Comments on: Discussion Page

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:57:51 +0000

Good to hear from you...as if. As the Doctrine states we have the potential of all three within us but it is the predominant 'worldview' that marks us as a clark, scott or roger. Further, if you are reading (and comprehending this) then you are a slightly mutated form of scott (or clark or roger) because a 'pure' scott (or clark or roger) would not have the 'flexible' intelligence to be able to see that what they feel is the world is only one of a number of versions. Keep reading, you will see whole Posts written by scotts and you can clearly see the difference bewteen those and the Posts written by rogers or clarks.

By: cynthia

cynthia — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:53:46 +0000

Well clark has already identified me as a scott.I certainly have projected a scottian personality for a good part of my life.That’s just me I guess.Sometimes I try not to be so Scotty but it’s a mindset that hard to get away from.Like today my significant other asked me where I had bought my greens and I said fucking Mars like just because.Well I’m pretty tired but I figured out how to make a comment anyway.Technology can be very tedious and annoying if you know what I mean but I may see you tomorrow….if you’re lucky

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:46:24 +0000

Deconstructing the self…interesting concept planted in my head over the weekend by Clark. We all contain all three elements. One emerges as dominant–that becomes our “which one are you”. If I’m really honest. I know that there have been times when I was a complete fucking roger. God! It galls me to admit that. After a failed romance, heartbroken and wounded, pining away, indulging in emotional excesses all over the place. I WAS a roger then. Still embarasses me to remember it. When I was younger, still not formed, only about 18 or 19, I went through a clark phase that still scares me when I think about it today. I was thinking all kinds of crazy, schizoid thoughts all day every day about the nature and fluidness of reality. Very distressing conepts for anyone–but especially to someone who eventually mature into a scott. As a scott, I know reality is reality. If you run really fast into a tree, you hurt yourself. The tree is real. But when I was a clark for awhile, I could entertain thoughts about reality being nothing more solid than my own thoughts. Reality is perception. I distinctly, clearly remember those thoughts–and how disturbing they were to me. At that time I was terrified by the prospect that I might think like this for the rest of my life. It would set me apart. Isolate me. Leave me with nobody to talk with, because I was convinced that there was no other person on the planet thinking this way but me. Thank God, I matured out of that to the spitting, snorting, swearing, aggresive, competetive scott I was always destined to be. But, for a brief time, I have been both of the others. Not comfortable being either one–but I was there. And so, my roger and clark must still be with me. Not so far beneath the surface. The thought is not comforting, but must be acknowledged. There is something about the COMFORT factor. I CAN be a roger. I CAN be a clark. But I’m only comfortable being a scott.
Brings up an interesting side note to this entire “thing” we have here. Years ago we used to talk about Bob Johnsons. A Bob Johnson is, theoretically anyway, a person who is equally a scott, roger, and a clark. Very rare. Also very unstable–and they usually self-destruct somehow. The effect of not having a dominant type, results in such undirected, unfocused behavior that usually ends in some kind of bad outcome. I’ve personally known only one Bob Johnson in my lifetime. His name was Ed Lees. After brilliantly inventing a business, and building it to an unbelievable level of success, he drank himself to death–quite publicly. Humiliation and defeat defined the end of his life. Because he contained all three elements equally, he was in fact brilliant–and hugely effective and successful. However it could not be sustained–and he crashed landed on his way to his eventual ignominious death. People shook their heads and acknowledged his brilliance–and lamented his strong self-destructive impulses.
Bob Johnsons are rare. Like three-toed sloths. A historical figure I can name who was probably also a Bob Johnson is Richard Nixon. Same story.
So be aware of your recessive styles, but be grateful that you have one dominant style. It seems a risky business at best to try and “develop” your recessive side(s). (Parentheses are for you, Clark. I know you like ‘em). Too much development of recessive traits could cause you to become a Bob Johnson.
And now, just because I need to do it….Fuck you clark, you intellectually constipated retard. And fuck you Roger, you simpering, frightened, child. Perhaps I am talking to my inner clark, and my inner roger, when I attack like that. But, maybe not. Fuck you anyway.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:40:15 +0000

Good points Roger. You actually had some. Read it. Got it. Liked it.

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:30:35 +0000

Oh yeah, forgot to mention…
That principle applies to this blog, too. The Wakefield Doctrine is actually pretty succinct, once you familiarize yourself with the three groupings. Not much to it, really. Definitely needs a bit of sprucing up for public scrutiny and consumption. Then it will practically sell itself.

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:06:45 +0000

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…

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:58:47 +0000

Thanks for responding. I don’t get the “Mr. Wayne” reference. Help.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:58:06 +0000

Thanks for responding. I don’t get the “Mr. Wayne” reference. I’m a country boy. I don’t get out much.

By: Downspring#1

Downspring#1 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:26:24 +0000

:)
Come back soon Mr. Wayne and bring some more “points”. Oh, and don’t forget the A1.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:28:29 +0000

Lots of “stylish” writing on this blog. Lots and lots of it….Sizzle all over the place. Need some steak. This blog is “all hat–no cowboy”. Want to know why? 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! The very idea of noodling around a bunch of cleverly placed words on a screen seems like such a waste of energy to a scott. Get a point–first. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP! If you do not complete step one, do not go on to step two. WAIT! A point will occur to you. When it does, and only when it does, proceed to step two. Step two is write your point. Concisely. Succinctly. And get the fuck out. Like this.