What are you listening to AT the moment?

WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT

^ that was quite a masterpiece

as much as I wanted to hate grimes for her baby voice sometimes this song is always stuck in my head and she's unbearably cute

That can be said about everything before the Enlightenment so I guess you don't consider anything to have really happened until Voltaire and Descartes.

I'm don't know every piece of history in all of history, so I wouldn't be able to say whether can be said about "everything" before the enlightenment era etc But i'm not talking about everything, i'm specifically talking about a certain person/event.

Anyway, have it your way, you are repeating that "those people claiming that it is proof of his existence happen to be religious as well" as if every and all historians were hardcore Christians and people like Richard Dawkins had not acknowledged it as well and I can't be bothered to repeat myself too.

Yes, but we are overlooking the fact that there are plenty of people who don't agree or believe this is substantial proof of Jesus' existence. And ultimately, it seems a lot of history, in particular of the distance past, compared to modern history, is ultimately written by people who come to a certain conclusion, based on various signs that could "possibly" confirm a certain event or what have you. But a "possibility" is never and never will be fact. Ever. If there was any recorded history, that someone by the name of Jesus was recorded somewhere, exactly around that era, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt... but there isn't, is there? :p

The baby was mentioned by someone decades ago... he never even witnessed Jesus... that doesn't add up. At some point, you are simply assuming things. That is not faaaaaacccccctt.

That's like me writing about my mom becoming a prominent Mayor of a small town out in the middle of nowhere where I grew up in, even though she didn't. If i move elsewhere and tell people the story, people will likely believe it, IF they can't confirm nor deny it. If I act the part enough, it can become possible. I know that concept is hard to grasp nowadays (what with information everywhere, and easier to confirm things), but people seemed a lot more innocent way back when. Even in modern times - talk to my mother and some of the stories she will tell you, they seem so innocent and gullible (she came from Guatemala... very outdated country etc)

Also, "for others to dissect and then come to their own conclusion"? Gravity is not a discussion, it's a fact. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

The world was once flat. That was a supposed "fact", at one point to "people". To "people" in its time. That's what I'm implying about certain supposed "facts".

i'm not saying gravity isn't fact or whether it doesn't exist or whether there is a discussion in regards to its "existence", i was just commenting about specifics of laws etc. Einstein went even more beyond Newton in regards to this etc so on and so forth etc

I believe Gravity is fact.

I just commented that Gravity was a discussion (that's what I was implying specifically). People didn't believe right away, not until it was confirmed by others as well and it has been confirmed by various people and even events. You're overlooking my point. That is pretty logical steps for, as you would put it, "newly discovered 'discoveries'". To confirm them etc

This is something however, you can NOT do with the existence of "Jesus". Why? Because we can't recreate the event and/or person... unlike "gravity" or any other math or science subject etc etc

You can only go by assumption ultimately... and assumption is just as valuable as me selling you a piece of the moon for a few hundred bucks, right here and right now.

Some things we may never know for a long time or may even never know, but apparently to religious people, I've found that that is a hard concept to grasp, apparently.

Me: "He probably lived, most evidence point to that."

You: "bullshit and you're suppose to be what, a history major or something?"

lol

that's not "lol" baby, that's assuming. "probably"? wtf. Most evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE. Some jew and another guy mention "someone" in some writing, decades later? Gentlemen who never actually even witnessed his this someone's existence? But lets assume this is Jesus, cuz it is as close as we will ever get? So lets just make it the law of the land as 100% fact?

That is too silly.

He took it so literally it would be considered heresy. He was not just a follower, he was completely into it and it was hard for him. He didn't believe just because it was convenient or easy, he believe it and studied it so much because he had a passion for understanding everything and he thought God made sense. And his physics are all we need to manoeuvre spaceships around space, if he had F-1 rocket engines he could have gone to the Moon lol, it's not like we know much more than he did (unless you are a theoretical physicist, in that case let me bow before you).

What was wrong with him being completely into it? Lots of people were really into it way back when, last i recall. not necessarily heresy back when, to my knowledge.

