Welcome to iceplug.us!

Iceplug elsewhere on the world wide web

Twitter
Google
YouTube
Minecraft
Facebook
Steam
Speed Demos Archive
Twitch TV
AtmaWeapon
XVBT
X.NT
VGM
SMW Central
OpenIRCNet
raocow.com

Iceplug Downloads

Platform Tour v1.0.4 with WAVs (VB.NET 2003) 452 MB Windows XP, Vista, 7 Uses DirectX 9 RAM usage: 80MB Project Page
Platform Tour v1.0.4 (VB.NET 2003) 6.61 MB Windows XP, Vista, 7 Uses DirectX 9 RAM usage: 80MB Project Page
Power II: The Island Demo (VB.NET 2003) 3.41 MB Windows XP, Vista, 7 Uses DirectX 9 RAM usage: 40MB Project Page
Blocks: Extended Renderer Version (VB.NET 2003)137 KB Windows XP, Vista, 7 No DirectX RAM usage: 20MB Project Page
Quadrill v1.1.2 (VB.NET 2003) 1.57 MB Windows XP, Vista, 7 Uses DirectX 9 RAM usage: 70MB Project Page
Quadrill v2.1.2 (VB.NET 2003) 1.42 MB Windows XP, Vista, 7 Uses DirectX 9 RAM usage: 80MB Project Page
Quadrill v3.1.1 (VB.NET 2003) 1.17 MB Windows XP, Vista, 7 Uses DirectX 9 RAM usage: 120MB Project Page
Quadrill v4.1.1 (VB.NET 2003) 2.88 MB Windows XP, Vista, 7 Uses DirectX 9 RAM usage: 180MB Project Page
Quadrill 4 Full (VB6) 4.52 MB Windows XP Uses DirectX 7 RAM usage: 80MB Project Page
Quadrill 4 Demo (VB6) 1.41 MB Windows XP Uses DirectX 7 RAM usage: 80MB Project Page
Jump-Cross (VB.NET 2003) 109 KB Windows XP, Vista, 7 No DirectX RAM usage: 20MB Project Page
Quadrill 3 full version (VB6) 530 KB Windows XP Uses DirectX 7 RAM usage: 50MB Project Page
Quadrill 3 map editor. (VB6), 200 KB
Syntax Highlighter (VB.NET 2003), 23 KB
Guide on How to Use the .NET programs on my website.

Sorry, the guestbook has been removed. Contact me via e-mail (bottom of page) or via the links at the top of the page.

Iceplug News

May 3, 2019, 8:22
How to Apologize
Apologies follow a few simple rules:

  • Address the person or people hurt
  • Apologize
  • State how you are going to prevent this from happening again
  • The person or people to whom you are apologizing should be the primary focus
  • Appear sincere
    Now, consider this apology:

    All right, so the past couple of days, you guys have been probably wondering where the stream has been, most importantly why is my Twitch account removed from Twitch. Uh, some of you know why; some of you don't. Uh, I'm not gonna go into full detail about it, however, I just wanna be thankful for everybody who has been super supportive during it who's got my back. I owe the world to you, so thank you once again. There's gonna be a lot of negative comments in this video. There's gonna be a lot of positive stuff as well, so I thank you for that, but I will say this: Spreading negativity about this is not gonna make the situation better. It's only gonna make it worse. Two wrongs do not make a right and (hey) *sigh* one last thing i wanna say is that, uh, this has been a learning experience for me and, most importantly, I want this to be a learning experience for everybody watching this video as well, so, uh.... As far as the suspension date goes, I'm not sure. Hopefully, it will be very soon. Definitely wanna get back to action. During this time, I've had time to reflect to think about everything so, um, thank you guys for being patient with me and, When I know when I can come back, I will let you guys know. Thank you guys for just being there. You have yourselves a great weekend.

