Lyle Lovett | the Wakefield Doctrine

Hello no, no there is plenty of room down here in front y’all should come on in and set awhile

August 25, 2010 By clarkscottroger Leave a Comment

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

This is the blog that has it all! Clever photos (from the treasure trove of drawings and pictures and paintings to be found in/on the internet), catchy and occasionally intriguing music videos graciously pre-donated by the self-less people in and around youtube and other similar take-one caches and information (god! do we have information, not just a lot of information but all kinds, information that is: true, accurate, mis-informed, well-intentioned, subversive, coercive, divisive and mostly free; all presented in a way that best serves the ultimate judge of value, us.) And this blog has what no one else has in, on or around the Internet, it has the Wakefield Doctrine. Which is, as Regular Readers will attest to, a unique, beneficial and fun way to look at the behavior of those in our lives. Whether at home or at work or at play, with the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine, you can finally understand why our family and friends and co-workers do the things that they do! And have fun doing it! Oh, and by the way? with the tools you will acquire from understanding the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, you will not only understand people, you will be able to predict the behavior of the people in your life! (Pretty not-bad, eh Missy?) Once you are able to determine whether a person is a clark or a scott or roger, then you will be able to reliably and accurately predict their reaction to virtually any situation.

(Well, it’s true…) With the information contained in this blog, (in the Pages and these Posts) you will learn pretty damn quick how to spot a roger or a scott and/or a clark. With the information contained in this blog, (in the Pages especially) you will learn to see the world through the eyes of the other person, you will know the nature of ‘the relationship’ between the person and the world (they believe they are in), With the information contained in this blog you will come to understand yourself better and be able to change whatever you might want to change (if you are a clark) or take advantage of the other persons need for change (if you are a scott) or simply be even more certain of your place in the world (if you are roger). All this and more.

A note to New Readers and/or Visitors “Be sure to try this at home. All that you read is not done by professionals, it is all done on a whim and a prayer. Perhaps a better description is (courtesy of the Progenitor roger) this is improvisational academics. But why the hell not, the only person you can hurt is yourself (if you are a clark doing it wrong) or the other person (if you are a scott and you will surely get it wrong at the start) or no one cause you know there is no point to it (if you are a roger).

Very Important Point…even though it is written throughout this frickin ‘zoo-as-personality-theory’, the most basic premise to the Wakefield Doctrine is that the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers) together comprise the range of ‘behavior’ of all of us. The potential range of behavior might be a better description. Put another way, all of us, including the scott who has wandered away 2 paragraphs ago, have the qualities of all three. The Wakefield Doctrine says that at one point in early life, we become predominately one of the three. But we never lose the potential of the other two. (As a slightly obsequious bit of flattery, it is further maintained that anyone getting (this far) in the Doctrine is a somewhat more superior example of their type. An un-alloyed clark would have decided in the first sentence that they had already thought of this and move on, the full throttle scott would have skipped all this and gone straight to the video and stayed only if they liked the song and a pure roger would not have stayed any longer than it took for him to decide that this was not Family Tree dot Com.) But you are not like that, are you?

(Oh yeah, the Wakefield Doctrine is also gender neutral and culture neutral. But I am out of clever ways to present an example of this, while still making the distinction among the three).

So come on in, read this shit and tell a friend.

If you stay around you will see that we have a number of regularly repeating themes/features/characters whatever. There are people who will write Posts and portions of Posts, these are referred to as Progenitors and DownSprings. You will also see reference to Friends of the Doctrine, people who have their own blogs and/or websites and come and contribute from time to time. And there is Mill Fill High. This is an “imaginary” high school with students and staff that you will see turn up from Post to Post. As a device Mill Fill has been fun and useful, for example, there are a couple of Posts from late last year/early this year, that consisted of a ‘Lecture’ to the CSR 101 class (it will make sense later) where the Progenitor roger and DownSpring Ms AKH and glenn all had the opportunities to expound on the Doctrine. All in a safe and supportive environment. Aren’t blogs wonderful?

So stick around and see if you can pick up on this things of ours. There are some movie clips to illustrate behavior as seen in clarks, scotts and rogers, those are helpful. And there are Comments from Regular Readers that will also help you get to that point where, in the course of the day you will find yourself saying, “Damn! That has got to be one of those scott people!” (Correct term is scottian, pronounced sco shun). Most likely your first eureka moment will be in response to rogers, given that there are so many of them. In any event, have fun and let us know what you have questions on…remember the saying, “there are no stupid questions, there are just your questions”.

