Edge Warriors – Renegades All

“Ren-e-gade (adj.) – 2: having rejected tradition:  UNCONVENTIONAL”

So what is more cathartic?  Saying “FUCK YOU!” (or “fuck you”) to someone or simply and silently giving them the finger.  Case in point:  this morning my SO baited me with a comment as I was leaving the living room.  As soon as his comment hit my ears I spun around fully prepared to say fuck you until I saw him smile.  What a roger!!  I decided instead to give him the finger – with an equally magnanimous smile.  LOL 

His comment of course was a way of “fucking” with me.  He often defends himself with – “gee hon, I was just fuckin’ with you”.  And I know this to be true because I know he lives in the world of a roger

How did it make me feel?  Giving him the finger?  Oddly very good.  It felt good because it’s a thing I don’t often do.  Now yelling and/or screaming,  “fuck you” while driving (with variations to include “what the fuck”, “you fucking moron” – said both ways –   the 1st putting emphasis on “fucking”, the 2nd putting the emphasis on “moron”, etc), that’s another story.  But that behavior has been almost nonexistent since moving from outside the nation’s capitol to this little ole lazy beach town.   

Tell me – who/what determines the ultimate value in a gesture or comment, a song, blog, book, video or movie….. ?  Who/what possesses the “right”, the “correct” interpretation.  Can there be a “right” or “correct” interpretation? (NO, I am not baiting the rogers out there. Honest. LOL) Is method of delivery important? Does it matter whether people know each other?  What the heck is it about communication that stymies some folks? (see, if everyone knew about the Doctrine there would be precious few “communication breakdowns”. 

Today I dub “Tip Your Hat Tuesday”.  That’s right, I’m tipping my hat to all those inclined towards contributing creatively to the world.  To every last one of you, Renegades All.



  1. RCoyne · November 16, 2012

    Wow…I actually have a few minutes to catch up on blog posts.
    Have to toss a comment up here.
    When a roger is getting the last shot in, the smile is just confirmation that the arrow hit the mark. The ” just kidding” thing is just to be able to deny responsibility if need be.
    So is it done on purpose? Yes.
    Was the comment really sincere, or just done for effect?
    The thing to do is…shoot back. Don’t overreact. Just shoot back with deadly accuracy. That will get you the respect that will put an end to it. Because a roger will respect that.
    But that’s not in your nature, is it?
    The thing is, a roger will always take that shot with a clark. Not with another roger, and certainly not with a scott.
    But you’ve got the Doctrine now. So use it.
    Shoot back.


    • GirlieOnTheEdge · November 16, 2012

      Thanks for weighing in as you have…and in such rogerian fashion! LOL
      Yes, I do have the Wakefield Doctrine. It has served me well and more so in recent years. It is as a direct result of my own self-development/evolution via the Doctrine that my response (to my SO) was so enjoyable. I knew I had “called his bluff”, “stopped him in his tracks” and so did he. A thing we oddly both enjoyed. Me, because I saw the surprise on his face when I did not react as he expected. Him? Partially because he enjoyed the dominance displayed. I wonder though that he was not a little disappointed. My reaction wasn’t what he expected given the underlying emotion of his words. And because of that there was a different “level” of emotional currency exchanged.
      You are on the money, a roger will take a shot with a clark every time but not with a scott.
      “But that’s not in your nature, is it?” No, not in my clarklike nature but when my secondary scottian aspect is present my aim is dead on:)


  2. clarkscottroger · November 16, 2012

    therein lies the challenge of developing onself using the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine! Of late, the thinking has been, make the walls between the 3 worldviews more permeable. By doing this, we do not have the time lag, (image of whipping out a Michelin copy of ‘living and loving in Slovenia’ …a tourist guide). To try and ‘translate.
    As the roger correctly points out, clarks tend not to shoot back. But the reason that we do not is that we are not paying attention. In the split-second of the bullet hitting our exposed torso, there remains maybe, one split second. If we have to put down the book we are reading, turn down the stereo and fold our napkin (all in our head, of course) …find the gun… open six drawers for the goddamn bullets (Gun Safety First!)… you get the idea.

    But… the Doctrine maintains that we all could be rogers (and scotts and clarks), so the reflexes are there… just kind a out of practice


    • GirlieOnTheEdge · November 16, 2012

      It is about the permeability of the 3 world views/realities. More specifically, the challenge of seamlessly acting/reacting as any one of the 3 (clark, scott and roger) at any given time. It would be the ultimate in self-development (in Doctrine terms) to be able to do this thing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s