    Why is this apology inadequate?
    "you guys have been probably wondering where the stream has been, most importantly why is my Twitch account removed from Twitch"
    Here, the opening phrase establishes the intended audience as people who are missing the stream, rather than people who are upset by the events revealed from the last stream.
    "Uh, I'm not gonna go into full detail about it"
    He didn't go into any detail about it.
    "I just wanna be thankful for everybody who has been super supportive during it who's got my back. I owe the world to you, so thank you once again."
    Here, the apology turns into self-victimization. The only hurt understood here is the lack of ability to connect to the Twitch server.
    "There's gonna be a lot of negative comments in this video."
    There's not gonna be a lot of apology in this apology, which doesn't help the lot of negative comments.
    "Spreading negativity about this is not gonna make the situation better. It's only gonna make it worse."
    This is obscenely out-of-place in an apology. If I were trying to apologize for breaking an important piece of equipment, could you imagine me demanding the person I hurt to not spread negativity? Although, to be fair, the intended audience is probably still the group of people who are missing the stream.
    "I want this to be a learning experience for everybody watching this video as well"
    We haven't even said why the channel has been removed from Twitch despite the fact that the channel's removal from Twitch was in the very first sentence. I don't think this is going to be a good learning experience.
    "As far as the suspension date goes, I'm not sure. Hopefully, it will be very soon."
    Still talking about the end of the suspension rather than the reason for the suspension.
    "During this time, I've had time to reflect to think about everything"
    Most people think or reflect everyday. What are you thinking about? What are you reflecting on? I'm still thinking about the reason for the stream being taken down.
    "When I know when I can come back, I will let you guys know."
    Yet more discussion about the end of the suspension. The apology sounds like what you'd hear if your friend is doing emergency work out-of-town.
    Collectively, the apology didn't even address the reason why there was an apology. Thus, we never addressed the people hurt, never apologized (the words "sorry", "apologize", etc. did not exist in the "apology"), and never provided any corrective actions (unless you count thinking).

    Anyway, after other people called out this apology for having nothing of substance, a second apology was released:

    All right, this video is a little better quality, but I just wanna add to the last one. Uh, what I said was not meant in a hateful manner and I do apologize for anybody that I did offend. Okay? Uh, and, you know, I've seen people say, "Well he didn't You know this video wasn't wasn't an any apologi- er, uh it", you know. The last video was definitely an implied apology, but if you need me to come out and say it, "Yes, I am sorry", ok? And again, I don't know when the suspension will be lifted, but, as soon as I know, I will get back to you guys. I will keep you updated when I can do my next stream. But until then, I'm probably just gonna disconnect myself from Twitch and a little bit from Twitter, and, you know, just just use this time to kind of reflect and just think. Think. That's what I'm gonna do. OK? So, again, I'm sorry. So, yeah, when Twitch does get back to me on my lift of the suspension, I will let you guys know and we're gonna come back and I'm gonna stream really fn hard and I'm gonna do it like I've never done before. We're gonna be bigger. We're gonna be better, stronger, smarter, faster, literally, in the sense of speedrunning. Um, yeah, not gonna let this keep me down and, yeah, I await my return. So you guys have a great weekend. Thank-
    This apology is a little better, but let's analyze anyway.

    "what I said was not meant in a hateful manner"
    Well, of course not, because if it was due to a hateful manner, apologies wouldn't have been in consideration, but point taken!
    "I do apologize for anybody that I did offend."
    Apology accepted!
    "Okay?"
    It's harder to accept an apology with that aggressive "Okay" right after it...
    "I've seen people say, 'Well he didn't You know this video wasn't wasn't an any apologi- er, uh it', you know."
    I do know. I know this is why you shouldn't wing very important messages! For unimportant things, I also don't plan what I want to say ahead of time.
    "The last video was definitely an implied apology"
    There is no such thing as an implied apology. The closest thing to an "implied apology" is "feeling really bad about it", but apologies are always spoken or written very deliberately. Think of apologies like promises, eulogies, or announcements. At no point would these things be "implied", unless you're talking to domesticated animals or whatever that cannot understand human speech.
    "if you need me to come out and say it, 'Yes, I am sorry', ok?"
    Gosh! Just accept my apology, okay? This stuff is really inconveniencing me.
    "And again, I don't know when the suspension will be lifted, but, as soon as I know, I will get back to you guys."
    Here we go, back to talking about the end of the suspension. At this point, the end of the suspension has been talked about four times already and the reason for the suspension has not been talked about at all. I guess we should just be happy that he apologized, okay?
    "I'm probably just gonna disconnect myself from Twitch and a little bit from Twitter, and, you know, just just use this time to kind of reflect and just think."
    The average human adult spends more than 90% of their time thinking, consciously and subconsciously. Reflecting and thinking are great buzzwords, but still doesn't even describe what will be reflected upon or what will be thought about.
    "So, again, I'm sorry."
    Okay!
    "So, yeah, when Twitch does get back to me on my lift of the suspension, I will let you guys know"
    For goodness sakes! We're now at five mentions of the end of the suspension and only three apologies.
    "I'm gonna do it like I've never done before. We're gonna be bigger. We're gonna be better, stronger, smarter, faster"
    The invocation of Daft Punk/Kanye West "Stronger" highlights a persistent idea that he's more focused on surviving this experience rather than recognizing that he did something to warrant it in the first place.
    "Um, yeah, not gonna let this keep me down and, yeah, I await my return."
    Technically, a sixth mention of the end of the suspension.
    So, at the end, we can conclude that the apology is for not streaming because the channel was shut down and it's important for us to understand that he cannot stream while his channel is shut down. In the meantime, he will reflect and think on how channels get shut down, perhaps.
    So, why was the channel shut down? Perhaps those are the people who should be receiving the apology.

