Do you think that Putin is doing a good job with Russia?
Printable View
Do you think that Putin is doing a good job with Russia?
No.
1. He’s against freedom of speech
2. He dislikes businessmen.
3. He’s a KGBman.
4. He’s a wonna-be-dictator t**t.
Cmon Veedey, I thought you were FSB yourself :wink:
What about in comparison to Yeltsin?
Just wanted to know your opinions, hey, what do you think about my avatar? :lol:
Мой президент не пьет и не курит,Quote:
Originally Posted by Pravit
А лучше бы пил и курил
(lirycs by Splean)
It is not possible to know now how good he is. At this moment he looks at least much better than Eltsin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
1. I dont think that it is true. Kremlin administration destroyed independent TV channels, but TV is always someone's toy and I think it's better to not watch it at all. I can read independent newspapers and journals (ЕЖ for example). Even Berezovskiy's newspapers are alive and I even don't speak about the internet.
2. If you mean Hodorkovsky, I totaly disagree. From my point of view it was all right. I read some articles in _western_ newspapers and now I can say that a man who wants to buy a power using money witch were actualy stolen from the state should be in a jail. I was shoked when I had read that he was planning to change the constitution to become a prime minister with all power in his hands and with a president as a decoration in a backyard.
3. And what?
4. What is your proof?
He has been already doing his job for 4 years. Is it not enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
So you’re against freedom of speech too?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
Hmm… I thought only criminals should be in jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
You sound like a prosecutor. We’re not in court mate it’s just a forum. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
And? Denying economic growth, are we? Denying people's receiving their salaries and pensions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Personal attack? Way to go, my friend. I can already see a mind hardened in debates.Quote:
So you’re against freedom of speech too?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
The concise Oxford dictionary of current English.--8th ed:Quote:
Hmm… I thought only criminals should be in jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
jail n. & v. (also gaol) --n. 1 a place to which persons are committed by a court for detention.
Do you see the word "criminal" in the definition anywhere? Stop being creative with words, Veedey.
But you got it backwards nonetheless. "What is your proof" is a question that an advocate asks. You're the prosecutor here, Veedey. So beef up your ... er... argument.Quote:
You sound like a prosecutor. We’re not in court mate it’s just a forum. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
Sorry... :?:Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
As far as I know
jail = тюрьма
criminal = преступник
So what's wrong with my sentence?
In your sentence you say "a jail can only contain criminals". This is wrong. The rest of your argument, which is apparently "but since Khodorkovskiy is not a criminal, he must not be in a jail." is wrong as a consequence. Khodorkovskiy is a suspect, and a court has put him there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Well I start my deadly serious arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
1. Putin ordered to close all big private TV channels in Russia (НТВ, ТВ-6, ТВС). He canceled free access to his administration’s official events for journalists. Now only loyal journalists can give information. As a result we’ve got here on TV endless propaganda of his party (Единая Россия) and no more different political opinions. That’s why I do think Putin’s against freedom of speech.
2. Of course it was Putin’s decision to arrest Chodorkovsky. Yes I know he kinda said ‘It’s not my business, let’s allow a court to do its job’. Unfortunately any court in Russia is totally dependent on power. And another day Putin said ‘Nobody can earn billions for several years without violations’ i. e. Chodorkovsky is guilty cause he’s a billionaire. Putin doesn’t need any court to make that statement. That’s why I say he dislikes businessmen.
(Irony is Putin said that rubbish during his visit to Italy. His friend Berlusconi who’s made his billions for several years was sitting next to him).
3. Chodorkovsky is in jail before a trial. Prosecutors said he ‘has stole’ from the state about $1 billion using loopholes in law i. e. by LEGAL way. :o Chodorkovsky is ready внести денежный залог to be free until a trial starts. 100 Duma’s deputies gave their guaranties he’s won’t hide. But these court muppets refused to realize him. So it’s anything but justify. Ordinary job by KGB we in Russia know. That’s why I don’t like he’s a KGBman.
4. Apparently Chodorkovsky is in jail because his political activities. So Putin imprisoned his political opponent. I suppose only dictators do this way.
5. Economic growth? It started in 1999 when Eltsin was the president. Thanks to high oil prices and a default that was in 1998. It’s easy to accelerate after you nearly stopped. Putin did nothing for this growth, didn’t he?