Oh, yeah….hats (for your damn heads). You will see in the Fashion Center examples of Wakefield Doctrine fashion items. From time to time we have contests and from time to time we just give these fine, fine head coverings away. Well, today is your lucky day. For the first two Readers who write a Comment there will be sent (to you) a (nearly free) hat (for your damn head). That simple.
(The ‘nearly free’? That just means that we require a photo of your new hat in front of a recognizable local landmark, with or without the support of (your damn) head. As we have said before, camera-shy clarks can get one of their more attractive friends to model the hat. All we want is a photo(s) of the hat and the geography. Example from about a month ago is Mel wearing his hat (on his own damn head) in front of a lighthouse in “Michigan”. Yo, thanks Mel. You get the idea, no?)

Mr. B! Sure come on up and take a bow…lots of new Readers…no, I don’t think they need to hear your side of the story…nobody cares anymore…I know! I’m as surprised at that satement as you are…whats you gots, B? (yeah something on that end of the spectrum…we have a little scott who is feeling kinda sad and a little mopey…gimme sumpin to cheer his ass up…)

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Lyle Lovett, Personal, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

the third frickin time…this pitcha better be worth it

July 6, 2010 By clarkscottroger Leave a Comment

Back to work/school/summer vacation. Tough time settling on a second video, seem to be stuck in a clarklike rut. (kind of an oxymoron, eh wot?) To give you a sense of how slow the process has been this morning, it has taken 45 minutes to get this far. The music vids are usually the most fun, if not time consuming, but I got totally bogged down with a lot of clarklike stuff. (Actually it was in search of subtitle material that got me on the clark trail, started with Lyle then for some reason the subject of ‘time’, which lead, of course, to Cyndi (she is such a clark!) (in fact despite the fact that I gave up on her as a music video, back she comes.) Screw this, “oh I am so confused, this is so difficult, bullshit”…

Hey, Cyndi! which way to the ’80s, yo.

Cyndi is a clark. Even without the song lyrics, you would know her the minute you saw the damn clothes.

Back to the planned Post.

Hey Readers! (yes, you).
I happen to know that at least 50% of the Readers looking at this today have been with us for at least six months. And , no this is not going to be one of those please write a Comment, we want to know you are out, Posts. We do know you are out. (and I lied…about the Comments.) I do want you to leave a Comment. I would like to get a sense of the demographics of our little Reader pool. At the bottom of this Post is a place to leave a Comment. Click on it. (You will be prompted to type your name, email address (it says we will not publish it, knucklehead*) and website if any. Do this thing. And simply tell us which of the three you are. Pretty simple, isn’t it?

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), besides being a wonderful way to look at yourself and those around you, is a tool that we are only beginning to appreciate. That is, what the Doctrinesays about the result of today’s Poll. (And it does make an initial statement, but that would not be fair to Studley ’cause Studley be in the UK and they don’t check in until much later in the day.) But the Doctrine predicts things about clarks, scotts and rogers that even the Progenitors did not realize. Cool.

So the rest of the Post is going to be us…waiting.
Why, waiting for you to send in your damn comment…(damn…have not picked out the photos for the top and the lead page. Shit, given the way things have been going this morning, I shouldn’t plan on getting away from this computer for another hour or so….)

Hey, did you know that?…(nah, wouldn’t be fair to the clarks out there.) Come on, the poor bastards have to work hard enough just to get through the day without adding that information to the general understanding of “the behavior of those around us, at home at work at school and at play”. And even though, bottom line, clarks have more strength than the other two combined, it is twisted up in such a way that the effort to get to the (benefit) of this strength is hardly ever worth the effort. Or so it seems to most clarks. (Which is really too bad, as that is the beginning of the understanding that clarks need to get to, in order to stop the un-necessary suffering.)

So, done yet? I’m not seeing no Comments, amigos! Come on, binyons…a little help here.
(Comments from DownSprings and Progenitors do not count. I know what they are, hey I created them…like I need to know that glenn is a scott and roger is a roger and DownSpring#1 is a clark..a fuckin blindman could see that…)

*oxoymoron: Samuel Goldwyn is credited with more of these, aka Yogi Berra type statements than frickin Yogi is, attend:

Destroy the old files, but make copies first. — Samuel Goldwyn

Spare no expense to save money on this one. — Samuel Goldwyn

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day. — Samuel Goldwyn

I never said most of the things I said. — Yogi Berra

No one goes to that place anymore – it’s always too crowded. — Yogi Berra

Reporter: You say you’ve never made a picture before? Samuel Goldwyn: Yes, but that’s our strongest weak point. — Samuel Goldwyn

The next time I send a damn fool for something, I go myself. — Samuel Goldwyn

To paraphrase Jimi Hendrix…”put that damn keyboard, down!”

