Ironically, that's pretty much the ending of Harlan Ellison's Soldier, on which The Terminator is supposedly based (although I reckon there's more than a bit of Philip K Dick's Second Variety, too).

Props to Merrick for his picks. Jesus & Co. were a sickness, promoting ascetism and sucking the vitality out of the human race wherever they went. Churches are pretty, though.

The past is kind of a temporal version of Mexico.

Kudos on the Uwe Boll one.

I wouldn't have won anyway. He said "Above all HAVE FUN!" So I took that literally & came up with what I thought was a clever joke. I didn't know I was supposed to send back a Ghandi Terminator to sit in the place of the real one & stop him from starving to death.

And a lot fucking sooner to.

I'm not saying he deserved to die like a Kennedy deserves to die of brain cancer or cranial lead poisoning, but still...

Motherfucker had it coming.

Leadley is the real winner here, though. Although it should've been Bush or Reagan choking on his own moldy balls, as if Hitler never came to power, we wouldn't have had any good WWII movies, and video games would never have progressed beyond Pong.

And sure as shit individuals make a difference. Some folks are born just dripping with charisma and vision, which snowballs and snowballs until we have history! Sure, some emerge out of necessity, but saying that, "Oh, someone else would have come along anyway" is making a pretty huge supposition. If The Beatles didn't exist, would music be the same today? Hell naw.

"If Terminators from the future invaded, I'd break into the present day Skynet & install windows 2000. Skynet would crash, the future Terminators would never be built & Judgement day would be known as "Windows has caused an error & needs to shut down" day.

I had an awful hangover at the time, but it's still gotta be better than using a cyborg killing machine to teach man the error of his ways.

It's not like BSG or hippies never existed. I guess next time he asks for something fun I should write something really serious about stealing milk from baby Jesus.

The Christians I've spoken to have been some of the most closed-minded unenlightened, hateful, intolerant, spiteful people I've ever met. In short not very "Christian". I'm sure Muslims are just the same.

I'm glad I worship Zardoz.

...yet you add NOTHING about the ACTUAL topic. My guess is that you limp sacks don't know enough about history to comment on the first steam engine...The Library at Alexandria...Tesla's brilliance. Someone above hit the nail with his comment about our touchy-feely school system..."If you play...YOU WIN! Cuz gosh darn it...you tried you best."

And if you "tried your best" in the ancient world...you ended up face down in the dirt...sucking your pathetic final breath through the puddle of blood... leaking out the gaping wound in your jugular.

So how about a discussion about the ideas presented. I'll start...

The first steam engine was built on the grounds of the library. People came from throughout the known world...not just to read...but to WORK with the greatest minds on earth.

Imagine how fast tech would have progressed with steam. It took us less than 20 years after the advent of steam to be right in the middle of the industrial revolution. Which eventually led to the computer you are using.

How would the world have been different if the mysticism which created ALL religions...going back to caveman existence...was stopped by the cold tech that is obviously warping people into bitter, anti-everything zealots?

Would tech have stopped religion or enhanced it...ala muslim extremism? But could tech have stopped it all together? Now discuss...

Either way, I liked the Alexandria guy's point about tech destroying us 1000 years ago and making a utopia. Because anyone that doesn't see SOME kind of Judgment Day coming to life near you...just in NOT paying attention...

JABBA OUT!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t ol/news/uk/article745601.ece

The fact is, the winners aren't all worthy. He says how many of the entries were similar, yet most of the ones he's chosen ARE similar.

The way I see it, if you've got a bunch of entries about Jesus, pick the best one, then move on to something else. Something original.

It simply isn't true. In very basic terms, the reality is, most of the greatest philosophers/mathemeticians of the time were murdered or exiled as heretics.

Subsequesntly, the same thing happened to other societies, as churches took control, squashing free thought & persecting those who dared to suggest that things may have a scientific explanation. This was known as "The Dark Ages". I'm sure you've heard of it.

The "Steam Engine" you refer to was actually one of the few things that people did know about. It was considered nothing more than a toy at the time & remained so until Savery had the brains to realise how it could be used.

Oh & his entry was 7 sentences not 6 or less. If entries are gonna be discarded on the basis that they didn't include a mailing address (something which could easily be rectified upon receipt of a winner's email), then surely the number of sentences should be equally important to the rules.

Historians are basing their theory on flawed data. No one knows what burned in the fire. As with the steam engine (I'll get back to that)...there could have been a single thing which burned...a single paper...which could have changed the course of history. The fact is...there was just TOO much information to process.

By sending the Terminator back...you solve the issue of data collation. He could have pointed out the important info and protected it...as well as the heretics and mathmeticians.

He also could have pointed to the 'toy' engine and told them they could make it a thousand times bigger. In case you haven't thought of it...there was information on metalworking alone...which is ahead of what WE claim to know.

