Matching Tracksuits

Yesterday was a busy day. At least several things of significance happened. About the LCG message board, I wrote, “I wonder if I’ll get kicked off at some point. I’m sure it’s monitored. I’ll bet Meredith even gets reports about it on some regular basis.” Well, I was close. I didn’t get kicked off in the sense than I as expecting (i.e., account deactivated) but much more thoroughly: my ISP address has been blocked. Not difficult to do since I’m fairly sure I’m the only one accessing the site through Telekomunikacja Polska. I got email notification regarding it, to which of course I have several objections and will address in a reply to be sent today.

What I’m most curious about is whether they’re trying to figure out who I am. It shouldn’t be too hard since they have a few distinguishing facts:

1. They have my ISP address, which is certainly very unique.
2. They have my fake email address, which I used in contacting Mr. Kobernat.
3. They know my father is still an LCE in the WCG.

All they have to do is send a message to all ministers with those facts, and Mr. Kobernat will readily be able to tell them who this joker is. I wonder if it’s gone that far already. And it’s likely they will (or have) do (done) it, for the message I received was CC’ed to Gerald Weston. I remember him from his time in Asheville, and I remember him as being incredibly controlling and something of an asshole.

It makes me laugh to think of the little mystery I’m embroiled in. Or rather, I’m at the heart of.

So I’ve written a letter which I will email today:

Mr. Brian Scarborough,

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to send me a detailed letter explaining your decision. After checking my email and reading your message, I went to the message board out of curiosity to see if you had made mention of my being banned or not. Obviously I was unable to take a look since you’ve banned my IP address. Taking no chances, I see. (As an aside, a simple, “Please don’t post” would have done the trick.)

I apologize for things admittedly getting out of hand. I knew they were, and I was trying to reign things in a little. Too little too late.

However, I would respond to a few of the things you wrote.

To begin with, “You stated on your “Who I am. . .” post that you are interested in who went where and why. I would like to point out to you that many if not most of out teens on the forum were quite young when the split took place, so your desire to collect information on this subject would not be best served on the teen forum.”

I listed that interest as one of the several, as you yourself acknowledged. Furthermore, it’s clear that many of them are old enough to have remembered what happened quite clearly, as they themselves said. Lastly, as you said in one of your own posts, the message board is not solely for “young people.”

“You also stated that you wanted to ‘have meaningful communication with those who are still in the COG’s’. As you can see from the differences in what you believe and what LCG believes, meaningful communication does not seem possible.”

It depends on what “meaningful” means. Still, I guess we’ll never know. I also wrote, “The nonsense I’ve written about interpretation and the existence of God is really of no importance to me. I didn’t begin posting here because I wanted to pick theological fights, and in fact I sort of regret beginning those communications because it has probably biased a few people against me. And such discussions generally accomplish nothing.” The implication I was making, though obviously not strong enough (and clearly it should have been an explication, not an implication), was that I’m not really interested in pursing any those discussions. I even called my own writing “nonsense.” What I should have done is add, “As such, I will not respond to any of those posts unless you actually want to know my point of view on them,” or something along those lines.

“Is it your desire to change the beliefs of our teens?”

Most certainly not. I detest when someone approaches me and says, “Do you know Jesus?” and I wouldn’t do that to someone else. I didn’t initiate the discussion about the existence of God; I was responding to someone’s question. Go back and look at my posts: I never initiated any discussions that could be characterized as inflammatory. yes, I did contribute to them and help them become “inflammatory,” but I didn’t begin a post, “Why on earth does anyone believe in God?!?”

Furthermore, one thing I meant by saying, “And such discussions generally accomplish nothing,” is simply that there would probably be no way I could change anyone’s mind even if I wanted to. I am not Dan Baker, out to convert everyone to “free thinkers.” I was merely expressing my views, and then responding to their responses. I’ve thought about my position for a long time; many of the things they brought up were things I wrestled with on my own. I simply reached a different conclusion than they have.

“Have any of the post made by the teens changed your mind about the existence of God?”

Actually, in a way, yes. I was impressed with some of the articulations and a couple of posts did hit right at one of the weaknesses of an non-theistic stance. As I tried to make clear in one particular post, I don’t have a strong belief that God doesn’t exist; I have no positive belief that God exists. The argument from design (which is basically what all the posts concerned, and that’s why it degenerated into a discussion of evolution) is compelling to me in a strange way, and I readily admit (though perhaps a little too late) that it does make me think that there very well could have been (perhaps I’ll go so far as to say probably was?) some force controlling evolutionary development. A far cry from the nature of God as defined in the LCG’s statement of beliefs, I’m sure, but certainly Madeline O’Hare either.

“I can’t see where this dialogue will help either party.”