    A third apology was released closer to the channel release date:

    All right, guys, I just got the news from Twitch. Apparently, my suspension ends tomorrow, April 24th, 2019, so I plan to be live during that time. I'm just unsure of the exact time that the account will come back, but most importantly, I just want to say that I am very sorry for what I have said and done. I've used this time to talk to a lot of different people on the subject. I've gained different perspectives on it and it's actually helped me learn quite a bit. Um... you know, I, from this, I've become a stronger and better person, just because, you know, mistakes that I've made, I learn from them and that's just how I am. So, there's quite a bit that I want to talk to you you guys about, but that will be on my stream, since that'd be a really really long Twitter video. Um I hope everybody can find it in their hearts to forgive me. You know I know I messed up. I made mistakes but in the end it's how you grow and learn to become a better person from them, you know. I'm unsure, again, for the exact timeframe that I will be live but I'll keep you updated. I appreciate everybody's patience and again I am very very sorry and I hope you can forgive me for it. Thank you.
    Let us analyze once again:

    "I'm just unsure of the exact time that the account will come back"
    Racking up more of those advertisements for the next stream.
    "I just want to say that I am very sorry for what I have said and done."
    This apology is a lot better as it isn't followed up by "Okay" as it was in the last apology.
    "I've used this time to talk to a lot of different people on the subject. I've gained different perspectives on it and it's actually helped me learn quite a bit. "
    He didn't talk to me, in case you were wondering. Who did he talk to? I don't know and I probably never will. It could be exclusively other streamers with over a thousand viewers. Nevertheless, talking to someone about the subject is a good improvement over the ideas proposed in the last apology about thinking. I trust that someone gave him good knowledge.
    "Um... you know, I, from this, I've become a stronger and better person, just because, you know, mistakes that I've made, I learn from them and that's just how I am."
    Going to the gym can also make you a "stronger and better person".
    "I'm unsure, again, for the exact timeframe that I will be live but I'll keep you updated."
    An eighth advertisement for the next stream.
    "I appreciate everybody's patience and again I am very very sorry and I hope you can forgive me for it."
    It.
    You know, one of the things about making three apologies is that, at some point, it starts to become more evident that you just won't get what you want from an apology, so you just go off of how much effort they put in. It's like going to the DMV to try to get a driver's license, but coming up short over and over again. At some point, they'll just give you the license just for trying so hard.

    Except that's not how DMVs operate at all, but, for some reason, it seems to work with apologies... maybe? At any rate, some point after the third apology, Caleb started streaming and apologized again. Notwithstanding, my points on how to make apologies still stands and, although it seemed like all of the apologies were directed towards the people waiting for the stream, it did include at least *something* to show that it won't happen again.

    Apr 22 2019, 17:44
    Race Relation Problems within the Speedrunning Community
    The Facts
    Speedrunner CalebHart received a ban Friday for accidentally showing a Discord window while streaming. The Discord window featured CalebHart having a conversation where he used the phrase "Sup [n4r]" while conversing with fellow speedrunner Carcinogen. Caleb's channel was promptly shutdown (temporarily) for violating Twitch's Community Guidelines.
    During the ban, CalebHart put up several apology videos and received lots of support from his fans and other community members, expressing disapproval about the matter.

    Justification for the Shutdown
    One of the first things that got me was the idea of some that "You shouldn't have been suspended", "I'm sorry Twitch did this to you", "People are being oversensitive". It is, pretty clearly, a direct violation of Community Guidelines.