And I never implied he believed because it was easy or convenient. The guy "supposedly" died a Virgin (though, there is no way of ever knowing 100%... since ya know... a lot of stuff happens behind closed doors awwwyeaaaaaa....). Doing things the easy way, seems like the last thing on his mind regardless, kitten :p

I am simply stating, if you raise a person to believe a certain way/view, they will likely view it as such, to various extents for the rest of their lives. The Bible and all that jumbo religion stuff is actually very detailed and interesting... why wouldn't that keep his interest enough. There's load of writing/info in that stuff etc Very complex at times etc etc

The telescope yeah, he made it work but there were already plans to improve Galileo's telescope (that one was really stolen btw haha but Gal Gal is the kitten anyway, he wrote Sidereus Nuncius in a ridiculously short timespan after all!). Everything else I mentioned he discovered by himself before he was 26. But baby, it's only gravity and calculus, piece of cake, fuck it!

baby.... what is Calculus built on?

Calculus, historically known as infinitesimal calculus, is a mathematical discipline focused on limits, functions, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series. Ideas leading up to the notions of function, derivative, and integral were developed throughout the 17th century, but the decisive step was made by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz.

That's what I'm implying... everything is built on top of other ideas and then expanded on etc etc. Nothing more. I'm not taking anything away from the guy, I just don't like to over-glorify stuff, is all. Though, I'm sure Newton would appreciate your high praise, if he was so supposed so into himself. lawlz. thank you, dear chap.

And isn't it ironic that Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarism in regards to Calculus? Last i recall, Newton was accused of plagiarism by... I forget his name. But some colleague or w/e baby, that Newton didn't like at all... apparently he even had certain writings and paintings of the baby "disappeared". Which is extremely suspicious to me, but w/e.

Fucking arrogant fucks.

You can't create gravity. But you can discover it. Well, actually YOU and ME can't, but Newton could and did because no one had discovered it before, they were completely clueless about it. But if it makes you happy winning it with semantics, whatever, I don't mind: he "SIMPLY (lol) identified" it. I just want to see you happy.

Semantics matter A LOT. In that Jesus article in Wikipedia:

"Separate non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of 1st century Roman historians Josephus and Tacitus.[365][372] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9, 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars."

"and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars."

it is only

only? really?

and how much is "small" number of scholars? has there been a poll taken? lol

That's almost completely dismissing a minority view regardless. Just because the majority of the planet is religious (and then some), doesn't make it the ultimately authority in regards to what is fact and what isn't, when clearly a fact is only a fact because you simply want to assume and come to an agreement with the majority of people.

Do you know, the chances of me ever becoming President of the US are slim to none. A black asian female MUSLIM has a better chance of me becoming President, than I, as a supposed "atheist". People are that passionate about religion... and it is SCARY AS SHIT TO ME. lol. I wish i was joking.

If someone knows absolutely nothing about physics... sure, in that case someone down there at Silicon Valley can be smarter than Newton. All of them are, probably, even the janitors.

Lots of Computer Science majors take physics... in fact, depending on your school, it is required etc Just sayin'.

I've seen him interview a bunch of people from very different areas always with great insight so I wouldn't say he's stupid... but since he is Christian he probably is.

He's given of cue cards, lol

i don't think I ever said Christians are stupid though. I don't believe by default you would be.... but I question it more and more, as I see people persistently simply following because it makes them feel good in one war or another.... even if it means putting others down etc and what have you.

I wonder how humanity lived all that time without oil. And I also wonder why those damn tree huggers don't shut up about their renewable fuels. But yeah, let me just get out of your way...

Humanity progresses on. Things change. It is harder to keep the peace for larger chunks of population using simpler methods of living, used by the past. Renewable fuels will come sooner or later... once the tech is there, properly.

People want different experiences and discover and invent new things. spark the imagination etc stimulate the mind. Just like Newton or Einstein did, in their own way etc

We wouldn't have the current system we have now, had we decided not to use oil. simple as that. i'm not saying i am for oil or w/e, i'm just saying it is reality currently.

When did that last logical war happened btw? I think I missed it :/ Must have been that one where you kittens used two atomic bombs. That's much more logical and rational than going to Jerusalem.