What?! NTV is closed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Than that I watched yesterday evening must be some fake NTV. :P
Although I'm not Putin, I must admit I dislike "businessmen" like Khodorkovsky or Al Capone too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
I'm afraid, that if he will be in Majorca before trial, getting him back for the trial could be certain problem. That what "preemptive imprisonment" is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Funny. As we in Russia know, in the times then KGB existed, the "oligarchs" did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Apparently Khodorkovsky became very politically active, when he faced the perspective of criminal charge. And he is not alone...Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Say "It started in 1999 when Primakov was the premier", and I shall agree completely. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
We "nearly stopped" in 1993-94. If it's so easy to accelerate, why it took five years???Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Is the stuff below your idea of serious arguments? My dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
And of course you have evidence to back up this claim. That he ordered. May I have a look at it? Not to mention I'm being told NTV is alive and thriving.Quote:
1. Putin ordered to close all big private TV channels in Russia (НТВ, ТВ-6, ТВС).
Same question. Oh, and he's not obliged to talk to journalists in the first place, nor is his administration. And of course they might be selective. If I were a president, I would not allow "Hustler" to interview me.Quote:
He canceled free access to his administration’s official events for journalists. Now only loyal journalists can give information.
"As a result" is used to introduce a corollary. But this "corollary" does not follow from the prior "arguments", and even if it did, false arguments result in false corollaries anyway.Quote:
As a result we’ve got here on TV endless propaganda of his party (Единая Россия) and no more different political opinions.
Funny, you say that the freedom of speech is threatened in Russia, yet you speak freely. What is the freedom of speech then?Quote:
That’s why I do think Putin’s against freedom of speech.
"Of course". Prove it first, Mister Prosecutor.Quote:
2. Of course it was Putin’s decision to arrest Chodorkovsky.
Putin's fault too? And no evidence, of course.Quote:
Yes I know he kinda said ‘It’s not my business, let’s allow a court to do its job’. Unfortunately any court in Russia is totally dependent on power.
Oh. So if I make that statement, it is good and well. If you make it, it's fine, too. But if Putin makes it, he is a wanna-be dictator. Brilliant logic.Quote:
And another day Putin said ‘Nobody can earn billions for several years without violations’ i. e. Chodorkovsky is guilty cause he’s a billionaire. Putin doesn’t need any court to make that statement. That’s why I say he dislikes businessmen.
I don't care about this guy here.Quote:
(Irony is Putin said that rubbish during his visit to Italy. His friend Berlusconi who’s made his billions for several years was sitting next to him).
After the trial. Don't start that BS again. The court had good grounds to believe they might not be able to see him again should they have let him free.Quote:
3. Chodorkovsky is in jail before a trial.
I recall there was "tax evasion on big scale" in the charges. Was that legal too?Quote:
Prosecutors said he ‘has stole’ from the state about $1 billion using loopholes in law i. e. by LEGAL way.
You seriously believe that a guy who earns millions monthly cannot spent a few thousands or even millions to buy himself freedom? Enough of this nonsense. You're embarrassing yourself. Even in the States, which is apparently an "оплот демократии" for you, the court may detain a suspect in prison and may reject any guarantee. There have been cases when millions of dollars were rejected.Quote:
Chodorkovsky is ready внести денежный залог to be free until a trial starts. 100 Duma’s deputies gave their guaranties he’s won’t hide. But these court muppets refused to realize him.
Right. The guy faced preliminary court hearings. He had the most expensive and most (in)famous lawyers. The court decided to detain the guy. What injustice, indeed!Quote:
So it’s anything but justify.
Tell us what you know about KGB. Don't keep it to yourself.Quote:
Ordinary job by KGB we in Russia know. That’s why I don’t like he’s a KGBman.
Speculations. No evidence whatsoever. Typical.Quote:
4. Apparently Chodorkovsky is in jail because his political activities. So Putin imprisoned his political opponent. I suppose only dictators do this way.
In 1999 Yeltsin was comatose. As he had been for years. In 1999 Putin was the head of the government and then "acting president". Get your facts straight. High oil prices do not explain positive rates of industrial production and a few other things.Quote:
5. Economic growth? It started in 1999 when Eltsin was the president. Thanks to high oil prices and a default that was in 1998. It’s easy to accelerate after you nearly stopped. Putin did nothing for this growth, didn’t he?
Do you have anything but hot air to back your claims?
16 my quotes…
:o
Bad Manners, you sound pathetic a bit.
As I said before it’s just a forum and Ночь-проводник wanted to know people’s opinions about Putin’s job.
