Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Pong 002
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
// // _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _\\ \\
// _ _ // // _ _ // \\ _ _ \\ \\ _ _ \\
// // // // // // // // \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
// //_ _ // // // //_ _ // // \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ _ _\\ \\
// _ _ _ // //_ _ _ _ _ // \\ _\\ \\ _\\ \\ _ _ _ \\
// // \\ \\
// // pong issue #002 december 14, 1995 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _\\ \\
// // pong is a subsidiary of dto productions. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _\\
"if you have a hole like that,
you do not fill it with crustaceans." -- shadow tao
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> pong #002 intro
>> written by murmur
this here, this is the second rad-like-my-dad issue of pong. the
very first pong has generated pretty darn good feedback, and i'm pleased to
say that the second issue has yet more quality writing by a larger
assortment of quality writers. of course, at this point this means three
writers as opposed to two, but, hey, that's ok. besides, we expect to be
getting more stuff from dignitaries of freedom like mogel and rattle in time
for pong #3.
feedback about pong #1 elicited the following notions: people like
the straightforwardness of the writing; people would like to see us expand
our base (writer base and subject base); and people are looking forward to
this here issue. these three things are all good, really good.
the other thing that was brought up more than once was that pong #1
was too localized. people expressed a desire for pong to spread out a bit
more. as pong keeps developing with a larger ensemble of writers from a
variety of places, you'll definitely see a less-localized pong. for now at
least, we hope we few around illinois wesleyan are doing well enough to keep
you interested.
i fully encourage everyone to get pong spread around. pong is only as
good as the people it reaches; the more people we reach, the more and better
the feedback, and the better equipped we are to do things better. don't
forget that pong is available in both print and written format; we're
working on establishing an ftp site right now and hope to have a www page in
the very near future as well. for now, you can count on being able to snag
pong at ihop, the official bbs of pong, or email me. see the last page for
the pertinent info. of course, as soon as we get ftp and www sites, we'll
get 'em out.
once again, feedback keeps us going; you can reach any writer through
me (i'm murmur@!) at ihop or my address. "we'd love to hear from you."
have fun, kiddies@! and take care or something.
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> pong #002 table of contents
>> written by murmur
>>> pong #002 intro
>>>> written by murmur
>>> pong #002 table of contents
>>>> written by murmur
>>> What are you telling me?
>>>> written by Reverberator
>>> Is this necessary?
>>>> written by sweeney erect
>>> stimulus response stimulus response stimulus . . . !
>>>> written by Reverberator
>>> and handsome, too!
>>>> snagged by murmur
>>> tattoo you
>>>> snagged by Reverberator
>>> these arts ain't too liberal, is they?
>>>> written by murmur
>>> blue meanies interview
>>>> written by murmur
>>>> conducted by goat-spiel
>>> untitled
>>>> snagged by sweeney erect, Reverberator, and murmur
>>>> general consensus written by murmur
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> What are you telling me?
>> written by Reverberator
Surveys are ubiquitous in today's information-hungry society.
"Researchers" want to know what foods you eat, what drinks you imbibe, what
teams you root for, what candidates you endorse, what charities you support,
what policies you advocate. But what do the survey results tell us?
First, there is the problem of abstraction of information. For obvious
reasons, a daily will not publish the entire methodology of a survey, its
explicit results, and its conclusions. All Joe Reader receives are the
conclusions, which, though not usually false, have already been subjected to
interpretation. Case in point: over the summer, the daily I receive
reported on the reduction in automobile-related deaths over the last 10
years -- since seat belt laws were implemented. I wrote (and thankfully had
published) a response to the following conclusion: since deaths from auto
accidents have decreased since seat belt laws went into effect, wearing a
seat belt decreases deaths. Well, what about the implementation of airbags?
Anti-lock breaks? What about driver demographics changes? Were these
reasons for the death reductions adequately explored by the researchers?
The article neglected to say.
Second, a survey attempts to reduce the complex situations into simple,
compact questions. This can lead to gross misrepresentations of opinions.
I heard a girl conducting a survey for her marketing class, where one
question posed to the randomly chosen interviewee was as follows: "Do you
support the death penalty for those convicted of first-degree murder?"
