nc33/multispan_quoref huggingface dataset:
The film begins with stock footage scenes of warfare in Vietnam. An American soldier named Frankie is seen running alone through the jungle as his voice narrates. He explains that he "goes back there every night" right before he wakes up in bed with his wife in their squalid NYC apartment. The distorted cries of his baby are heard, and his pregnant wife wakes up to tend to the boy. They argue over Frankie's unemployment and their son's health. The baby is a mutant, which Frankie assumes was a result of chemical weapons used during the war.
A junkie scores from the local kingpin, Paco. Frankie waits in line outside the unemployment office. The junkie desperately searches for a needle to shoot up with. Frankie kills time entertaining a child prostitute. The junkie resorts to dumping the drugs directly onto a wound he opens in his arm and passes out. A random woman comes upon him and steals his gun and ammunition, putting them in her purse.
There is no work for Frankie at the unemployment office. Unexplained arbitrary things happen, such as one social worker asking another if he's seen his Veg-O-Matic. Frankie's social worker spaces out during their meeting and says, "Life is hot, and because life is hot, I must take off my jacket." He then resumes the meeting, imploring Frankie to go back to school because he has no marketable skills. Frankie is desperate for work, having been unemployed for four months.
He calls his father to ask for money. His father thinks the call is a prank, since he believes his son died in Saigon. Frankie explains that he was reported killed 15 years ago but made it out alive and spent three years in an army hospital recuperating. He tells his father that his wife is pregnant again and they are being evicted, but his father claims that he is also broke and about to die from a heart condition.

Question: Who does a random woman steal a gun and ammunition from?
Answer: A junkie
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: The details of the case were known for decades after what murders?
Answer: The Avenue Range Station massacre
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: What is the last name of the person who had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi?
Answer: Brown
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: What were the full names of the two people who were suspected of committing the murders in the Avenue Range Station massacre?
Answer: James Brown, Eastwood
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: What were the last names of the historians who contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime?
Answer: Foster, Hosking, Nettelbeck
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: What were the two "pioneer legend" alterations that the historians said downplayed the seriousness of the crime?
Answer: that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: What was the reason given that Brown had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide?
Answer: to establish an alibi.
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: What was the name of the location Brown was said to have gone to establish an alibi?
Answer: Adelaide
The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of a group of Aboriginal Australians by white settlers during the Australian frontier wars. It occurred in about September 1848 at Avenue Range, a sheep station in the southeast of the Colony of South Australia.
Information is scarce about the basic facts of the massacre, including the exact date and number of victims. A contemporary account of the massacre listed nine victims – three women, two teenage girls, three infants, and an "old man blind and infirm". Another account published by Christina Smith in 1880 gave the number of victims as eleven, and specified that they belonged to the Tanganekald people. Pastoralist James Brown and his overseer, a man named Eastwood, were suspected of committing the murders in retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep.
In January 1849, reports of the massacre reached Matthew Moorhouse, the Protector of Aborigines. He visited the district to investigate the claims, and based on his enquiries Brown was charged with the murders in March 1849. Proceedings against Brown began in June 1849 and continued in the Supreme Court of South Australia for several months, but were eventually abandoned. Some key witnesses, including Eastwood, either fled the colony or refused to cooperate with the investigation. There were also significant restrictions on the use of evidence given by Aboriginal witnesses, especially where a verdict could involve capital punishment. These legal hurdles and settler solidarity ensured the case did not go to trial, although the magistrate who committed him for trial told a friend that there was "little question of the butchery or the butcher".
Although the details of the case were known for decades after the murders, distortions of the massacre eventually appeared in print and were embellished by local white and Aboriginal historians. Two key aspects of these later accounts were that Brown poisoned rather than shot the victims, and that he had undertaken an epic horse ride to Adelaide to establish an alibi. Historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck contend that these "pioneer legend" alterations downplayed the seriousness of the crime.