Lyle!! you up dude, take this Post…put it in a burlap bag, tie a knot in the open end, hit the whole thing with a bat a few time and throw it off a bridge…

Lesson of the Day? the Doctrine predicts that there will be three Comments, all but one of them will be lying about which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) they are…which would make them scotts.

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, Lyle Lovett, the Wakefield Doctrine

and I ain’t done nothing since I woke up today

June 7, 2010 By clarkscottroger 6 Comments

(roger…roger…roger…)

When I got up this morning, my first thought was, as always, what am I going to write about for the day’s Post? And it seemed that the answer was, “hey since writing yesterday’s (“…the best to you each morning”) let’s talk about the benefit of ‘lightning up”. This would have recounted the struggle of recent days to come up with anything but how yesterday, after writing and publishing the Post, I went back in and added some fun, recollectational stuff. (The thing about eating Grape Nuts in a college dorm.) And it did seem like the way I was going to go today. But then I went in search of a subtitle….and that took me to Lyle (actually John Prine) and then the photos (above and on the home page) and that took me to rogers. So, I guess I do not have an easy to write morning….

Screw it, let’s stay a little human today. Hey, when you look back at your very early life, what do you recall being the first exhibition of being the type you are (clark, scott or roger)? I distinctly recall being 4 or 5 and being ‘tickled into submission’, you know the way that kids do that? Get an initial reaction and then follow through until you are sitting on top of your laughing so hard you victim and despite being begged to stop you continue the ticklation. I recall that after one of these “attacks” I decided that I would not be ticklish anymore. That simple. And I proceeded to do…something….not quite clear on the process, other than I seem to recall that it did not happen overnight, but eventually (and to this day) I was no longer ticklish. (Here is the clarklike part, I knew that what I was doing was something that “nobody can do that”. And in the process of becoming ‘non-ticklish’, others would comment along the same lines, “you can’t do that, no one can make themselves not be ticklish”.) Guess that is my first memory that I can see shows me as a clark. I suspect that this suggestion will have validity only to clarks, but I could be wrong. In fact, I suspect that I am wrong because as I have stated before, you Readers are not normal. By definition, you have an ability to see yourselves from a different perspective than does the general population. And this will be part of the challenge in bringing the Wakefield Doctrine to the world. Most people cannot, deliberately step back and see themselves. They think that the world they see and hear and react to is the same for everyone.
But… “you and I have been through that, and this not our fate” (to channel Bob a little).

Am resisting writing about rogers, as the two photos that showed up today (“accidentally iconic images, reporting for duty today, sir!) are clearly of rogers…btw, add actress Kathy Bates to your list of rogerian women. So I will go for the short Post and get right to the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. And the lesson is not really a lesson, it is an observation. About the perspective of age. I have long spoken about how we all “lock into’ a certain age and stay there despite the steady advance of time. It is different for each of us and effectively it is the age of the person you expect to see when you walk down the street and see your reflection in a storefront window. (I have come across a blog, where the writer has come up with a description of this phenomenon way totally better than I have. He say, “What would you say your age is, if you forgot how old you were?” Damn. Says it perfectly).
Anyway, we all do that. Lock into a certain age, no matter how old we get. There is a long, metaphysical explanation (“hey Luuucyy, you got some splainnn“) that has to do with the idea that we all have a description inside ourselves of what the world should be, how life is supposed to turn out. It is not entirely conscious, and it is not entirely positive. But it is the sum of what we have been taught that life is all about. As in, “clark, when you grow up you will….” When we reach a point when all that follows is in our lives, we can then stop getting older, the wait is over. That is the age you lock in at.

So the Wakefield Doctrine lesson of the day comes from DownSpring#1 who asks in a Comment on the previous Post, (if I may paraphrase)…” it is a given that rogers live in a self-centered universe. Self-centered in the pure sense of the word, all things come back to the roger…all things (of value) issue from the roger.” (DS#1 goes on to ask)…”does the roger even know that this is an artificial arrangement or is it beyond comprehension (that the universe does not revolve around them?)”

I will offer my input and then open the floor to Comments. From phyllis (a roger) comes the explanation that, ”rogers exist in a box that they have created and then manage to forget that they are the creator…it is a box so that it must by definition be the whole universe, but it is limited for the same reason. For the sake of ‘completeness’.”