Exactly what does a "yeah" or "nay" indicate? Does the respondent consider
the viciousness of the murder important in administering capital punishment?
Does the respondent consider the criminal's danger to society? Important
variables are completely ignored through survey methodology. I cannot blame
the surveyors wholly, as they need voluntary responses, and lengthy,
essay-like questions tend to discourage participation.
Between incomplete reports of findings and oversimplification of
questions, surveys become rather imprecise measurements. This is not too
frightening _per se_, but the common man holds numbers sacred. If I say
"lots of women are raped," it will have none of the impact of stating "1 out
of 4 women will be raped by the time they are 30." Be skeptical of numbers,
inquire into their derivation, use them properly.
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> Is this necessary?
>> written by sweeney erect
Christopher Darden is writing a book. You may remember Christopher
Darden. He is part of the answer to the riddle "Who can manage to not
convict a man with a history of domestic abuse and positive DNA links to the
crime scene who fled from police and threatened to kill himself on a Los
Angeles interstate if police didn't leave him alone and let him get to the
airport?"
Yes, surprising as it may be that anybody from the nightmare team could
write a book, Mr. Darden is defying the odds and publishing. It will be a
factual book about the trial, although it is unclear whether it will be
shelved in biography, current events, humor, or horror.
Residual bitterness over the travesty aside, there are many issues Mr.
Darden is very qualified to bring to the spotlight. For instance, he could
talk about the horrors he has seen as a prosecutor, being over-worked and
under-paid, arrogant bastard and bitch clients through our legal system's
revolving doors. Or he could address the fact that justice today can
quickly become a circus, similar to the crucifixions right down to
crucifying minor criminals and releasing latter day Barabasses into the
streets. Given his justified rage over Cochrane's exploitation of the race
card, he could have written an immensely useful book about the shameless way
"racism" is used today to further the ends of people like Cochrane and
Simpson. Hell, even Shapiro said Cochrane turned the trial into a circus
and disgraced American justice, and this comes from a man who has been
disgracing American justice for a good many years.
In fact, this is evidently what Darden initially addressed in the
manuscript. But then, say sources at the publishing house, changes were
suggested. These changes involved re-writing the entire book, and focusing
on his struggles as a black man to be accepted in a white society, the
tradeoffs he had to make to get where he is today and the rage he has
experienced. They apparently even asked him if he couldn't possibly show
some sort of solidarity with OJ.
Does this book sound familiar? It should, it is the biography of every
prominent black man in the past thirty years. In fact, forget the black
aspect, this is the form of every autobiographical book to come out since
the seventies...I was born with obstacles, I overcame those obstacles, yet
aforementioned obstacles still continue to haunt me to this day, my life is
good now, I still have these obstacles though, here is my opinion of every
facet of society I can think of that I could not possibly have an informed
opinion about. From Stormin' Norman to Madonna, if you've read one book,
you can outline them all.
This is the great American tragedy. Christopher Darden is a man of
questionable skill as a lawyer, but, so far, unquestionable personal dignity
and self-respect. The one thing he might have had to offer society was his
opinion as a man of honor, his own righteous anger, but instead we have
another plastic book about a person who didn't need to be plastic.
Except for the criticisms of the legal profession from the inside,
Darden doesn't deserve any more attention. Kato is a better actor than
Darden a lawyer. The book has been nicely formulated so that the average
American can read it and not be too troubled by those pesky concerns over
the collapse of society and perversion of justice and moral decay. If we
ignore the barbarians long enough they'll go away. Did I mention that at
midnight tonight the government shuts down? Page 2 of most major papers.
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> stimulus response stimulus response stimulus . . . !
>> written by Reverberator
I was flipping through the Daily Vidette, Illinois State's campus
newspaper, today. This is an odd thing. Generally I am not one to keep up
with world events / the world around me; today I felt like breaking out of
my typically ignorant role. What stories did I read?