    "Hateful conduct is any content or activity that promotes, encourages, or facilitates discrimination, denigration, objectification, harassment, or violence based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, medical condition, physical characteristics, or veteran status, and is prohibited. "

    As using the n-word is definitively based on one specific race, it thus requires everyone that believe that the suspension was wrong to think that Caleb's use did not do ANY of the following: "promote, encourage, or facilitate discrimination, denigration, objectification, harassment or violence". Sure, it can easily be argued that Caleb didn't use the word specifically to promote violence. (You can also argue that Caleb didn't do it maliciously, which is, of course, not on the list, but people still think that's important anyway.) The important note is that the streamer's *intent* is not on this list. Twitch doesn't care about what you meant, only that you did it.
    Secondly, an audience of a thousand people are not going to uniformly pick up on what you *meant*. You will, almost certainly, never be able to have everyone know your intentions, especially considering that a stream of one thousand viewers flies to the top of almost every applicable list. Slightly-confused-on-race-relations Timmy sees streamer CalebHart drop an n-word in a public setting and thinks to himself, "Oh, so it's okay to use the n-word", or, "It's okay to denigrate black people as long as its between friends/on Discord."
    Thirdly, Twitch partners are effectively representatives of Twitch itself. Twitch doesn't want to be associated with your unconscious bias and feelings on justifying usage of the n-word and rightly should punish its partners that do so.

    The Punishment
    (PS: I heard a rumor that the ban was for 72 hours)
    Being banned for only 72 hours is just a slap on the wrist and isn't enough of a punishment. Considering that Caleb can just make a big production of it (with apologies on Twitter and YouTube) mostly to just draw more attention to himself, start streaming as soon as the suspension lifts, and probably get that requisite support from the more-racist-component of the Twitch audience that "doesn't exist", Caleb will effectively be getting a slap on the wrist by a stack of hundred-dollar bills.
    It doesn't really fix any of the implicit problems beyond the month anyway. Caleb will bounce back with almost nothing of effect, will still be on lists of recommended channels, will still have a bunch of his videos recommended, will still be hovering right along the preview of hosted channels. Caleb will still, perhaps, be allowed at GDQ because what Caleb did wasn't as egregious as, say, RWhiteGoose, and will continue to be a popular figure at speedrunning events, maintaining that position of importance, drawing in more people who will conveniently forget or will assert that Caleb's actions were not that big of deal.
    And those who will decide that it's not that big of a deal do so with full knowledge that the community in which they participate is already lacking in its black representation. "Oh, but I know a black streamer, so the community doesn't actually have a problem in representation." (Translation: Big Jon is black, therefore no one in the entire community is racist qed.) And if it's not full knowledge, it's aggressive indifference. When have you ever pulled up a video or screenshot of GDQ and found a black person in the image? Do a quick Google image search of "speedrunning" and see how many images you find with a black person in them. No, Mr. Sandman from Punch-out does not count and Barack Obama is not a speedrunner.
    Despite this great imbalance, tons of people will try to convince others that there is no problem with black representation in speedrunning.

    The Urge
    One of the things I see is, "How hard is it not to say that word?". On the surface level, it seems completely innocuous, but is not the question that I'm asking. I'm wondering, "Why are you still using this word? Why has this word not been removed from your vocabulary?", but it seems that some have come to the conclusion that the use of the n-word is more of tempering a pervasive urge rather than an idea that should never have come to fruition.
    For instance, at no point have I ever decided to rob a grocery store. This is not an intermittent idea that comes into my head when the weather is nice; it doesn't even register as a possibility. Thus, when I read about people getting arrested for robbing a grocery store, I don't ask, "How hard is it to not rob a grocery store?", I'm wondering what's in your head that made you think that robbing a grocery store was acceptable.
    A considerable number of people seem to regret the idea that Caleb wasn't able to hide his Discord window better, which misses the point again. That's akin to showing sympathy for someone who got arrested for robbing a store by saying, "You should have done a better job of concealing your stolen goods."

    The Hard "er"
    It's the same word. Drawing a distinction between two pronunciations/spellings of the n-word does nothing but give people a justification to say the (I would say wrong, but they're both wrong) n-word. Thus, if we try to say that [er] is bad and [a] is okay, this raises a more problematic point: would nothing have happened if he mistyped the last two characters? Which leads me to:

    Two People Who Are Not Directly Affected By The Events Discussing Why A Third Person That Would Most Likely Be Affected By The Events Should Not Be Affected By The Events Whatsoever
    Two white people discuss the intricacies of racism to the best of their ability, reach a conclusion, and then assert their newfound beliefs on all black people that they meet. The conversation almost always has no black people involved in it. But why? Personally, I am almost never privy to race discussions that I hear happening within earshot.
    This ties back into the people "supporting Caleb in his hard times", proclaiming that the word was "taken out of context", "shown for less than a second", just "locker room talk", "blown out of proportion", or "part of a private conversation". All of which ignore that it's specifically against Twitch's Community Guidelines and showing the extent to which they believe this as normal and acceptable behavior. Suppose that it was instead a nude picture of some junk. Is it any less relevant that the junk is "shown for less than a second", "taken out of context", or "part of a private conversation"? Considering that locker rooms usually feature nudity of some sort already, it should go without saying that "locker room" is also not synonymous with "public consumption" either.
    Thus, why the apparent double standard? Well, these are all ideas that usually come to production when people discuss racism without the target demographic. For instance, two white people discussing when it's acceptable to use the n-word in a conversation that does not include black people can come to some uninformed conclusions, such as it being acceptable "for less than a second", "as locker room talk", or "acceptable if it has the soft 'a'" Of course, having discussions about race with your friends is perfectly fine. The problem comes when your point-of-view is not reconciled with an adequate sampling of the black perspective and you accept it as complete when it is not.

    The Power Structure (Power Being Twitch Viewership/Friendship)
    One of the other ideas that have been brought forth is why nothing happened to Carcinogen? Well, the only obligation that Carcinogen had here was to address why Calebhart is calling him the n-word, which is, really, only a moral obligation. Carcinogen didn't say the n-word, nor did he accidentally display it during his stream.
    The issue here is that, when a person with considerably more influence comes up to you and says the n-word, it becomes an issue of race versus power. Siding with race means calling out the person of power: calling out CalebHart for using language that he shouldn't be using could possibly damage future work and benefits of dealing with CalebHart and losing out on favorable recommendation from/hosting by/collaborations with CalebHart, just to stay in line with your personal beliefs and the hope that it will matter in the end. Siding with power means maintaining the relationship with CalebHart and the immediate benefits while taking a slight compromise to your morals that perhaps wouldn't have mattered anyway.
    It's a difficult compromise to make for some, so it's not entirely unfounded that *someone* will gladly sacrifice their morals just to get a chance at more power. Nothing is more worrisome than realizing that people will happily side with CalebHart, including those who already have respectable power, who will quickly try to sweep the entire incident under the rug, who will gladly bring CalebHart on to a podcast, worship his years of speedrunning experience, exalt him, place him on the golden pedestal, resist any semblance of replacing CalebHart with a less racist representative, and, at the end of the day, will advertise CalebHart out to other speedrunners so that nothing changes in the end.
    It's easy to be *opposed to racism* when the opponents are strangers that only have 400 followers and 5 viewers; it becomes a different story when the opponents are people you've known for years with 160,000 followers and 1000 viewers. This case of CalebHart is only the case that was made public; how many discriminatory ideas get developed in the close-knit groups of influential people that are too afraid to call each other out?

    If you're upset at the events which happened, then hold the "big personalities" of the community accountable. These are the people who are going to be the key as to how this incident will be dealt with in the future. Yes, this means that some people with large communities and bad ideas will lose their influence, but remember that you're pushing them out in favor of an important demographic. If they're not pushed out, you're at risk of losing that demographic.

    Having to discuss the n-word takes away from other, more nuanced, discussions on issues more personal to me, including institutionalized racism-- discussions that people *really don't* act like they want to have, but must be done if we are to establish a fair description of what racism is and how we will deal with it in the next chapter of our lives (what will race relations look like in the year 2200?).

    "We need to stop making drama. We said stuff that wasnt a big thing."
    "What did he say?"
    "I don't want to say it here"