[/quote]

I'd say probably the last logical war was in WWII. Unless you would have preferred all the Jews and well all them Europeans that didn't meet the strict rules should be murdered? ...basically even your possible ancestors and whatnot... although... was it you that mentioned once that your great something fought with them Nazi Germans? lawlz. I can't recall 100% Might have been someone else here.

WWII was a logical war to do. To fight the "illogical" aka the Nazis. It took America a while to realize it with more confidence (after being attacked), but it was eventually realized ... So unless you think the Nazis should have just raped everyone, I don't see how it wasn't logical to fight them?

Afghanistan could have been a logical war... and started off as such... but Bush was too fucking stupid and proud and ruined it all. Invading Iraq just made it worse. And people ate it up, out of fear and religion bullshit etc

muh

one very important thought

Oh god i cant stop listening to this song! It's just so chilled and amazing!



And this song has the best film clip ive seen in ages

Yes, but we are overlooking the fact that there are plenty of people who don't agree or believe this is substantial proof of Jesus' existence.

I'm not overlooking anything. That's why I said 'probably'. But from what I've read regarding the issue I think the majority is correct and Jesus actually lived.

And ultimately, it seems a lot of history, in particular of the distance past, compared to modern history, is ultimately written by people who come to a certain conclusion, based on various signs that could "possibly" confirm a certain event or what have you. But a "possibility" is never and never will be fact.

Absolutely nothing in history before the Enlightenment, NOTHING, is a cold-hard fact. Even after that most events can be interpreted subjectively. We have rules and a strict methodology but it's not a science. And again, that's why I said 'probably', right before you came charging at me.

If there was any recorded history, that someone by the name of Jesus was recorded somewhere, exactly around that era, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt... but there isn't, is there? :p

If I recall correctly the only sources that matter from EXACTLY his time are some that are archaeological ones, some graves with engraved named and whatnot. But I'm not sure, don't take my word for it, research if you are interested.

That said, written sources from a few decades after don't bother me that much since that happens countless times when you are studying stuff this old. But that is not all. Take this into consideration: where do you supposed the Christians Nero accused of burning Rome came from? They just spontaneously appeared out of no where, with no leader? That was just three decades after Jesus died. That's an huge one but there are lots of other indicators.

That is not faaaaaacccccctt.

No need to stretch the word, I never said it was.

The world was once flat. That was a supposed "fact", at one point to "people".

The difference was that it was before critical thinking had developed. The concept of fact would be much different since they didn't even needed evidence. Gravity has every scientific evidence backing it up.

Einstein went even more beyond Newton in regards to this etc so on and so forth etc

Yes, Einstein went beyond Newton, but his findings didn't change anything about our idea of gravity.

People didn't believe right away, not until it was confirmed by others as well and it has been confirmed by various people and even events. You're overlooking my point. That is pretty logical steps for, as you would put it, "newly discovered 'discoveries'". To confirm them etc

Actually that's not how it went. I'm not trying to sound pretentious but I'm having this semester a class called History of Ideas in Physics and we have discussed Newton profoundly. Obviously most people didn't grasp the concept immediately, since most people couldn't even read, but the scientists at the Academies immediately understood what he had stumbled upon, even before Principia had been published. The Laws of Motion may have taken a little more time but Gravity was pretty straight forward.

This is something however, you can NOT do with the existence of "Jesus". Why? Because we can't recreate the event and/or person... unlike "gravity" or any other math or science subject etc etc

True. Or with anything that has happened with humans. Because history is not a science. And that's why I said 'probably'.

Some things we may never know for a long time or may even never know, but apparently to religious people, I've found that that is a hard concept to grasp, apparently.

You sounded to me as radical and as certain as most orthodox Christians when this discussion first started.

Most evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE.

What you said + the Nero thing + a few more things which I don't recall since I studied all this more than 2 years ago and I'm not an expert in the matter. But you are once again so certain that I won't even bother looking for it since you'll just dismiss it, just like you will probably dismiss the Nero affair. But if you want I can ask my History of Religion teacher (as I've said, an atheist historian who believes Jesus lived) some books regarding this.