I wrote my one and it made you nervous as if it was something personal to you.
You started to make your insulting comments but even didn’t offer your version, mr. Show-me-the-proof-Putin-did-it-all.
Please don’t pretend being a virgin. Which proof? Have you ever heard about телефонное право? Which court? Don’t you know every court in Russia does what power offers?
Now I’m returning to what I said in my first post in this thread. Any different opinions?
Блин... two Russians are arguing about Putin in their bad English. Funny :)
Not that anyone cares, but as an american I always looked at Yeltsin as a vodka sipping bumbling drunk (similar to our own Ted Kennedy). At least Putin has a strong assertive appearance. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Putin is pulling a fast one when some rich guys end up in jail. I wish our president had the guts to go after some rich guys i.e. Enron, but the truth of the matter is that our politicians are all drinking from the same well.
Right. With your nonsensical "arguments" demonstrated nonsensical, you switch to personal attack. You're so predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
When you wrote your opinion, I did not say anything at all. It was your hypocritical response to somebody else's critique of your opinion that I replied to. I do not like hypocrites, you see. Nor do I like the types who cannot prove what they claim.Quote:
As I said before it’s just a forum and Ночь-проводник wanted to
know people’s opinions about Putin’s job.
I wrote my one and it made you nervous as if it was something personal to you.
I have not started yet. I have merely shown that your "arguments" are nothing but hot air.Quote:
You started to make your insulting comments
What version, Veedey? Putin is the only reasonable head of the Russian state within the last fifty years or so. Granted he might be better, but even what he is now is already something.Quote:
but even didn’t offer your version, mr. Show-me-the-proof-Putin-did-it-all.
More hot air...Quote:
Please don’t pretend being a virgin. Which proof?
Tell us all about it, Veedey.Quote:
Have you ever heard about телефонное право?
More "arguments", which you're not going to back up with any evidence, that is to say, more hot air...Quote:
Which court? Don’t you know every court in Russia does what power offers?
Having reading comprehension problems, Veedey? You're the only poster so far with this "opinion". Everybody else disagrees.Quote:
Now I’m returning to what I said in my first post in this thread. Any different opinions?
You describe your language skill very aptly, Veedey. And who's the other Russian?Quote:
Блин... two Russians are arguing about Putin in their bad English. Funny :)
tell us all about itQuote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
you're the only poster so far with this "opinion"
you're so predictable
:P
Bad manners tell me please why on earth every time I post here about Putin you start debate about me?
:?
Are you a member of his fun club?
It’s very strange then. With your aptitude for demagogy and ‘personal attacks’ you should be a Zhirinovsky supporter.
And are you from Russia aren't you?
About you? Unlike you I do not ask where you come from and so on. Unlike you I don't conjecture that you are somebody's supporter. Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue. And unlike you I don't start personal attacks, only to accuse the opponent of personal attack later. No, Veedey, unlike you, I do not discuss posters, I discuss what they post. I discuss what I disagree with, not whom I disagree with. You have a lot to learn in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
What does the above have to do with Putin? If you do not have anything to say on the topic, don't waste the bandwidth.Quote:
Are you a member of his fun club?
It’s very strange then. With your aptitude for demagogy and ‘personal attacks’ you should be a Zhirinovsky supporter.
And are you from Russia aren't you?
Only 2 quotes,
6 lines,
no insults, :!:
only 1 false establishment (‘Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue’)
and 1 pathetic c**p (‘You have a lot to learn in this regard’)
That’s your most correct post in this thread BM.
Growing up?
Or just in bad form today?
I understand you find it difficult to believe someone may talk without insulting the opponent. It is not very difficult, Veedey, try it. On the other hand, I do not even have to insult you, Veedey, because, just like I said, you're embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. Your broken English, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
Can you cite me calling you a demagogue? You're a liar, Veedey.Quote:
only 1 false establishment (‘Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue’)
'Crap' is an uncountable noun, Veedey. You have to learn that, too.Quote:
and 1 pathetic c**p (‘You have a lot to learn in this regard’)
A few English words, such as "correct", "unique" and a few others do not have the superlative form. Saying "most correct" is illiterate.Quote:
That’s your most correct post in this thread BM.
To recapitulate: you are a poorly educated liar, Veedey. You make broad statements that you cannot support with any evidence. When asked to do so, you switch to insults and personal attack.