Question: What was the reason Brown was suspected of committing the murders?
Answer: retaliation for attacks on Brown's sheep
In 1880, while Brown was still alive, the lay missionary Christina Smith wrote a book, The Booandik Tribe of South Australian Aborigines, which was published in Adelaide. It included memoirs from her time in the Rivoli Bay district, some 50 kilometres (31 mi) southeast of Guichen Bay. One of these was about an Aboriginal boy called Wergon, whom she had adopted in the 1840s. Wergon had converted to Christianity and went on several journeys to try to convert the local Aboriginal people. One of these evangelical visits was to the country of the Wattatonga tribe, a group whose traditional lands included the newly established Avenue Range Station. He returned from this trip to tell Smith that eleven of the tribe had been massacred by two white men. Wergon had persuaded a witness whose parents had apparently been killed in the massacre to return with him. According to Wergon, "the white men had shown no mercy to the grey-headed old man or to the helpless infant on its mother's breast", and the apparent motive for the massacre was the killing of sheep belonging to a settler in the Guichen Bay district. Smith's account did not include how the massacre was carried out, but did include the details that it was investigated, the bodies of the victims were burnt, and the murderer was discharged for lack of evidence. Smith did not name the settlers. In their 2001 book, the historians Robert Foster, Rick Hosking and Amanda Nettelbeck considered this unsurprising, given that Brown was alive and living nearby at the time Smith's book was published. While circumspect about naming Brown, Smith essentially recounted important details of the massacre in her book published over thirty years after it occurred.

Question: Who was the author of he Booandik Tribe of South Australian Aborigines hesitant about naming?
Answer: Brown
On an island near Antarctica, a male penguin named Peter sees a female named Polly, and attempts to woo her. First he offers her an ice cream made of snow and icicle, which she accepts. Next, he tries catching her a fish, but only succeeds in catching a pufferfish. Polly accepts it graciously, but when she swallows it, she begins inflating and deflating repeatedly until Peter makes her spit out the fish, which then returns to water.
Peter shrugs in embarrassment, but, feeling humiliated, Polly slaps him and leaves to swim on a small iceberg. On the shore, Peter kicks himself for letting her get away, but then notices a sharkfin moving towards Polly's iceberg. He squawks a danger warning to her, but Polly ignores him, thinking that he's just begging for forgiveness that he won't get. Soon enough, the shark attacks Polly, who swims away in panic. Needing to act, Peter picks up a stick and charges out to help. 
The shark chases Polly around the bay for several minutes. When it looks like he has her cornered, Peter arrives and clobbers him on the nose. Enraged, the shark starts chasing after Peter. After several minutes of fighting and swimming away from the shark, Peter tries to escape by climbing up onto a cliff with a boulder on top. Peter unintentionally dislodges the boulder, which falls into the shark's mouth, who then swallows it. Due to the boulder's weight, the shark sinks to the bottom of the bay. The shark struggles until he's too tired to move. Passing fish begin to poke fun at him.
Meanwhile, Polly and Peter reconcile and fall in love, thus Peter's wooing succeeded. They cuddle, and their bodies form a heart-shaped silhouette on the horizon.

Question: Who accepts an offer of ice cream?
Answer: Polly
On an island near Antarctica, a male penguin named Peter sees a female named Polly, and attempts to woo her. First he offers her an ice cream made of snow and icicle, which she accepts. Next, he tries catching her a fish, but only succeeds in catching a pufferfish. Polly accepts it graciously, but when she swallows it, she begins inflating and deflating repeatedly until Peter makes her spit out the fish, which then returns to water.
Peter shrugs in embarrassment, but, feeling humiliated, Polly slaps him and leaves to swim on a small iceberg. On the shore, Peter kicks himself for letting her get away, but then notices a sharkfin moving towards Polly's iceberg. He squawks a danger warning to her, but Polly ignores him, thinking that he's just begging for forgiveness that he won't get. Soon enough, the shark attacks Polly, who swims away in panic. Needing to act, Peter picks up a stick and charges out to help. 
The shark chases Polly around the bay for several minutes. When it looks like he has her cornered, Peter arrives and clobbers him on the nose. Enraged, the shark starts chasing after Peter. After several minutes of fighting and swimming away from the shark, Peter tries to escape by climbing up onto a cliff with a boulder on top. Peter unintentionally dislodges the boulder, which falls into the shark's mouth, who then swallows it. Due to the boulder's weight, the shark sinks to the bottom of the bay. The shark struggles until he's too tired to move. Passing fish begin to poke fun at him.
Meanwhile, Polly and Peter reconcile and fall in love, thus Peter's wooing succeeded. They cuddle, and their bodies form a heart-shaped silhouette on the horizon.