What was wrong with him being completely into it? Lots of people were really into it way back when, last i recall. not necessarily heresy back when, to my knowledge.

Go read about it, he's a fascinating baby. You'll see that he took it much more literally than what the Church wanted and that's why it would be considered heresy if he had revealed everything he believed in. An example: he didn't believe in the Holy Trinity. And the virgin thing, I think it's true lol, the guy could only think about the Universe and God.

I am simply stating, if you raise a person to believe a certain way/view, they will likely view it as such

Yeah, but he didn't believe what he was taught, he took it much further than 99.99% of the people at his time.

baby.... what is Calculus built on?

Calculus, historically known as infinitesimal calculus, is a mathematical discipline focused on limits, functions, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series. Ideas leading up to the notions of function, derivative, and integral were developed throughout the 17th century, but the decisive step was made by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz.

That's what I'm implying... everything is built on top of other ideas and then expanded on etc etc. Nothing more. I'm not taking anything away from the guy, I just don't like to over-glorify stuff, is all. Though, I'm sure Newton would appreciate your high praise, if he was so supposed so into himself. lawlz. thank you, dear chap.

Yeah, mathematics obviously weren't created by Newton. What matters was that the 'decisive step' was an HUGE step. I'm not OVER glorifying him, he deserves all the recognition he gets, which in my opinion is not enough (politicians and now sportsmen always get more attention than scientists).

But yeah, he thought highly of his own intellect, for obvious reasons. Although he also famously said two really cool and humble things:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

And isn't it ironic that Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarism in regards to Calculus? Last i recall, Newton was accused of plagiarism by... I forget his name. But some colleague or w/e baby, that Newton didn't like at all... apparently he even had certain writings and paintings of the baby "disappeared". Which is extremely suspicious to me, but w/e.

Robert Hooke. Newton didn't like the guy because he accused him of plagiarism regarding the discovery of Gravity. And that is not correct. Newton did it independently and from what I know also before. But he only published about it much later, in Principia. But this doesn't even matter because Hooke did not, COULD NOT, develop the idea from a mathematical stance and demonstrate it. Since you talked about the difference between fact and not fact, gravity only became a fact because Newton explained it mathematically, he demonstrated it, something Hooke did not know how to do.

I never heard anything about Newton making writings and paintings disappear though, but I know that he did acknowledge Hooke in Principia.

That's almost completely dismissing a minority view regardless. Just because the majority of the planet is religious (and then some), doesn't make it the ultimately authority in regards to what is fact and what isn't, when clearly a fact is only a fact because you simply want to assume and come to an agreement with the majority of people.

It's unfortunate that you keep forgetting that a lot of atheist historians share the same views though. And even renown atheist "leaders" (don't take it wrong haha, I know you kittens don't have a Pope, I'm just talking about people like Dawkins, major critics of Christianity).

Do you know, the chances of me ever becoming President of the US are slim to none. A black asian female MUSLIM has a better chance of me becoming President, than I, as a supposed "atheist". People are that passionate about religion... and it is SCARY AS SHIT TO ME. lol. I wish i was joking.

In your country maybe. There are historians outside of the US, you know? And we don't usually take religion into account that much in colleges and research and etc.

Lots of Computer Science majors take physics... in fact, depending on your school, it is required etc Just sayin'.

I know. I was a Computer Sciences undergraduate before I dropped out of that shit and changed to History. Lots of math but also some physics. That was not what I was saying anyway. I was saying that someone would only consider a random baby from Silicon Valley worth of the intellect of Isaac Newton if that someone knew nothing of physics and therefore also knew nothing of the huge and absolutely essential importance of Newton's contributions to our view of the Universe today.

Humanity progresses on. Things change. It is harder to keep the peace for larger chunks of population using simpler methods of living, used by the past. Renewable fuels will come sooner or later... once the tech is there, properly.

Obviously. And so, for things to keep changing, maybe your country should change this



You know, invest a little more of your tax dollar in that awesome agency of yours that works around DEVELOPMENT and INNOVATION and a little less in fucking other countries. That would be rational and brave and humanitarian. The world would salute you kittens for it and humanity would progress. But instead you prefer to keep using the easy route of invading the countries with the resources, as if they were yours to get.