[quote=Scorpio]
What?! NTV is closed?
Than that I watched yesterday evening must be some fake NTV. :P
[quote=Scorpio]
Yes, it’s fake if you prefer that term.
The real NTV was the biggest private TV in Russia doing the most professional and pluralistic news.
Now it’s under state control and translates only what Kremlin likes. You never see on NTV people who opposite Kremlin (only exception was the pre-election debates as parties pay for their presentations).
[quote=Scorpio]
Although I'm not Putin, I must admit I dislike "businessmen" like Khodorkovsky or Al Capone too.
[quote=Scorpio]
It’s OK until you’re not a president and don’t let your prosecutor arrest him before trial.
[quote=Scorpio]
I'm afraid, that if he will be in Majorca before trial, getting him back for the trial could be certain problem. That what "preemptive imprisonment" is for.
[quote="Scorpio":11arbh4a]
There is подписка о невыезде, the state border and the frontier force.
[quote="Scorpio":11arbh4a]
[quote="Veedey":11arbh4a]
Ordinary job by KGB we in Russia know. That’s why I don’t like he’s a KGBman.
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote:11arbh4a][/quote:11arbh4a][/quote:11arbh4a]
Funny. As we in Russia know, in the times then KGB existed, the "oligarchs" did not.
[quote="Scorpio"]
Please don’t cheat. :wink: You know what I meant.
[quote="Scorpio"]
Apparently Khodorkovsky became very politically active, when he faced the perspective of criminal charge. And he is not alone...
[quote="Scorpio"]
He’s been the biggest sponsor of Yabloko party since 1993.
I just wanted to say I didn't call your a demagogue. If I did please give me a quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
And to speak English fluently is not equal to be well educated, silly.
"With your aptitude for demagogy".Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
I did not say you were not well educated. Far from it. I said you were poorly educated. That includes everything. Your language skill, your knowledge in the matters you're trying to argue about, your ability to support your claims with evidence, and your ability to conduct a discussion decently. You lack very seriously in all these areas.Quote:
And to speak English fluently is not equal to be well educated, silly.
To have aptitude for demagogy is not equal to be a demagogue.
Как, скажем, иметь склонность к алкоголю не значит быть алкоголиком. Логика ясна или объяснить популярнее?
Now please apologize to me for calling me a liar.
And it’s my last attempt to return us to an object of this topic. Please choose ONE my establishment about Putin you disagree. We’ll discuss it and see whose knowledge and abilities you mentioned are better.
Условия:
1. Не отклоняться от темы.
2. Не увиливать с помощью фраз типа: «Расскажи нам все об этом». Потому что это и есть тот самый hot air, который ты так любишь поминать. Аргумент – контраргумент, а все остальное – от лукавого.
3. Кто переходит на личности – считается проигравшим. Оценка способностей собеседника – разновидность перехода на личности, да?
Мой дорогой друг, отказывайся сразу под благовидным предлогом, потому что в честной дискуссии тебя ждет позор.
Кстати, спасибо за поправки в моем английском, который действительно пока broken. Как говорят умные люди, чего-то не знать – не стыдно. Стыдно думать, что ты уже все знаешь. Посмотри как-нибудь особенности употребления артикля со словом jail.
I'm very sorry to interfere, but otherwise some learners of English can be misleaded.
There's nothing wrong in saying "most correct".Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
http://www.nst-ep.com/english/eng_headline008c.htm (a table with examples)
Some more links to the pages where "most correct" is used (when you are at the page use "find" option of your browser ).
http://esl.about.com/library/lessons/bl_auction1.htm,
http://www.threes.com/dundes/3.17.txt ,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=best.
A different situation is with "unique". On one hand it's incorrect to use "most unique" -
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/g...peech/1_4d.htm,
on the other hand in certain situations it's acceptable.
http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page2.html
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0293.html
But of course it's better (especially for learners) to avoid such usage, unless it's not advertising of course :wink: :) .
AFAIK those are only acceptable in American English, and that isn't English.
Did you mean only "most unique" or "most correct" also?Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
Иметь склонность к наркотикам означает быть наркоманом. Алкоголь суть частный вид наркотиков. Алкогольная наркомания называется алкоголизмом, а алкогольный наркоман -- алкоголиком. Даже этого Вы не знаете. Или, возможно, Вы не понимаете, что "иметь склонность" это нечто гораздо более серьёзное, чем "пропускать стопочку по праздникам". И кстати, если уж Вы желаете говорить со мной по-русски, не "тыкайте" мне. Я с Вами на брудершафт не пил (и не стану).Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
I apologize for calling you a liar. You simply have a tendency to spread lies. And you have an aptitude for idiocy. Ясна логика?Quote:
Now please apologize to me for calling me a liar.