The Republicans want to cut the price-support pavements to farmers by
over 13 billion dollars with their "Freedom to Farm Act", which
inadvertently is subject to much debate. An Illinois State student stabbed
her angered roommate. (On a sidenote, "the altercation started over one
roommate going into the other roommate's room." They are *apartment-mates*,
not roommates; the misnomer creates confusion in the above quote.) More
articles: the Normal, Illinois school board was voted in again, since
incumbents see nugatory competition in our apathetic voting public;
ironically, an information service offering unbiased political data is
praised in a nearby article. Why do we need information if we aren't a
conscious voting public? And of course, Mr. Dole and Mr. Gingrich are
lambasting Mr. Clinton over budget concerns.
I had minor interest in these articles. But an inside page one snippet
caused tingles to shoot through my torso and my mouth to drop into an "oh"
of shock. This is no exaggeration. What elicited this response was the
report that Bill Watterson, whose mighty pen hath spawned "Calvin and
Hobbes" for the past nine years, is ending the strip on Dec. 31 of this
year.
Initially I felt guilty. Why should I stoically skim the articles
affecting people's lives, determining their (and my) futures, then become
emotional over the retirement of a cartoonist? Cynically, I rationalized
that political arguments, vicious violence of the few, and interminable
haggling over fiduciary matters are all constants in life and can be
expected. Their occurrence is not a matter of importance, but only the task
of filling in the blanks: Mr. ________ argues with Ms. ________ over the
funds appropriated for the ________.
But then I realized that the retirement of our heroes is just as
predictable, just as much a matter of filling in the blanks. Who was
injured? Christopher Reeves. Who committed suicide? Kurt Cobain. Who
lost his ability to hit the high C, that nemesis of tenors? Luciano
Pavarotti. And who has decided to retire? Bill Watterson.
So the difference in predictability is not justification for caring
about Watterson but not about Washington or stabbing victims. Politicians
will debate, possibly change our lives, and I am unable to care terribly
much because their influences are so a) long-term and b) ambiguous. People
will fight and hate, but *I* am not fighting, *I* am not hating. Watterson,
and Calvin and Hobbes, touch me directly, immediately, and recognizably.
They provide a sometimes humorous, sometimes poignant, sometimes bitter look
at ourselves and our world, and I love them. I am not here to expound on
the virtues of Calvin and Hobbes in a quasi-eulogistic manner, so I will
stop with these final words.
Calvin and Hobbes are leaving, and that is news that matters. To me.
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> and handsome, too!
>> snagged by murmur
snagged from the Rockford (IL) Register Star, 11-24-95, 2B, Ann Landers:
> pong
Dear Ann Landers:
I have to respond to your reader who asked if chivalry is dead.
Chivalry may be dead, indeed, but kindness is alive and well.
Last week, while boarding an airplane, I was carrying my luggage and
that of a colleague who was on crutches. As I attempted to negotiate that
humongous load up a flight of stairs, none other than Peter Jennings
appeared and insisted on helping. Once on board the plane, he helped
another passenger, who was also on crutches, get her luggage stowed in the
overhead compartment.
I have been a longtime fan of Peter Jennings, the newscaster, but now
I am also a fan of Peter Jennings, the person. Perhaps it's his
thoughtfulness that makes him such an exceptional news anchor.
Too bad there aren't more people like Mr. Jennings. The world could
use his kind of civility.
-- A Fan Forever in Dallas
Dear Forever:
Thank you for a lovely letter. I, too, am a fan of Peter Jennings and
can attest to the fact that he's a class act -- a gentleman to the core.
And handsome, too.
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> these arts ain't too liberal, is they?
>> written by murmur
liberal arts. a liberal arts college. people walking around with
purple hair, talking about the latest sensation on pass the virgin records.
a different environment, one of tolerance but one of difference, one of
acceptance but one of nonconformity. sound about right?
stop.. on a whammy@!
it's not correct to suggest that conformity is at an all-time high, or
that nonconformity is at an all-time low. but at our bastions of
nonconformity, of learning new and different things, are things really new
and different? are things stimulating, fresh? beyond the natural extension
of 'freedom' at college, are there profound impact-makers on our campuses?
as the magic 8-ball once said, "my sources say no."
like any other business, universities are in it for fame and fortune.
