[...] the *Wink Revolution* – here are some winkers: Doug, Tony, Mike, Josh, Will, Jay, Kyle, Andrew, Bro Maynard and Kay. Others have chosen different paths: Scott. Technorati Tags: Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, [...]
Jamie, I referenced it in my last post, but it’s from discussion that was going on in December 2004 and January 2005 about a coming storm of criticism and controversy “in the conversation.” In January ‘05, Doug Pagitt suggested we assume “battle positions” that included a wink, a smile, and so forth.
–noun
1. a malicious, usually petty, desire to harm, annoy, frustrate, or humiliate another person; bitter ill will; malice.
2. a particular instance of such an attitude or action; grudge.
3. Obsolete. something that causes vexation; annoyance. –verb (used with object)
4. to treat with spite or malice.
5. to annoy or thwart, out of spite.
6. to fill with spite; vex; offend.
So Mark might choose to be vexed or offended, but otherwise I don’t think it’s spiteful — at least not from me. Perhaps some people will do it for that reason, but the ones on the wink-list that I know well enough to speculate are not, I think, doing this for spite. It’s rather a way of saying, “Alright, I’ve heard your criticism. I’m not sure I agree, but I’m not going to argue or issue a harsh response. Bless you.” Or something very much along those lines. If Mark is being antagonistic, then this winking thing is more of a coal-heaping measure that says the judgment and the results are being left to God and not to the victor of a pointless argument. It’s a way of saying we’re going to keep our heads and remain civil about the whole thing… rather than take it personally, even if it’s personally-directed.
Admittedly, that’s a lot for a wink to say… but that’s what mine says. It says I’m not really going to say too much more than what I havealready said on the matter. I hope I can live up to the good I’m trying to say in the wink.
I am glad to hear you are not in that camp. But when I take the past words and views of Mark into account when it concerns Adam specificlly, there is some malice. That kills what was probably the gracious response that Doug was orginally espousing.
Subscribe Posts
September 25th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
[...] Me Adam Kay Doug Kyle Andrew Tony Mike Will Bro. Maynard [...]
September 25th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
welcome to the club. you won’t regret it.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
[...] now got 11 winkers (Me, Adam, Kay, Doug, Kyle, Andrew, Tony, Mike, Will, Bro. Maynard, [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 6:43 am
I just don’t get it… What am I missing?
September 26th, 2007 at 7:24 am
[...] the *Wink Revolution* – here are some winkers: Doug, Tony, Mike, Josh, Will, Jay, Kyle, Andrew, Bro Maynard and Kay. Others have chosen different paths: Scott. Technorati Tags: Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Jamie, I referenced it in my last post, but it’s from discussion that was going on in December 2004 and January 2005 about a coming storm of criticism and controversy “in the conversation.” In January ‘05, Doug Pagitt suggested we assume “battle positions” that included a wink, a smile, and so forth.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Were you guys not doing this spitefully it would mean more. But it’s just a return shot across his bow…
September 26th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Rich, I just looked it up, to be sure…
So Mark might choose to be vexed or offended, but otherwise I don’t think it’s spiteful — at least not from me. Perhaps some people will do it for that reason, but the ones on the wink-list that I know well enough to speculate are not, I think, doing this for spite. It’s rather a way of saying, “Alright, I’ve heard your criticism. I’m not sure I agree, but I’m not going to argue or issue a harsh response. Bless you.” Or something very much along those lines. If Mark is being antagonistic, then this winking thing is more of a coal-heaping measure that says the judgment and the results are being left to God and not to the victor of a pointless argument. It’s a way of saying we’re going to keep our heads and remain civil about the whole thing… rather than take it personally, even if it’s personally-directed.
Admittedly, that’s a lot for a wink to say… but that’s what mine says. It says I’m not really going to say too much more than what I have already said on the matter. I hope I can live up to the good I’m trying to say in the wink.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I am glad to hear you are not in that camp. But when I take the past words and views of Mark into account when it concerns Adam specificlly, there is some malice. That kills what was probably the gracious response that Doug was orginally espousing.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Ahhh! How very cheeky!