“Eee doggies! Uncle Jed! That done loaded down the truck what making it scrape right on the ground!”

(Oh Meester Hanitor!!! we shore would be appreciatin some fine music, rat about now, dontcha know?)

(warning bootleg vid, have to listen to the scotts in the audience scream along…)

Hey…lets go with another Emmylou…

OK…Contest time….we know what John is (roger) and Lyle is (clark) so what the heck is Emmylou? (Hint: the Progenitor roger used to totally love her…)

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, humor, Lyle Lovett, Personal, personality types, relationships, Spatula in the Wilderness, the Wakefield Doctrine

the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate instensity

May 10, 2010 By clarkscottroger 1 Comment

I have an explanation, and I promise not to get all artsy and all on you…well, not too artsy…

Changes are being seen here at the Doctrine. No, not to the Wakefield Doctrine itself, rather to the people who are directly involved in this little experiment of a blog. Originally intended to be a group effort, creation of the Posts fell primarily to one of us. With occasional contributions from the Progenitor roger, but for the most part what you have been reading (in this blog) has been the product of one mind/viewpoint/personality. And not that that is a bad thing, it has provided a continuity, a consistency, a single-mindedness of how the Wakefield Doctrine has been presented.

But over the past 9 months or so, we have tried different ways to incorporate the differing viewpoints (of the Doctrine) that inevitably results when having 10 people providing content. This (approach) has been successful to varying degrees. When this approach has worked, it has worked rather well, case in point being the different ‘Interview’ Posts. These Posts have offered an opportunity to get another ‘take’ on the Doctrine.

We are now entering a phase (in the development of this blog) wherein more and more there will be other participants not only offering opinions and Comments, but creating actual content, writing Posts. All with a common purpose, of course, to advance the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and to demonstrate practical applications of this wonderful tool…(what was that?…do I hear a plaintive howl in the distance?…it sounds like a lonely scott…in silhouette against the backdrop of a lonely world of prey and predatore…saying something…”higher purpose”….”higher purpose”…)

Oh, yeah. DownSpring Glenn would like to pose a question to you all, however he has a scottian disability and can only speak through an inter-mediary (unless it is through the Comments section, which is akin to the claque, but not for hire). Anyway, he does have a Valid Point. Let us use this as the starting point for the Wakefield Doctrine lesson of the day.

(Now we get fancy…as I stated, Glenn can only communicate through Comments…which will have a necessary time delay…so I will pose the initial question and the pre-suppose the answers in order to present the follow-up questions…)

So, Monsieur M. you have a question for us, non? (my apologies, while it is a scottian characteristic to be gifted at languages, this scott is more to the south, romance languages-speaking. (So, if I may begin again…)

CSR: ¿Así pues, Sr. Glenn, usted deseaba plantear una pregunta a nuestros lectores en vista de la doctrina de Wakefield? (I will cut and paste his responses for the convenience of our Readers)
DownSpring Glenn: “Well, yeah. The question is: To what higher purpose can the Doctrine be applied? We call it “fun”. We say it is “interesting”. We say it is “useful”. How? Is there some more lofty purpose for it? Can it lift people up? Can it help us ease the burdens of living in the world? Can it promote more understanding among people? (Fuck that!)”

CSR: Este ‘ Un Purpose’ más alto; ¿puede usted darnos un ejemplo de lo que usted significa?
DownSpring Glenn:My question is—Is this a lofty enough purpose? Can the doctrine ….save the world? Can it …end war? Can it ….keep families together? You tell me. I don’t know. Or is it just fun–and that’s enough. How seriously should we take ourselves in this matter? Are we doing something here that is fun? Or are we doing something that is ….important? Fuck! The question sounds rogerian.

Well, that was certainly interesting.

This has been a fairly disjointed Post…(“no, Miss Sullivan, I believe they can make a distinction… very amusing…) but we are serious here about presenting the principles of the Doctrine in each and every Post. So what is the lesson we take from today’s little effort? Very simply, the Wakefield Doctrine will alter your world, your reality. What you are seeing on these pages are the proof of this statement. Unfortunately, at this stage of the process the evidence of this benefit is confined to the (direct) partipicpants, i.e. the Progenitors and DownSprings. All of us here at the Doctrine can see the effect that this project is having on each other, thereby reinforcing this change. But before I get too branch davidian on your asses, lets stop for now and get out the ol WD foot tappin way… Mr. B? if you will…