they'd be liars if they told you otherwise. although it's true that schools
will clamor for high profile speakers and performers so they can give their
students something cool to do, it's not just an afterthought that bringing,
say, spike lee to campus will make the school look good, get it enhanced
notoriety. then the school will be more prestigious, and this enhanced
prestige will lead to many things: richer students, higher-level
professors, all in turn leading to higher tuition, which itself leads to yet
higher notoriety.
if, say, jimmy carter came to your campus, it'd be a big deal, right?
but what if he spoke about peanut farming for a solid two hours? the
notoriety would remain, but the essential worthiness of the speech to its
audience would be diminished, to say the least. but what if peanut farming
was a topic of high interest on said campus? what if, in a survey, the
student body decided they *really* wanted to hear a speech on peanut
farming? then is the worthiness of the speech diminished?
my argument is YES. college is not supposed to be a big heaping pile
of pure entertainment, college is supposed to be being exposed to new
things. college is supposed to be the place where you try new things, the
place where you go see different kinds of speakers, the place where you
watch foreign films. not to say a school shouldn't bring *entertainment*;
but with that entertainment should come something else, something new,
something different, and the student body, at least in part, should respond
favorably to this.
when a small liberal arts college goes out looking for concerts, hoping
to sign that one *big* act that will sell out and provide a major
entertainment extravaganza, it betrays itself by not also going out and
looking for smaller concerts, for less obscure bands, for different types of
music. this isn't a condemnation of signing that big act; this is a
condemnation of refusing to look beyond the entertainment element towards
what college is specifically empowered to bring: the culture element.
pearl jam is fine and dandy, but to pass up thinking fellers union local 282
when they won't cost you much money or trouble simply because the people in
charge don't care is a travesty; and this travesty really jettisons the
liberal from a liberal arts college.
this doesn't mean joe frat boy is expected to run out and watch all of
fellini's films tomorrow; but it does mean that the school in question
should offer joe frat boy the option to do so. sally sorority girl might
not think much of the annoying violin of alex shony braun; that doesn't mean
she, in her capacity as a campus leader/official shouldn't bring him.
go out and experience something new. live a little. do something
different. yack yack, yack yack yack. but it's really true. college is
supposed to be a portal to loads of fascinatin' stuffs, and a small liberal
arts college can do as much for its student body as harvard (well, in a way,
at least) if it makes the effort. sadly, it seems that on some campuses,
those in virtual 'power' are falling short; this is the real tragedy. this
is the decimation of the 'liberal' arts college.
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> blue meanies interview
>> written by murmur
>> conducted by goat-spiel
[goat-spiel is our radio program, which fall 95 broadcasted from 2-4
a.m. sundays on WESN 88.1 FM Bloomington, IL. starting mid-february,
we'll be broadcasting from 12-2 a.m. sundays. check out pong #3 for more
info. in the interview, "spiel" is mostly murmur, but includes shadow tao,
quarex, neo jesus, dan, and jason.]
Perhaps the biggest thing going in Illinois right now is the Blue
Meanies. Why they aren't immensely popular by now is a mystery, because
they put on about the most exciting and intense live show of any band
around. A ska-core band out of Chicago, the Blue Meanies have been together
about five years now and have quite a few releases under their belts. Their
latest album, _Kiss Your Ass Goodbye_, was released in summer 1995 on Fuse
Records (distributed by Feedback Records). I called up Platypus, listed as
Management, to get the band members' names straight, and this is what Jeff
the Manager told me:
Billy Spunke - Vocals
Jimmy Flame - Trumpet
John Paul Camp - Saxophone
Chaz Linde - Keyboards
Mike Pearson - Guitar
Bobby Taco - Drums
Dave Lump - Bass
Blue Meanies * PO Box 317 * Charleston IL 61920
We spoke to the Blue Meanies after their show on December 2 at the
Illinois State University Bone Student Center Ballroom. Phydeaux opened and
played a damn fine set. The Blue Meanies, energized by the surprisingly
large crowd (800, Billy said) played a fantastic set, as eight-year olds
behind us moshed. Tony gave us their room number so we could give them a
call. The conversation lasted a good hour, so it has been edited for space
and content constraints here.