Question: Whose bodies form a heart-shaped silhouette?
Answer: Polly, Peter
On an island near Antarctica, a male penguin named Peter sees a female named Polly, and attempts to woo her. First he offers her an ice cream made of snow and icicle, which she accepts. Next, he tries catching her a fish, but only succeeds in catching a pufferfish. Polly accepts it graciously, but when she swallows it, she begins inflating and deflating repeatedly until Peter makes her spit out the fish, which then returns to water.
Peter shrugs in embarrassment, but, feeling humiliated, Polly slaps him and leaves to swim on a small iceberg. On the shore, Peter kicks himself for letting her get away, but then notices a sharkfin moving towards Polly's iceberg. He squawks a danger warning to her, but Polly ignores him, thinking that he's just begging for forgiveness that he won't get. Soon enough, the shark attacks Polly, who swims away in panic. Needing to act, Peter picks up a stick and charges out to help. 
The shark chases Polly around the bay for several minutes. When it looks like he has her cornered, Peter arrives and clobbers him on the nose. Enraged, the shark starts chasing after Peter. After several minutes of fighting and swimming away from the shark, Peter tries to escape by climbing up onto a cliff with a boulder on top. Peter unintentionally dislodges the boulder, which falls into the shark's mouth, who then swallows it. Due to the boulder's weight, the shark sinks to the bottom of the bay. The shark struggles until he's too tired to move. Passing fish begin to poke fun at him.
Meanwhile, Polly and Peter reconcile and fall in love, thus Peter's wooing succeeded. They cuddle, and their bodies form a heart-shaped silhouette on the horizon.

Question: What is Peter attempting to warn the other penguin of when she thinks he's trying to beg for forgiveness?
Answer: the shark
On an island near Antarctica, a male penguin named Peter sees a female named Polly, and attempts to woo her. First he offers her an ice cream made of snow and icicle, which she accepts. Next, he tries catching her a fish, but only succeeds in catching a pufferfish. Polly accepts it graciously, but when she swallows it, she begins inflating and deflating repeatedly until Peter makes her spit out the fish, which then returns to water.
Peter shrugs in embarrassment, but, feeling humiliated, Polly slaps him and leaves to swim on a small iceberg. On the shore, Peter kicks himself for letting her get away, but then notices a sharkfin moving towards Polly's iceberg. He squawks a danger warning to her, but Polly ignores him, thinking that he's just begging for forgiveness that he won't get. Soon enough, the shark attacks Polly, who swims away in panic. Needing to act, Peter picks up a stick and charges out to help. 
The shark chases Polly around the bay for several minutes. When it looks like he has her cornered, Peter arrives and clobbers him on the nose. Enraged, the shark starts chasing after Peter. After several minutes of fighting and swimming away from the shark, Peter tries to escape by climbing up onto a cliff with a boulder on top. Peter unintentionally dislodges the boulder, which falls into the shark's mouth, who then swallows it. Due to the boulder's weight, the shark sinks to the bottom of the bay. The shark struggles until he's too tired to move. Passing fish begin to poke fun at him.
Meanwhile, Polly and Peter reconcile and fall in love, thus Peter's wooing succeeded. They cuddle, and their bodies form a heart-shaped silhouette on the horizon.