Some time from now, someone instead of saying "People use to think Slavery was a pretty cool thing. Depending where you lived and time, the majority believed so. big deal" will say "People use to think that invading every country you wanted for oil was a pretty cool thing. Depending where you lived and time, the majority believed so. big deal". Same logic.

I'd say probably the last logical war was in WWII. Unless you would have preferred all the Jews and well all them Europeans that didn't meet the strict rules should be murdered? ...basically even your possible ancestors and whatnot... although... was it you that mentioned once that your great something fought with them Nazi Germans? lawlz. I can't recall 100% Might have been someone else here.

I wouldn't call it logical. True, France and the USSR and a few other countries had to defend themselves. No contest there. But would you like to explain to me the logic behind the bombing of Dresden? Or your two atomic bombs? The reasons behind the entry of the Allies in the war might have been logical (although I wouldn't use such a word) but the way they fought it was as illogical as the Nazis. Plus, ultimately it all derived from WWI and the sanctions imposed to Germany after it, both absolutely illogical.

And yeah, my paternal family is German, from München, and my grandfather was forced to fight in WWII for the Nazis when he was 16. He fled not long after but it must still have been fucked up because he never talked much about it. And all of this was after my great-grandfather was arrested to never be seen again because he was against the rise of the Nazis and my great-grandmother was taken away to an asylum for being the wife of a "traitor".

Afghanistan could have been a logical war... and started off as such...

It started off as pure retaliation. And retaliation against a whole country, not just the terrorist or his group. From what I know the United Nations only allow self-defence. And the United States even managed to deny the protection of the Geneva Convention to whom they were fighting. So I fail to see any logic in it, even just in the beginning.

Absolutely nothing in history, NOTHING, is a fact. We have rules and a strict methodology but it's not a science. And again, that's why I said 'probably', right before you came charging at me.

Oh come on, nothing? You mean, there is no proof the Holocaust happen? Thus it is not fact? You mean Hitler never existed? I see pictures of the baby all the time, lawlz. Jews with numbers on them etc I'm pretty sure that's enough to prove it as a fact. Lot of people from the era to document it as well... film... pictures etc etc. Modern history is easier to confirm as fact.... past history from long ago, not so. That's what i'm been basically trying to point out... hence why I don't believe a "possibly" is really something that should be considered "refuted", yet various historians want to consider the existence of Jesus as true and thus irrefutable... which I don't think is proper to say, let alone state. I think it basically makes people less credible.

If I recall correctly the only sources that matter from EXACTLY his time, contemporary, are some that are archaeological ones, some graves with engraved named and whatnot. But I'm not sure, don't take my word for it, research if you are interested.

There were various people called Jesus or w/e at the time. That doesn't prove anything, yo.

That said, written sources from a few decades after don't bother me that much since that happens countless times when you are studying stuff this old. But that is not all. Take this into consideration: where do you supposed the Christians Nero accused of burning Rome came from? They just spontaneously appeared out of no where, with no leader? That was just three decades after Jesus died. That's an huge one but there are lots of other indicators.

I wouldn't be able to say with certainty the specifics, because that all gets really hazy with details. Sure, you can assume various things, but that still wouldn't confirm it. Ultimately you have to go by assumptions, to the best of your ability... and while it could be true, there is just as good of a chance that it isn't, due to the limited amount of information.

... and something as critical as this subject, again, mixed with so much controversy... it is just so touchy to really claim things with 100% certainty, imo.

I'm not OVER glorifying him, he deserves all the recognition he gets, which in my opinion is not enough (politicians and now sportsmen always get more attention than scientists).

Newton doesn't need to be recognized by the overall population... to be appreciated.  It is like people in computer science, unless you become a billionaire, no one really cares who you are and what you've done, or let alone know, even though it effects everyone in this day in age, every daaaayy.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, because most people wont grasp certain concept by these individuals... and that's ok, because people in their particular fields will always appreciate them. So i don't think it that much of a biggie, tbh.

I never heard anything about Newton making writings and paintings disappear though, but I know that he did acknowledge Hooke in Principia.