Note: many references were made in the interview to the Meanies' ill-
fated show this past April 21 at Illinois Wesleyan University, where
security pulled the plug on the set only four songs in because 'classes were
being disrupted.'
> pong
[we called up the blue meanies just as weird al yankovic's "lost in a closet
with vanna white" was finishing up. here we are, on the air, talking first
to tony.]
spiel: right now, we've got the blue meanies on the phone...
chaz: this is crazy! somebody just spilled an ash tray!
spiel: now, you guys are goin' to new orleans after this month?
chaz: yeah, we're goin' there in january, to try and write songs there.
but i don't think we'll get anything done.
spiel: why are you going to new orleans?
chaz: bill, our singer, moved down there a year ago; you know, we don't
really have a home residence since we're all from different places;
it's just somewhere we've got a place to practice.
spiel: it's the old cliched question, but we'll ask it anyways: who are
your influences?
chaz: (asks the band) first oingo boingo record, if you know that at all..
and then like; i don't know man, a lot of crap. you know, me, i
like a lot of mid-80s SST punk.
[here we were talking a bit about the show that night, with billy.]
billy: thanks to all the kids, there were 800 of them there!
spiel: every show you go to, are there 12-year-olds there?
billy: yeah, every chance we get, we prefer the all ages shows to over 21.
spiel: so how do you think the show went tonight?
billy: far out, man! it was excellent! it was an excellent tour. we
had really good shows; this was one of the best, we had a great show
in san diego, we had a great show in miami; but this was right up
there, for sure.
[we asked bill what he wanted to hear; he asked if we had the new flaming
lips album, then when we couldn't find it, he asked if we had any reverend
horton heat or southern culture on the skids. we obliged with "voodoo
cadillac" by southern culture on the skids.
while we played southern culture on the skids, bobby started talking to us.
bobby said southern culture on the skids sucked, and bill didn't know what
he was talking about. he suggested we play rancid or the foo fighters, and
while we searched for those he also requested "trigger cut" by pavement.
someone in the background yelled "not that foo fighter crap!"]
spiel: why did you want to be a drummer when you started off?
bobby: when i was in second grade, my parents bought me a snoopy drum set
for christmas, and i broke the heads the very first day. i wanted
to be a drummer from there on.
spiel: have you broken any heads?
bobby: fuck yeah! just not as fast as those snoopy drums.
spiel: did you have any drumming influences?
bobby: my biggest drumming influences were, as follows: neal peart [rush],
animal from the muppets, stewart copeland [police], and the guy from
journey, what's his name?
spiel: i don't have any idea..
[now off air, with "big me" playing..]
spiel: how long have you guys been around now?
bobby: the band's been around for five plus years, but i've only been in
it for a year.
spiel: and seven albums out?
bobby: no, not seven albums; albums and a bunch of singles.
["trigger cut" now playing..]
spiel: so where are you from?
bobby: madison.
spiel: madison, i love madison@! did you hang out on state street as a
kid?
bobby: nah, i just moved there about nine years ago. i'm older, i'm 27.
spiel: where were you born?
bobby: i was born in milwaukee.
spiel: you're a cheese head then@!
bobby: and?
spiel: i dunno. packers fan?
bobby: hell yeah! packers rock!
spiel: so how'd you meet up with the rest of the band?
bobby: i used to play in a band called the mighty mighty bosstones, about
four years ago, before they got their new drummer, and they met me
through a couple of shows.
spiel: why aren't you with the bosstones anymore?
bobby: i didn't like what they were doing at the time, so, i quit.
[now we're talking to billy again, on the air...]
billy: is there anybody governing this radio show this evening?
spiel: it's a good question, i'm not really sure..
billy: do you guys have advisors?
you guys are in all kinds of trouble, i'm sure.
spiel: oh no, our program director is thrilled we're talking to you.
billy: how many people do you think are listening?
spiel: four, five, maybe..