Question: Who does Peter save from the shark?
Answer: Polly
On an island near Antarctica, a male penguin named Peter sees a female named Polly, and attempts to woo her. First he offers her an ice cream made of snow and icicle, which she accepts. Next, he tries catching her a fish, but only succeeds in catching a pufferfish. Polly accepts it graciously, but when she swallows it, she begins inflating and deflating repeatedly until Peter makes her spit out the fish, which then returns to water.
Peter shrugs in embarrassment, but, feeling humiliated, Polly slaps him and leaves to swim on a small iceberg. On the shore, Peter kicks himself for letting her get away, but then notices a sharkfin moving towards Polly's iceberg. He squawks a danger warning to her, but Polly ignores him, thinking that he's just begging for forgiveness that he won't get. Soon enough, the shark attacks Polly, who swims away in panic. Needing to act, Peter picks up a stick and charges out to help. 
The shark chases Polly around the bay for several minutes. When it looks like he has her cornered, Peter arrives and clobbers him on the nose. Enraged, the shark starts chasing after Peter. After several minutes of fighting and swimming away from the shark, Peter tries to escape by climbing up onto a cliff with a boulder on top. Peter unintentionally dislodges the boulder, which falls into the shark's mouth, who then swallows it. Due to the boulder's weight, the shark sinks to the bottom of the bay. The shark struggles until he's too tired to move. Passing fish begin to poke fun at him.
Meanwhile, Polly and Peter reconcile and fall in love, thus Peter's wooing succeeded. They cuddle, and their bodies form a heart-shaped silhouette on the horizon.

Question: Who do the fish make fun of?
Answer: The shark
On an island near Antarctica, a male penguin named Peter sees a female named Polly, and attempts to woo her. First he offers her an ice cream made of snow and icicle, which she accepts. Next, he tries catching her a fish, but only succeeds in catching a pufferfish. Polly accepts it graciously, but when she swallows it, she begins inflating and deflating repeatedly until Peter makes her spit out the fish, which then returns to water.
Peter shrugs in embarrassment, but, feeling humiliated, Polly slaps him and leaves to swim on a small iceberg. On the shore, Peter kicks himself for letting her get away, but then notices a sharkfin moving towards Polly's iceberg. He squawks a danger warning to her, but Polly ignores him, thinking that he's just begging for forgiveness that he won't get. Soon enough, the shark attacks Polly, who swims away in panic. Needing to act, Peter picks up a stick and charges out to help. 
The shark chases Polly around the bay for several minutes. When it looks like he has her cornered, Peter arrives and clobbers him on the nose. Enraged, the shark starts chasing after Peter. After several minutes of fighting and swimming away from the shark, Peter tries to escape by climbing up onto a cliff with a boulder on top. Peter unintentionally dislodges the boulder, which falls into the shark's mouth, who then swallows it. Due to the boulder's weight, the shark sinks to the bottom of the bay. The shark struggles until he's too tired to move. Passing fish begin to poke fun at him.
Meanwhile, Polly and Peter reconcile and fall in love, thus Peter's wooing succeeded. They cuddle, and their bodies form a heart-shaped silhouette on the horizon.

Question: What shape do the bodies of the penguins in love form?
Answer: heart
The Principality of Antioch was one of the earliest Crusader States, founded in 1098 during the First Crusade. At the time of the Mongol advance, it was under the rule of Bohemond VI. Under the influence of his father-in-law, Hethum I, Bohemond too submitted Antioch to Hulagu in 1260. A Mongol representative and a Mongol garrison were stationed in the capital city of Antioch, where they remained until the Principality was destroyed by the Mamluks in 1268. Bohemond was also required by the Mongols to accept the restoration of a Greek Orthodox patriarch, Euthymius, as a way of strengthening ties between the Mongols and the Byzantines. In return for this loyalty, Hulagu awarded Bohemond all the Antiochene territories which had been lost to the Muslims in 1243. However, for his relations with the Mongols, Bohemond was also temporarily excommunicated by Jacques Pantaléon, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, though this was lifted in 1263.Around 1262 or 1263, the Mamluk leader Baibars attempted an attack on Antioch, but the principality was saved by Mongol intervention. In later years the Mongols were not able to offer as much support. In 1264–1265 the Mongols were able to attack only the frontier fort of al-Bira. In 1268 Baibars completely overran the rest of Antioch, ending the 170-year-old principality.
In 1271, Baibars sent a letter to Bohemond threatening him with total annihilation and taunting him for his alliance with the Mongols:
Our yellow flags have repelled your red flags, and the sound of the bells has been replaced by the call: "Allâh Akbar!" ... Warn your walls and your churches that soon our siege machinery will deal with them, your knights that soon our swords will invite themselves in their homes ... We will see then what use will be your alliance with Abagha.
Bohemond was left with no estates except the County of Tripoli, which was itself to fall to the Mamluks in 1289.