Apologetics is not a useful thing? That’s basically what everyone was engaged in. I pointed out weaknesses of arguments; they responded; I pointed out further weaknesses; they responded further. A debate, in other words. And except for one person who seemed to take the notion of evolution very personally, most of them who were participating seemed eager to do so. It was polite; it didn’t (generally) dissolve into personal attacks (and the two times it did, it was fairly moderate, consisting of simply ad hominim arguments, which I calmly explained); it was calm; and it was well-thought out in many instances.

None of my questions were merely exercises in being disagreeable. I also not suggesting that I was “just trying to make sure they were on their toes!” They were genuine inquiries. My statements were not meant as personal assaults, but as presentations of my views.

Re: “to put it bluntly, I think they/you are all wrong”

I fail to see how that’s problematic. I didn’t say, “I think you’re idiots for believing that.” I didn’t say, “I think you’re heads aren’t screwed on tight.” I didn’t use profanity. I was stating, clearly, my position. I wanted no confusion. Perhaps it is a little too strong. I was judging it on my own standard, I guess, and for someone to tell me, “Frankly, I think you’re wrong” bothers me about as much as someone saying, “That’s a nice car.” Ambiguity leads only to problems. I wanted to be clear. That’s all. Clearly, though, I should have put more thought into it.

“I hope that you will not take this decision the wrong way.”

I’m not sure what the right way would be. You simply don’t want me to post, and I certainly understand why. I don’t take that personally, though it is a shame.

In closing, I would like you to reconsider your decision. I am willing to forego any discussions of any topics you deem inappropriate; I am willing to submit any posts to you for pre-approval. If my restriction is the result of requests by users, I understand and comply willingly to the wishes of the majority. If however it was only an administrative decision, I humbly request you to reconsider.

If you are unwilling to allow me to post, please allow me at least to view the message boards. I give you my word that if you ask me to, I will not make a single post, nor will I initiate contact with anyone via email.

In closing, I readily admit things were out of hand; I readily admit that I might have offended some; and I completely understand your position and do not take your actions personally in anyway whatsoever. I would, however, like to ask forgiveness and request a second chance.

I’ve decided to see what a “humble and contrite” spirit will do for me. And I am genuinely saddened that I got kicked off. However, if I’m not allowed back on, it won’t be the end of the world for me. (I’m sure he’ll think, “Man, this guy can’t write a short email to save his life.”)

Interestingly I got email from “Bedbug,” whose real name is Josh, the individual on the board who’d started posting about medical marijuana. He said he’d gotten kicked off several times himself, and that the administrator kicks of anyone who has an opinion. I laughed out loud at that one.

The big event of the day, though, came while playing volleyball with the teachers. I was so frustrated playing with Sojka. During the whole evening he never set me. Always Jacek. It really pissed me off. Next time I will surely say something about it.

Still, that frustration was not the “big event.” As we were playing, who should walk into the gym but Anna Pardynek!!!! I was so thrilled. At first I just waved at her, and then I thought, “I’ve been wanting to see her for ages. Now I finally do and I don’t got and talk to her!? Am I crazy? ‘What will the teachers think?’ Who gives a fuck!” So I ran over and chatted with her. The others on my team (Jola, Sojka, and Jacek) were waiting for me, and I just waved them off with a smile and said, “Grajcie! Grajcie!”

I can’t recall that we really talked about anything of any import. The thrilling thing for me was just getting to see her finally. I regret not being more aggressive, though. I said, “Maybe we’ll meet each other at some point,” when I should have said, “No, I’m not happy with that. I want to plan to meet you,” using the “wy” to keep her boyfriend, who was standing right there, happy. Oh, she mentioned that her boyfriend had also wanted to kill that idiot of hers that all but attacked me in the disco. Perhaps this fellow is a little more mellow and secure with himself.

She was, in some ways, a sad sight, though. Her teeth are absolutely atrocious. It’s pitiful. And she reeked of cigarettes. Lastly, I think she might be pregnant, though I’m not entirely sure. She didn’t say anything about it, and I’m certainly not going to ask. Still, she looked a little plump in all the right places.

So I’ve finally got to see Ann P. I should write Ann P. in Boston to tell her about it . . . and I should have mentioned Ann Petrone to Anna.

Lastly, I wrote a first draft of a letter to Mr. Kobernat. And I was able to get to sleep last night — even make it through most of the day yesterday — without thinking about that nonsense. After all, it’s not the end of the world.

I finished with Sabina’s próbna matura yesterday. She got “dostateczyny,” though just barely (by something like a point and a half). I told her and she was pleasantly surprised. Her biggest problem was the listening, I think. She got all but one wrong in one of the two listening sections.