[bill offers everyone who calls in a free poster. you should listen to
goat-spiel too@! after a little bit, we go into the blue meanies' latest
cut (at WESN at least), "Acceleration 5000". we stop talking to the blue
meanies so people can call in for their free posters. during this layover
we get a few calls and manage to play "his sleeping majesty" by rotting
christ, a part of "gangsta's paradise" by coolio and l.v. (why? who
knows?) and "better off dead" by bad religion. we call back, and we're
talking to bobby again. he tells us the next album is due out next summer.
the conversation has sort of deteriorated because it's almost 4:00 a.m. and
we're gettin' sleepy and the blue meanies aren't getting any more sober.
we start talking about their next show, december 21 at the lafayette club
in normal.]
spiel: who's opening for you?
bobby: uhh, mighty mighty something.. bosstonians. mighty mighty
bosstonians. them and this band called.. smashing squash, or
something like that.
spiel: have you ever heard these bands before?
bobby: i've heard about them..
spiel: do you want to hear them?
bobby: no!
[bobby introduces dave; but billy is talking to us again, not dave. then
billy gives way to dave, then dave gives way to bobby again. bobby asks
us to play the foo fighters again, then says jimmy wants to talk to us.
jimmy screams into the phone, a rousing rendition of "you shook me all
night long" by ac/dc.]
spiel: so where you guys headed tomorrow?
jimmy: we're goin' home tomorrow!
spiel: where's home?
jimmy: chicago, illinois! where's home for you, pal?
spiel: uhm, most of the time illinois wesleyan university.
[jimmy rants about the shutdown last year a bit. we've all ranted about
that a bit. he asks to hear g. love, and then ac/dc, and then pink floyd.
he finally decides he'd like to hear something from _animals_ and we play
"pigs (three different ones)", but not before bobby takes the phone again.
the conversation pretty much ceased to focus on the band and their music at
this point, so we end here.]
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
.s sS$
"$$$" . "
S$ $ s .s s" ""$s
"$ $ .ss$S "$ $$
"$$$$Sss $ss$S"""$ s: $:
"$s "" s"$" $ S. $ Yb s
.$s "$ S. Ys S :$ "
. " $. Ys :$ : .
"$ :$ $ s 33
S s" $ .$ss" $s
.s " $.ss"" $s .S"
s$" "
.s "
"
____
___| |_ _
___| | _______
| | | |
+---------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------+
| | | | | |
[d2o] doomed to obscurity | | | | | | doomed to obscurity [d2o]
| | | | | |
+---------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------+
|_____| |_____|
|___ _
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
> untitled
>> snagged by sweeney erect, Reverberator, and murmur
>> general consensus written by murmur
from our email system bulletin boards at Illinois Wesleyan University:
> pong
[6] From: Adam Patterson at Students/M-R 11/21/95 4:57PM (1859 bytes: 33 ln)
Subject: Probability that god exists
------------------------------- Message Contents -------------------------------
My professor was drawing a diagram and I began to daydream,
and this came to me.
Assume we have two choices god or no god (50% each)
Then, you have to break the 'pro-god' section down. Is
there just 1 god, 2, 3, 4,...n?? For the benefit of the
doubt, I have grouped them as 1 or more than one. Although,
if someone argued there was 50 gods, the probability would
be only 1% for each.
Then, you must break it down again. I have listed 3
monotheistic religions, but there are no doubt more. The
odds that each god actually exists is less than 6%, compared
to a 50% chance that NO god exists. If you like to play the
odds, atheism appears to be your best bet. Ironically,
religious people make more risky bets.
Probability
/\
/ \
/ \
no higher being higher being
50% 50%
/ \
/ \
1 god (25%) more than 1 god (25%)
/ / l / \
/ / l / \
Christian / l wicca, etc
>6% / Jewish, etc. >12.5%
Muslim >6%
>6%
> pong
adam, you're an idiot.
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
pong issue #002 december 14, 1995
pong is a subsidiary of dto productions.
pong wholeheartedly welcomes correspondences, critiques, and submissions
please send all pong correspondence to: phil_huckelberry@ccmail.iwu.edu
call ihop, the official bbs of pong, and an official dto and jonas site.
ihop: (309) 556-2579,,,,#11,#11,#11
m y h e a r t i s m a d e o f g r a v y .
> pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong > pong