Refer to the very first message of yours in this thread. All the statements, except the third one, have to be proven. You can start doing it one by one. Take your pick.Quote:
And it’s my last attempt to return us to an object of this topic. Please choose ONE my establishment about Putin you disagree. We’ll discuss it and see whose knowledge and abilities you mentioned are better.
Well, given that the page is written in Thai or something, it may simply be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendy
This page uses "most correct" in "most correct sentences", which means the "biggest number of correct sentences".
Here the word is used out of any context, only to demonstrate the grammatical aspect. Not conclusive.
This is the only one which uses "most correct" as the superlative of "correct".
"Correct" is binary, something may only be correct or incorrect. If something is "more correct", then it may mean two things (or one of the two):
1. The thing that is "less correct" is incorrect. The proper word would be "incorrect".
2. The thing that is "more correct" is incorrect but is better in some way. The proper form would be "incorrect, but better".
Or it can mean "incorrect but still best among the incorrect". In this case, too, "best" is a better way to communicate the idea. For example, "the most correct theory of the Big Bang" is better expressed as "the best known theory… " if we want to emphasize that the theory may be incorrect (and we do not know any better), or "the best correct theory…" if we believe it is correct and better than any other. In the latter case, we might use the superlative of the characteristic that is at its best instead of "best": "the simplest correct theory…".
You can get away with "more/most correct", but they are substandard and best avoided.
The same, word for word, applies to "unique".
Извините, что вмешиваюсь... Veedey, а кого Вы хотели бы видеть вместо Путина в следующем году? Я, замечая все недостатки путинской политики, к сожалению, альтернативы ему не вижу... "Кто там шагает правой?" Явлинский? :o Немцов? :o :o Новодворская? :o :o :o (извините за издевку). Ну согласитесь - никого нет :(
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
Same old dirty BM.
:)
Your behavior is outrageous and inadequate. And what does make you SO hysteric? Is it the fact my political point is not similar to what they say on state TV channels?
You ask my ‘proof’ Putin’s job is not good for Russia. ‘Proof’ is a totally wrong word, BM. You see I pay large taxes. So as a citizen I suppose the power HAVE TO prove me it does something useful for me and other people. IMO Putin was not the best choice in 1999 when Eltsin called him his successor. And I can SUBSTANTIATE (that’s the better word) my opinion.
The problem is many people in Russia still feel themselves not citizens but vassals. They think the power rules but they ‘have to’. I don’t know why but vassals are always very aggressive towards people who dislike their lords.
I don’t say it’s not OK if you support Putin. But what a shame is to slag me off for I dislike him.
Why so mean BM? Life is beautiful. Get a girlfriend or start some fitness so you’ll feel it.
В следующем году однозначно выигрывает Путин, так что хотеть кого-то другого бессмысленно. А вот в 2008-м… Так сразу фамилию назвать не берусь. Согласен, что ни один из названых вами на президента не тянет. Но ведь и Путина еще за семь месяцев до того, как он выиграл выборы, никто не воспринимал всерьез. Так почему вы думаете, что в стране сейчас нет толковых людей, которых мы пока просто не знаем? Тем более в засекреченных спецслужбах… :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander
А вообще я считаю, что к президентской работе в нашей большой стране по-настоящему готов тот, кто уже успешно руководил регионом, либо крупной компанией.
Dirty me. When somebody says that I have an aptitude for demagogy, then apparently I am expected to ignore that because "aptitude", I'm told, does not mean anything in particular. So I agree and use that same "aptitude" to mean nothing in particular about that same somebody, but now, obviously, the word is full of meaning. A very nice instance of double-think, Veedey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
I have no idea about what they say on the state channels, Veedey. My country has no state channels as far as I know; I might be mistaken, though, for I do not have a TV receiver. It is much more interesting why you are so hysterical about a couple of TV channels, with all your conspiracy theories about their "seizure".Quote:
Your behavior is outrageous and inadequate. And what does make you SO hysteric? Is it the fact my political point is not similar to what they say on state TV channels?