Question: What is the full name of the person whose father-in-law submitted Antioch to Hulagu in 1260?
Answer: Bohemond VI
The Abbasid Caliphate, founded by Abu al-‘Abbās ‘Abdu'llāh ibn Muhammad as-Saffāḥ, the great-great-grandson of Muhammad's uncle Abbas, in 749, had ruled northeastern Africa, Arabia, and the Near East, even though their rule had by 1258 shrunk to only southern and central Iraq. The Abbasids' seat of power for almost 500 years was Baghdad, a city considered to be the jewel of Islam and one of the largest and most powerful cities in the world. But under attack from the Mongols, the city fell on February 15, 1258, a loss often considered in the Muslim world as the single most catastrophic event in the history of Islam, the end of the Islamic Golden Age. The Christian Georgians had been the first to breach the walls, and as described by historian Steven Runciman, "were particularly fierce in their destruction". When Hulagu conquered the city, the Mongols demolished buildings, burned entire neighborhoods, and massacred nearly all the men, women, and children. But at the intervention of Doquz Khatun, the Christian inhabitants were spared.
For Asiatic Christians, the fall of Baghdad was cause for celebration. Hulagu and his Christian queen came to be considered as God's agents against the enemies of Christianity, and were compared to the influential 4th-century Christian Emperor Constantine the Great and his revered empress mother, Saint Helen, an icon of the Christian church. The Armenian historian Kyrakos of Gandzak praised the Mongol royal couple in texts for the Armenian Church, and Bar Hebraeus, a bishop of the Syriac Orthodox Church, also referred to them as a Constantine and Helena, writing of Hulagu that nothing could compare to the "king of kings" in "wisdom, high-mindedness, and splendid deeds".

Question: What were the full names of the two people Hulagu and his Christian queen were compared to?
Answer: Christian Emperor Constantine the Great, Saint Helen
Hulagu died in 1265, and was succeeded by Abaqa (1234–1282), who further pursued Western cooperation. Though a Buddhist, upon his succession he married Maria Palaiologina, an Orthodox Christian and the illegitimate daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. Abaqa corresponded with Pope Clement IV through 1267 and 1268, sending envoys to both Clement and King James I of Aragon. In a 1268 message to Clement, Abaqa promised to send troops to aid the Christians. It is unclear if this was what led to James's unsuccessful expedition to Acre in 1269. James initiated a small crusade, but a storm descended on his fleet as they attempted their crossing, forcing most of the ships to turn back. The crusade was ultimately handled by James's two sons Fernando Sanchez and Pedro Fernandez, who arrived in Acre in December 1269. Abaqa, despite his earlier promises of assistance, was in the process of facing another threat, an invasion in Khorasan by Mongols from Turkestan, and so could only commit a small force for the Holy Land, which did little but brandish the threat of an invasion along the Syrian frontier in October 1269. He raided as far as Harim and Afamiyaa in October, but retreated as soon as Baibars' forces advanced.