Scientists have NO clue how many helmets in Helenic times were made. ZERO idea of how they purified the metal. Couple that with engines...maybe we have cyborgs today.

There could have been a million things to enlighten or bring the tech at Alexandria...which is why having a TERMINATOR would be a big help.

And SUBSEQUENTLY, maybe science and enlightenment take over and the Dark Ages which I've never heard of...never happen...because people are too busy using their Eyepods and Mulberries...to get crushed by the church.

Knowledge is power...but without a way to SEND that info...it's useless. A Terminator may be able to help that situation...no?

Don't get so lost in history that you forget about the fact that there is a TERMINATOR there to fill in the blanks.

Let's keep in mind that he also said that Judgment Day would be around 1000...thus...I have zero clue how the...what do you call it...'Dark Ages' fit in...never happened...because of the Terminator...just sayin'

You wanna throw down about history and time travel....IT'S ON DARK SHITE!!

Or B. Made stuff up about the fire at the library of Alexandria & used more than the allowed number of sentences, but got a pass anyway. Great. As I said, my entry was a joke & wouldn't have won, but I think a bit of consistency in judging would have been fair.

For those of you talking about the Library in Alexandria, it was burned by Julius Caesar 48 B.C.

It was still around however until the sacking of Alexandria in 642 A.D. so yes Jabbathemutt, some of us do know about it. Seems you don't.

I get your point. Of course, those involved in the enlightenment would have been massively antagonistic towards the middle ages.

It is true however, that in many societies scientists etc were murdered for even daring to question. You can even go as far back as Socrates, who was killed for his views.

I don't believe that religion being hostile to science is a straw man. I feel that with Christianity, it certainly did suppress both free thinking & free speech.

Not just in the middle ages either. It can be seen in everything from the Spanish inquisiton, to the witch hunts.

Ironically (by today's image of Muslims as backwards & medievel), it was the Muslim world which embraced science & ultimately kick-started the enlightenment in Europe. Even then, certain elements of the church did their best to supress it. Not that I wanna get into a religious argument.

It is known however, that a lot of knowledge was kept, simply by virtue of the academics themselves & those who studied their works NOT perishing in the fire. The library was around for centuries later & even then it mainly served as any library does-a collection of works & theories, rather than a source of them. Most of the great minds who flocked there, did so to study, not to impart information. In that sense, pretty much everything there would have been remembered by somebody.

It might also help if the entry didn't require mentioning Jesus or is talking about something that actually happened, rather than something that you think sounds clever, but actually isn't true.

The Inquisition http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/madden200406181026.asp

The Crusades http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/comment-madden110201.s html

The Kingdom of Heaven (film) http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/madden200505270751.asp

The Galileo Controversy

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view. The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.

Clinging to Tradition?

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

Galileo "Confronts" Rome

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.

Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

2. For such a big post, it said absolutely nothing. You must have been taking lessons from Micheal Moore, i.e put in the stuff that suits your point of view, leave out the stuff that doesn't. Anyone can do that.

Also, you didn't name the guy you quoted & the quotes all came from a single source. I haven't clicked it, just read your post ( it's almost 1am), but I wouldn't anyway, because all publications have their own political/religious stance. That's why numerous sources are required.

Ps, this is a thread about a competetion.

Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous. Because it essentially means "This way is right, all others are wrong." No room for discussion or the possibility of alternatives, no acceptance of opposing views or a differing way of life. That's no different to Muslim extremists.

I've seen fundamentalist Christians (in the U.S especially), who scare the crap out of me. You said we don't see Christian suicide bombers. What about those nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics? It's the same kind of thing. They're all fucking insane.

But, your comments do show you to be incredibly nescient about *history*. The historian is Thomas F. Madden... leading expert on the Crusades...Inquisition...etc. He was/is the chair of History at Saint Louis University. He appears in the The New York Times, Washington Post, The History Channel, etc. Basically, educating the ignorant... such as yourself.

Here go to your source of everything Christian and read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T homas_Madden

I agree that the KKK comparison isn't the best. But I think it would be fair to say Islamic fundamentalism=Christian fundamentalism. It's the same shit, just differing circumstances.

You could easily exchange Islam for Christianity..say we're in Muslim countries, they're the Christians. The same stuff would still be happening.

Read... learn... and you might not be hebetudinous anymore.

I've never read wikipedia dipshit. Nor do I go to right wing christian websites without being gven a link to the opposing view.

I told you, I wasn't involved in your religious argument. I don't care. I simply talked about the Alexendria library & the dark ages.

The fact that your Christianity disables you from considering the possibility of any opposing view, is quite disturbing.

"The historian is Thomas F. Madden".."the chair of History at Saint Louis University". whoop de doo. I'll mention that next time I'm back in Oxford. Maybe my old teachers will get a laugh out of it.

There are places around that area, where MontyPython's Life of Brian is still banned!

What the fuck?

