…



another of usShut up with your f*cking stories, you BLT with a side-of-fries walking throw pillow. Do you know I am your master??!!…




yet another of usI do know that and it makes me happy to see how that makes you feel when I hear you say the things that I remember hearing once in a….



another of usMake him stop!!! Make him stop!!! His soothing voice is ketchup, his peaceful eyes are like those little round potatoes that have gravy just on the bottom half of them and….



one of usPlease?! Gentleman! We are in a public forum. We must conduct ourselves in a more congenial, and therefore more productive (in terms of the conveying of knowledge to our hypothetical…)…


another of usMake him Stop!!!




one of usShut up please




another of us‘Public forum this’, you pendantic, overly talkative motherf*cker!!! I know your kind! And if I ever get a free second from my demanding schedule of intimidating and offending everyone that I meet who is not stronger than me, I’ll murderlize ya’


one of usReally? I’m must say that surprises and disappoints me. I actually thought that we were making progress and combining our strengths so that….



yet another of usMake him stop please, for the love of humanity make him stop. I get so sleepy when he goes on like that, so that all I can think of are the woods; find and run to the woods.  With the correct clothing I can sleep under a bush somewhere…



another of usYeah go ahead, I’ll still find you, you NY Sytems, up- the-arm-with-relish-and-ketchup-and-that-grey-sprinkly stuff-they-put-on-the-top-that-makes-you-drink-a-full-bottle-of-Coke…




Lets stop here and think about…

                                             think about this


yet another of usI feel you are both being totally non-Doctrinistical in your pre-insemmination of the idea. All people with the proper eradication will know that what we have is the pineapple of human understanding…






*A contest!!**

**For the person who writes the best single Post explanation of the Wakefield Doctrine***

***A hat, of course!

Written by clarkscottroger

September 15, 2009 at 9:07 am