Question: What are the full names of the people that Abaqa sent envoys to?
Answer: Pope Clement IV, King James I of Aragon
Hulagu died in 1265, and was succeeded by Abaqa (1234–1282), who further pursued Western cooperation. Though a Buddhist, upon his succession he married Maria Palaiologina, an Orthodox Christian and the illegitimate daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. Abaqa corresponded with Pope Clement IV through 1267 and 1268, sending envoys to both Clement and King James I of Aragon. In a 1268 message to Clement, Abaqa promised to send troops to aid the Christians. It is unclear if this was what led to James's unsuccessful expedition to Acre in 1269. James initiated a small crusade, but a storm descended on his fleet as they attempted their crossing, forcing most of the ships to turn back. The crusade was ultimately handled by James's two sons Fernando Sanchez and Pedro Fernandez, who arrived in Acre in December 1269. Abaqa, despite his earlier promises of assistance, was in the process of facing another threat, an invasion in Khorasan by Mongols from Turkestan, and so could only commit a small force for the Holy Land, which did little but brandish the threat of an invasion along the Syrian frontier in October 1269. He raided as far as Harim and Afamiyaa in October, but retreated as soon as Baibars' forces advanced.

Question: What country attacked Abaqa's empire?
Answer: Turkestan
Without support from the Europeans, some Franks in Outremer, particularly the Knights Hospitaller of the fortress of Marqab, and to some extent the Franks of Cyprus and Antioch, attempted to join in combined operations with the Mongols in 1280–1281. The death of the Egyptian leader Baibars in 1277 led to disorganization in the Muslim territories, making conditions ripe for a new action by other factions in the Holy Land. The Mongols seized the opportunity, organized a new invasion of Syria, and in September 1280 occupied Bagras and Darbsak, followed by Aleppo on October 20. The Mongol leader Abaqa, taking advantage of his momentum, sent envoys to Edward I of England, the Franks of Acre, King Hugh of Cyprus, and Bohemond VII of Tripoli (son of Bohemond VI), requesting their support for the campaign. But the Crusaders were not organized enough themselves to be of much help. In Acre, the Patriarch's Vicar replied that the city was suffering from hunger, and that the king of Jerusalem was already embroiled in another war. Local Knights Hospitaller from Marqab (in the area which had previously been Antioch/Tripoli) were able to make raids into the Beqaa Valley, as far as the Mamluk-held Krak des Chevaliers in 1280 and 1281. Hugh and Bohemond of Antioch mobilized their armies, but their forces were prevented from joining those of the Mongols by Baibars' successor, the new Egyptian Sultan Qalawun. He advanced north from Egypt in March 1281, positioned his own army between the Franks and Mongols, and then further divided the potential allies by renewing a truce with the Barons of Acre on May 3, 1281, extending it for another ten years and ten months (a truce he would later breach). He also renewed a second 10-year truce with Bohemond VII of Tripoli on July 16, 1281, and affirmed pilgrim access to Jerusalem.In September 1281 the Mongols returned, with 50,000 of their own troops, plus 30,000 others including Armenians under Leo III, Georgians, and 200 Knights Hospitaller from Marqab, who sent a contingent even though the Franks of Acre had agreed a truce with the Mamluks. The Mongols and their auxiliary troops fought against the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs on October 30, 1281, but the encounter was indecisive, with the Sultan suffering heavy losses. In retaliation, Qalawun later besieged and captured the Hospitaller fortress of Marqab in 1285.