Yeah, apparently paintings of Hooke disappeared when Newton took over that Royal Society bulldada etc. I've read about writings disappearing as well.... just sounds weird that it would happen when Newton became head of that Royal Society shiznay.

It's unfortunate that you keep forgetting that a lot of atheist historians share the same views though. And even renown atheist "leaders" (don't take it wrong haha, I know you kittens don't have a Pope, I'm just talking about people like Dawkins, major critics of Christianity).

yeah, well, everyone will obviously draw to different conclusions... I wouldn't say i believe everything Dawkins spits out etc

I know. I was a Computer Sciences undergraduate before I dropped out of that shit and changed to History. Lots of math but also some physics. That was not what I was saying anyway. I was saying that someone would only consider a random baby from Silicon Valley worth of the intellect of Isaac Newton if that someone knew nothing of physics and therefore of the huge and absolutely essential importance of his contributions to our view of the Universe today.

Honestly, I just think you don't really value that general area of Computer Science. Never took anything away from Newton, i just think there's plenty of intelligent individuals in the computer science area, that I would say would be a just as worthy as Newton, in just different ways and areas etc To what degree and level, is subjective, I would say, in regards to "intelligence". People specialize in different things, but I don't think it makes them any less important than other areas etc

I hear that whole area is going private in America. Lots of stuff in the works.

You know, invest a little more of your tax dollar in that awesome agency of yours that works around DEVELOPMENT and INNOVATION and a little less in fucking other countries. That would be rational and brave and humanitarian. The world would salute you kittens for it and humanity would progress. But instead you prefer to keep using the easy route of invade the countries with the resources, as if they were yours to get.

The rest of the world is just as guilty of this. France and Britain and other Euro countries in Libya (we basically did them a favour, since they get a lot of oil form there... not the US though). So I'm not sure the world would salute, per se, as they are just as guilty of doing so. It is so easy to just call out the US cuz it is more advance military wise and we are everywhere etc But we seem to do favours for all you Euro folks all the time....

I wouldn't call it logical. True, France and USSR and a few other countries had to defend themselves. Would you like to explain to me the logic behind the bombing of Dresden? Or your two atomic bombs? The reasons behind the entry of the Allies in the war might have been logical (although I wouldn't use such a word) but the way they fought it was as illogical as the Nazis. Plus, ultimately it all derived from WWI and the sanctions imposed to Germany after it, both absolutely illogical.

I wouldn't say fighting it as illogical as the Nazis. The Japanese refused to give up. And at the time, I'm not sure whether people in general even grasped the complete concept of the atomic bomb being dropped on a massive populated area. No one had ever used it for such before. I mean, the fact that, I forget what President it was, but he ended up giving nuclear supplies to various countries around the world for the greater good (which is what the US is currently trying to clean up at the moment and has for a few years now). That's how Pakistan and bunch of other countries got nuclear capabilities. I honestly think people actually thought nuclear technology as something positive, than negative at the time.

Sure, in retrospect it is easy to judge the situation that happened decades ago... but at the time and within the context on what was going on in the world at the time, I think you have to look at things differently. It is too easy to judge it any other way, I'd say. And thus dismiss it as "illogical" out of its context at the time.

That said, the US has never used the nuclear bomb on anyone else. So.

And yeah, my paternal family is German and my grandfather was forced to fight in WWII for the Nazis when he was 16. He fled not long after but it must still have been fucked up because he never talked much about it. And all of this was after my great-grandfather was arrested to never be seen again because he was against the rise of the Nazis and my great-grandmother to be taken away to an asylum for being the wife of a "traitor".

that's some pretty crazy stuff.

It started off as pure retaliation. And retaliation against a whole country, not just the terrorist or his group.

Someone attacks you and threatens your life, you attack them back, unless you want to die like Jesus or some shit. That is logical to want to fight back, in order to NOT die. That is within reason. You can't get anymore logical than that. I'm not sure how you fail to see that, tbh.

So yes, I still would say Afghanistan was self-defense, logical, and very justifiable at the beginning... it goes into the grey area not too long after though.