I'm not here to demonise the church, nor would I demonise atheists etc. I don't take sides. But I will stand up for history & the truth is that the church is responsible for some of the the most brutal acts in history.

Does that make Christianity bad? No. I'm sure there are many kind, wonderful Christians. Likewise it doesn't make it perfect either. There have been bad people in the church & there will continue to be so.

That's a fact. The problem is, you people don't wanna admit any truths at all.

Take the old testament. Christians are raised to believe it was written by Moses. That's what I was taught as a kid, that's what it says in my bible. Yet it talks of his death. Moses can't write about the day he died.He's dead.

So, what's the logical explanation? It was written by other people.

That's fine. It doesn't mean Moses was a myth. It could easily mean Moses told the stories & they were written by somebody else. But it does mean the Bible tells a lie. The church tells a lie. I've mentioned that to Christians & they get so angry & defensive. Like you are now.

Why does your church have to be so damned perfect, when the evidence points to it actually being quite human. Not holy, just human. Humans make mistakes.

On the subject of the Crusades, when the Muslims took Jerusalem, they left everybody alive & allowed them to practice their faiths. When Richard the Lionheart took it, he had the Muslims lined up & beheaded, men women, children, everyone. That's an historical fact.

What would your excuse for that be? "Well, their heads were full of wrong ideas which may have affected science badly, so it's a good thing they were killed. & they weren't tortured before they had their heads chopped off..and..and..a minority of 3 against 7 voted to spare their lives" etc etc. None of that shit actually shows anything. You can dress up a bad thing, but ultimately it's the same act.

Not only are there far more respected people in his field, but I was even taught by some of them. Ignorant my arse! Ignorance is believing what you want to believe & ignoring the truth, because it paints your kind in a bad light.

& if I'm posting a lot, it's because I repeatedly told you, I'm NOT here to talk religion. I also just quit smoking, so you don't wanna bother me right now.

I repeat,I'm not one of the anti-christians on here. I'm just an Historian. Your posts proved nothing, but the willingness of certain bigots to corrupt history for their own ends.

I think you'll find the similarities between the two religions far outweigh the differences. This hate towards a so-called enemy, rather than an attempt to empathise with them, is pretty indicative of what's become of your modern Christian. If I had religious notions, you'd be damned certain I'd be wanting to understand more religions than just the one I'd been lumbered with.

At least in my garbled, suffering from extreme nicotine withdrawals way.

I've been reading a couple Umberto Eco books lately and I'm kind of on a Middle Ages kick, so it was nice to read your comments as always. Heh, that dude who said, "your comments do show you to be incredibly nescient about *history*" obviously hasn't read that Terrence Malick/Gawain & The Green Giant talkback!

Religious history isn't really my field of expertise, but as I recall, hye was put on trial & the church did everything they could to execute him (very christian thing to do), but he managed to prove himself not guilty. Despite being innocent, he vanished, supposedly under house arrest, where he was left to rot indoors until he died, as a warning to anyone who chose to think outside the box.

As he was innocent of any crime, I'd call that murder.

Other people were Anti-Christian, The Christians came out to argue with them. I mentioned the dark ages on a completely unrelated subject, by which time the Anti-Christian guys had gone, leaving me open to bullshit accusations.

The murder thing is my opinion, hence the words "I'D call that murder." I would.

& I am as neutral as I say. Otherwise I'd be making as many efforts to look for quotes etc. I don't like being accused of things however & I certainly don't like people who go into things unwilling to even entertain the notion that the other person may be right. In such a scenario, I won't hide the fact that I'm pissed off. Perhaps that leads to confusion as to my neutrality/bias.

I'm truly not on either side. I was however, once snarled at as a child, by a teacher at Sunday School. I asked "If God made the universe, who made God?" I find that to be a perfectly valid question from a 10 yr old with a healthy thirst for knowledge. Much like the people here, he accused me of messing around, mocking his faith etc. Actually I wanted to know & he couldn't answer.

You see a Christian may wanna be good, but you're all just human. You snarl, you get angry, you can be bigoted & mean spirited etc. As can your church. That's all I was saying. & it's pathetic to look at all the accounts throughout history of the persectutions & barborous acts committed in the name of God & simply say "No, that didn't happen, because so & so said so". Bullshit. They happened. Learn from it, don't hide it.

Look, I've got nothing against Christians. I even said on another thread (maybe Angels & Demons?) that my friend is a devout Catholic. A VERY strict Catholic at that. I just didn't really wanna be dragged into a religious argument like that & I was pissed off.

I won't apologise for having my views. I think I tend to have a fairly un-biased point of view. In the sense that I believe in God,but I'm not a fan of organised religion as such. Having said that, I'm also not against it. I just think sometimes there's a middle ground that neither group is willing to consider.

Also, Merrick, if you read this, I skipped the bit where you said you had some kind of a problem in your personal life. In those circumstances, me being annoyed at a guy using 7 sentences instead of one isn't really important.

Phew! Nicotine!