Question: Who renewed a truce with the Barons of Acre?
Answer: Egyptian Sultan Qalawun
Without support from the Europeans, some Franks in Outremer, particularly the Knights Hospitaller of the fortress of Marqab, and to some extent the Franks of Cyprus and Antioch, attempted to join in combined operations with the Mongols in 1280–1281. The death of the Egyptian leader Baibars in 1277 led to disorganization in the Muslim territories, making conditions ripe for a new action by other factions in the Holy Land. The Mongols seized the opportunity, organized a new invasion of Syria, and in September 1280 occupied Bagras and Darbsak, followed by Aleppo on October 20. The Mongol leader Abaqa, taking advantage of his momentum, sent envoys to Edward I of England, the Franks of Acre, King Hugh of Cyprus, and Bohemond VII of Tripoli (son of Bohemond VI), requesting their support for the campaign. But the Crusaders were not organized enough themselves to be of much help. In Acre, the Patriarch's Vicar replied that the city was suffering from hunger, and that the king of Jerusalem was already embroiled in another war. Local Knights Hospitaller from Marqab (in the area which had previously been Antioch/Tripoli) were able to make raids into the Beqaa Valley, as far as the Mamluk-held Krak des Chevaliers in 1280 and 1281. Hugh and Bohemond of Antioch mobilized their armies, but their forces were prevented from joining those of the Mongols by Baibars' successor, the new Egyptian Sultan Qalawun. He advanced north from Egypt in March 1281, positioned his own army between the Franks and Mongols, and then further divided the potential allies by renewing a truce with the Barons of Acre on May 3, 1281, extending it for another ten years and ten months (a truce he would later breach). He also renewed a second 10-year truce with Bohemond VII of Tripoli on July 16, 1281, and affirmed pilgrim access to Jerusalem.In September 1281 the Mongols returned, with 50,000 of their own troops, plus 30,000 others including Armenians under Leo III, Georgians, and 200 Knights Hospitaller from Marqab, who sent a contingent even though the Franks of Acre had agreed a truce with the Mamluks. The Mongols and their auxiliary troops fought against the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs on October 30, 1281, but the encounter was indecisive, with the Sultan suffering heavy losses. In retaliation, Qalawun later besieged and captured the Hospitaller fortress of Marqab in 1285.

Question: Who affirmed pilgrim access to Jerusalem?
Answer: Egyptian Sultan Qalawun
Without support from the Europeans, some Franks in Outremer, particularly the Knights Hospitaller of the fortress of Marqab, and to some extent the Franks of Cyprus and Antioch, attempted to join in combined operations with the Mongols in 1280–1281. The death of the Egyptian leader Baibars in 1277 led to disorganization in the Muslim territories, making conditions ripe for a new action by other factions in the Holy Land. The Mongols seized the opportunity, organized a new invasion of Syria, and in September 1280 occupied Bagras and Darbsak, followed by Aleppo on October 20. The Mongol leader Abaqa, taking advantage of his momentum, sent envoys to Edward I of England, the Franks of Acre, King Hugh of Cyprus, and Bohemond VII of Tripoli (son of Bohemond VI), requesting their support for the campaign. But the Crusaders were not organized enough themselves to be of much help. In Acre, the Patriarch's Vicar replied that the city was suffering from hunger, and that the king of Jerusalem was already embroiled in another war. Local Knights Hospitaller from Marqab (in the area which had previously been Antioch/Tripoli) were able to make raids into the Beqaa Valley, as far as the Mamluk-held Krak des Chevaliers in 1280 and 1281. Hugh and Bohemond of Antioch mobilized their armies, but their forces were prevented from joining those of the Mongols by Baibars' successor, the new Egyptian Sultan Qalawun. He advanced north from Egypt in March 1281, positioned his own army between the Franks and Mongols, and then further divided the potential allies by renewing a truce with the Barons of Acre on May 3, 1281, extending it for another ten years and ten months (a truce he would later breach). He also renewed a second 10-year truce with Bohemond VII of Tripoli on July 16, 1281, and affirmed pilgrim access to Jerusalem.In September 1281 the Mongols returned, with 50,000 of their own troops, plus 30,000 others including Armenians under Leo III, Georgians, and 200 Knights Hospitaller from Marqab, who sent a contingent even though the Franks of Acre had agreed a truce with the Mamluks. The Mongols and their auxiliary troops fought against the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs on October 30, 1281, but the encounter was indecisive, with the Sultan suffering heavy losses. In retaliation, Qalawun later besieged and captured the Hospitaller fortress of Marqab in 1285.

Question: Who advanced north from Egypt and positioned his army between the Franks and Mongols?
Answer: Egyptian Sultan Qalawun