I'm not even sure why you're bringing in the UN and Geneva though etc etc A country will always defend itself, regardless of some stuff we set up decades ago or rules. The US basically is the UN, when it comes to military action at any rate... remember Libya? We basically provided all the military action (and boy did the tax payer end up paying for a lot of it, i heard), yet France and Britain took all the credited, when they hardly did shit, lol. Britain couldn't even get their soldiers down there without embarrassing themselves. US is basically the UN in disguise when you look at it from a military perspective.

Oh come on, nothing? You mean, there is no proof the Holocaust happen? Thus it is not fact? You mean Hitler never existed? I see pictures of the baby all the time, lawlz. Jews with numbers on them etc I'm pretty sure that's enough to prove it as a fact. Lot of people from the era to document it as well... film... pictures etc etc. Modern history is easier to confirm as fact.... past history from long ago, not so.

baby, you can't starting answering right away when someone writes something that big lol. I always go back to posts and edit stuff.

"Absolutely nothing in history before the Enlightenment, NOTHING, is a cold-hard fact. Even after that most events can be interpreted subjectively."

This is what I meant. Different people look at things in History from subjective perspectives so few things can be a fact. Obviously Hitler's date of birth is a fact, everyone knows he was born exactly 100 years before me lol. But the Holocaust is not the same for everyone, it's always perceived from a personal point of view. That's what I meant, it's much different from a scientific fact like what gravity does to stuff with a certain mass.

various historians want to consider the existence of Jesus as true and thus irrefutable... which I don't think is proper to say, let alone state. I think it basically makes people less credible.

Nope. Stuff gets refuted in History all the time. Something can be "true" today and tomorrow some new source gets found and suddenly every history book as to be rewritten. That happens a lot and historians are fine with it, we know it's a field that can always change. But MOST (not just various) of the leading experts in History of Christianity think NOWADAYS that it's probable that Jesus lived, so that's what they write. But I doubt any of them ever said that "THERE'S NO DOUBT IN THE UNIVERSE THAT THE baby WAS REAL", they just point at the sources and historical evidences and give their interpretation. If some absolutely undeniable source surfaces tomorrow accounting for everyone who lived back then and he is not there, that will change.

There were various people called Jesus or w/e at the time. That doesn't prove anything, yo.

I guess you know the context of what I was talking about better than me lol. I'm pretty sure the grave didn't just say Jesus and they were like "CASE CLOSED BITCHES", there was certainly something else for them to consider it, but whatever.

I wouldn't be able to say with certainty the specifics, because that all gets really hazy with details. Sure, you can assume various things, but that still wouldn't confirm it. Ultimately you have to go by assumptions, to the best of your ability... and while it could be true, there is just as good of a chance that it isn't, due to the limited amount of information.

I guess you dismiss everything we "supposedly" know about Egypt and Mesopotamia and so on too, right? Because that was even hazier and the sources in some cases are even less reliable. Let's just call all of it bullshit.

it is just so touchy to really claim things with 100% certainty, imo.

I sure as hell didn't do that lol.

Yeah, apparently paintings of Hooke disappeared when Newton took over that Royal Society bulldada etc. I've read about writings disappearing as well.... just sounds weird that it would happen when Newton became head of that Royal Society shiznay.

I'll look into it, it sounds interesting :O I doubt Newton would do it though, Hooke was also a big shot back then, Newton knew he couldn't just erase the baby from History. But I had not heard about the issue yet so I'll ask my teacher about it before making assumptions.

Honestly, I just think you don't really value that general area of Computer Science. Never took anything away from Newton, i just think there's plenty of intelligent individuals in the computer science area, that I would say would be a just as worthy as Newton, in just different ways and areas etc To what degree and level, is subjective, I would say, in regards to "intelligence". People specialize in different things, but I don't think it makes them any less important than other areas etc

I studied it at college for over a year, I know there are very intelligent individuals there. One of the reasons I dropped out of that (not the main one) was because it was difficult. It was not impossible to learn, but it was difficult and not for everyone. So I know people in that field are bright, I've experienced it first hand. But Newton was in a whole other level, in my opinion. Just not comparable. People struggle HARD for years to learn something that he created when he was just a little older than me (calculus) lol. And that's just one of his MAJOR contributions.