    Feb 19 2019, 16:17
    Positivity
    A while back, the speedrunning community (within its infinite capabilities of opening venues for discourse) decided to get speedrunners to share their "unpopular opinions" on Twitter, which is simultaneously a great way to mention your personal grievances and also to provide little substance. Most unpopular opinions are expectedly negative: "This idea is a bad idea", "Saying that 'This idea is a bad idea' is a bad idea", etc. Combine with the fact that speedrunners are painfully uncompromising and quick to espouse ideas that conflict with other people's ideas and you get a hot mess. Dive in here, if you're feeling up to it.
    It turns out that "unpopular opinions" aren't exactly popular. Personally, admitting that an opinion is unpopular serves as self-justification for remaining ignored and unaddressed, so I find the idea that there is an "unpopular opinions" thread to be kind of funny. One of the comments about "unpopular opinions" external to the thread, advising people to instead focus on positivity, caught me. Notably, the idea of 'positivity' as the ideal to strive for. "Positivity" seems to be an ideal that people strive for without a good understanding of what is actually desirable. The replies in the thread are, perhaps, not very civil, but that would indicate a call for civility over one for "positivity". Some of the unpopular opinions are, perhaps, unrealistic, which would indicate a call for reasonability or sensibility over a call for "positivity". What is "positivity" and why am I now inclined to be against it? According to Oxford Dictionaries.Com, positivity is the practice of being or tendency to be positive to optimistic in attitude, with other definitions generally being "the act of being positive". Positivity, by this definition, as it is in reality, does not solve all problems. Some problems have to first be addressed in order to be solved. Being "positive" then implies that these problems will not be addressed. If my wallet is stolen, I could be positive and hope that it will be returned, or I could instead, call the authorities. Calling the authorities isn't "positivity". I can have positivity after calling the authorities, but positivity does not contribute to getting my wallet back in this regard.
    What's the opposite of "positivity"? Well, it's obviously "negativity". Definitions of negativity vary considerably.
    Vocabulary.com defines negativity as a "tendency to be downbeat, disagreeable, and skeptical. It's a pessimistic attitude that always expects the worst. Cambridge Dictionary defines it as an attitude that is not hopeful or enthusiastic. Most of these definitions read like negativity is an absolutely terrible trait to have. Indeed, you can even tell that negativity is a bad trait because it's the word "negativity". Oxford Dictionary defines "negativity" on the other hand as "the expression of criticism of or pessimism about something". This definition is a little more reasonable, but is only found after skipping over other definitions. It's very clear why "positivity" is so heralded by its advocates, despite being shown so quickly that it is not always sufficient.
    Side note: synonyms for "negativity" include "cynicism" and "pessimism" (a synonym of realism). Neither of these synonyms sound overly negative, which reinforces "positivity" as a fortuitious word choice.
    Let's return to the unpopular opinions, again. Note that "positivity" was used in reference to the unpopular opinions and not to longstanding feelings, so obviously, a "tendency to be downbeat" doesn't work here, and neither does attitude-based attributes like "a pessimistic attitude" and "an attitude that is not hopeful". If it were a general attitude problem (which is certainly reasonable given the community history), then positivity would work a lot better. However, since positivity is invoked for this specific case, then it only opposes the opinions that are put forward. Personally, I find the idea of pushing "positivity" as a means to devalue opinions or to suggest that these opinions shouldn't be shared to be more detrimental than the opinions themselves. Open and honest discussions are a lot more beneficial to the community than pretending that these opinions don't and shouldn't exist under the guise of "positivity". Now, if you want to talk civility, I hear you.
    If you want to learn more about what positivity actually is, then there are numerous articles that talk about positivity to no end. People love talking about positivity as it relates to mindsets and attitudes. Having a defeatist attitude doesn't generally open any doors to success, which is why people talk about it so much. However, it is a considerable disservice to ignore the difference between positivity as "avoiding a negative attitude" and positivity as "making criticisms", intentionally or not.

    Dec 17 2018, 9:51

    Aside from the absurdity of limiting a serving size to six fries when no restaurant serves this few fries in their smallest order, why was this professor credentialed as a "Harvard" professor rather than an actual discipline that indicates that he knows what he's talking about? Is it really more important to know that the professor was from Harvard than to know that the professor has studied nutrition? Professors say silly things all the time, regardless of which university they come from.
    In addition, instead of "limiting a serving size to six fries", the author from the sourced post actually says, "I think it would be nice if your meal came with a side salad and six French fries." Here, it's not saying that you take an order of fries and eat six of them, then let the rest go cold. Instead, it's saying that you can have these fries on the side with your food (yes, there's that salad that's thrown rather predictably in there, though the article is about potatoes).

    View old news updates
    The story of Iceplug:
    Iceplug - sting ray (NOT A MANTA RAY!) that swims in cold waters, usually near the poles, though mostly in the south, near Antarctica. The average babies are born at about a foot long and wide (they look like squares) and are usually a light orange and translucent. After about 6 months, they become more opaque and start to take on a bluer color. Their tail can grow to almost 5 feet, and the adult Iceplug grows to about 25 feet. Not to be outdone, most adults create stashes of coral in their homes and forge them into tridents (which are actually quite effective weapons).

    Feedback? E-mail me (Iceplug) at blackout119(at)yahoo(dot)com. Be sure to include a descriptive subject, and the first seven characters of the subject must read Website, otherwise I may move it into the Spam/Junk folder. I strive to reply to all e-mails at the end of the day, but I definitely respond to them at the end of the week.

    Guestbook