The rest of the world is just as guilty of this. France and Britain and other Euro countries in Libya (we basically did them a favour, since they get a lot of oil form there... not the US though). So I'm not sure the world would salute, per se, as they are just as guilty of doing so. It is so easy to just call out the US cuz it is more advance military wise and we are everywhere etc But we seem to do favours for all you Euro folks all the time....

There are many countries guilty, no doubt. But take into consideration the miserable mass of land called Portugal: more than half of our energy comes from renewable sources. We have some of the largest photovoltaic power plants and wind farms in the world. And we are tiny and poor.

And France also helped you a lot with that Revolution thing and got nothing in return, don't forget it lol, kind of a big favour too. It goes both ways.

And the problem I have with it is that you spend a ridiculous large amount in "defence" and a ridiculous small amount in innovation. If NASA had more money science would flourish again in the USA. I also want the ESA to get more money, but the ESA can never be as much of an influence as NASA, unfortunately.

I wouldn't say fighting it as illogical as the Nazis. The Japanese refused to give up. And at the time, I'm not sure whether people in general even grasped the complete concept of the atomic bomb being dropped on a massive populated area. No one had ever used it for such before. I mean, the fact that, I forget what President it was, but he ended up giving nuclear supplies to various countries around the world for the greater good (which is what the US is currently trying to clean up at the moment and has for a few years now). That's how Pakistan and bunch of other countries got nuclear capabilities. I honestly think people actually thought nuclear technology as something positive, than negative at the time.

"No one had ever used it before" - sounds like they didn't know what it would do lol. Sounds like the US didn't use it TWICE. Sounds like you kittens didn't have plans to use it a few more times.

Also, "the Japanese refused to give up"? What kind of an excuse is that for destroying hundreds of thousands of civilians lives and families?

"I honestly think people actually thought nuclear technology as something positive, than negative at the time." - that's ludicrous. You know what Oppenheimer though after witnessing Trinity? "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." And the predictions for that test ranged between "zero (a complete dud) to 45 kilotons of TNT, to destruction of the state of New Mexico, to ignition of the atmosphere and incineration of the entire planet." I don't get how that can be seen as positive.

Pakistan only got their weapons of mass destruction three decades after WWII, wtf?

And btw, if you believe "people in general even grasped the complete concept of the atomic bomb being dropped on a massive populated area" do you think using such a weapon without understanding it is logical?

Sure, in retrospect it is easy to judge the situation that happened decades ago... but at the time and within the context on what was going on in the world at the time, I think you have to look at things differently. It is too easy to judge it any other way, I'd say. And thus dismiss it as "illogical" out of its context at the time.

I think what I said above is enough to answer this.

That said, the US has never used the nuclear bomb on anyone else. So.

Lol, you sound like you kittens deserve praise for that or something...

Someone attacks you and threatens your life, you attack them back, unless you want to die like Jesus or some shit. That is logical to want to fight back, in order to NOT die. That is within reason. You can't get anymore logical than that. I'm not sure how you fail to see that, tbh.

It was "logical" to do something but it would have to be certainly more in accordance with international law and war conventions, IMO. But no, the US is exempt from that because fuck it. Just because a country wants to "defend" itself doesn't mean he can disregard human life as they see fit.

And you kittens already give a lot of your money to military expenditures, don't blame the military action in Libya for it, doesn't make sense considering how much of your taxes go into it and how huge your war ("defence") budget is.

I wish it was Halloween

http://homestuck.bandcamp.com/track/the-vast-glub

Mother of absolute fuck she looks amazing in this video



And can't help but like the top comment ;)
"shes like a female jim morrison. she has a very unique style, just like jim had is own way at look at things.i bet if jim was in our era. theyed absolutley love eachother. thumbs up if you also love the doors =D"

baby Mono: http://www.cracked.com/article_19777_5-great-scientists-who-believed-wildly-unscientific-things.html Lol, what are the odds?

http://obisonte.bandcamp.com/album/mundos-fundos
http://obisonte.bandcamp.com/album/ala

Some Portuguese band I discovered half an hour ago but is kinda awesome.

not sure if I like it