On Mars, mayhap. On Planet Earth, it works a bit differently.Quote:
You ask my ‘proof’ Putin’s job is not good for Russia. ‘Proof’ is a totally wrong word, BM. You see I pay large taxes. So as a citizen I suppose the power HAVE TO prove me it does something useful for me and other people.
I never asked you about that opinion. I asked you to SUBSTANTIATE your claims that Putin did what you said he did (see the beginning of this thread).Quote:
IMO Putin was not the best choice in 1999 when Eltsin called him his successor. And I can SUBSTANTIATE (that’s the better word) my opinion.
That would explain why you're so hysterical about Khodor & Associates, Sons, and Fellow Oligarchs.Quote:
The problem is many people in Russia still feel themselves not citizens but vassals. They think the power rules but they ‘have to’. I don’t know why but vassals are always very aggressive towards people who dislike their lords.
So I take it you're not going to SUBSTANTIATE your claims, even though you threatened me you would and I would lose miserably Now that's pathetic, Veedey.Quote:
I don’t say it’s not OK if you support Putin. But what a shame is to slag me off for I dislike him.
Why so mean BM? Life is beautiful. Get a girlfriend or start some fitness so you’ll feel it.
I think that Putin is real man for today and tomorow.
Without him Russia will be a colony in next five years.
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
There are three big TV channels in Russia. They are RTR (РТР), ORT (ОРТ) and NTV (НТВ).
RTR is 100% owned by All-Russia state broadcast company (Всероссийская государственная радиовещательная компания).
Russian government owns 51% stake of ORT (ОРТ) as well.
State company Gazprom is an owner of the NTV’s controlling stake.
You don’t even know it? :o
Then I’d say you know nothing about Russian political reality.
Now it’s understandable why you call the well-known facts a ‘conspiracy theory’.
No, I won’t waste my time talking to you anymore.
End of… eh… discussion. :?
Ни фига не знаешь, а поумничать хочется хотя бы в интернете, да? Обозвал кого-нибудь идиотом - и можно спать сравнительно спокойно. Механизм гиперкомпенсации - так это называется. Не буду я больше с тобой ругаться. Тебе помощь нужна, бедный.
I said "my country", Veedey. Say, can you do anything without fudging things up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedey
I do. So what?Quote:
RTR is 100% owned by All-Russia state broadcast company (Всероссийская государственная радиовещательная компания).
Russian government owns 51% stake of ORT (ОРТ) as well.
State company Gazprom is an owner of the NTV’s controlling stake.
You don’t even know it? :o
If you think that television is an accurate source of information in any country, then you indeed have an aptitude for idiocy.Quote:
Then I’d say you know nothing about Russian political reality.
Now it’s understandable why you call the well-known facts a ‘conspiracy theory’.
You describe yourself very accurately, Veedey. You don't know anything and you spend all your time saying shit about people you don't know. But I would not call your case "hypercompensation". Yours is a case of plain cretinism.Quote:
Ни фига не знаешь, а поумничать хочется хотя бы в интернете, да? Обозвал кого-нибудь идиотом - и можно спать сравнительно спокойно. Механизм гиперкомпенсации - так это называется.
Слив засчитан.Quote:
No, I won’t waste my time talking to you anymore.
End of… eh… discussion. :?
Не буду я больше с тобой ругаться. Тебе помощь нужна, бедный.
:oops: Very sorry for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
That's true, of course, but nevertheless it doesn't contradict the article at http://www.bartleby.com/64/pages/page2.html, where this problem is viewed from a different angle. I think using comparative and intensified forms of some absolute adjectives and adverbs (within certain limits of course) makes language more vivid and emotional and often it sounds more natural. Let's take that example with completeness. He wanted to make his record collection more complete. If we replace it with "He wanted to make his collection better" or "he wanted to improve his collection" the meaning would be less specific, because the word "better" may refer to the sound quality or the man's intention to get rid of some records he considered useless. The sentence "He wanted to have more records in his collection" is closer to the initial but is still missing some meaning because the initial sentence implies the existence of a certain ideal called "complete collection" and the wish of the man to get closer to it. So why not defining the degree of completeness as the "distance" between the collection in question and the ideal "complete collection"?Quote:
Originally Posted by bad manners
Returning to the word "correct", there is also another aspect concerning different meanings of this word. When it is used in the sense "in accord with accepted standards, good taste etc", using comparatives and intensifying words is especially justified (there are examples in Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary with "very correct" and "such correctness": http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...7276&dict=CALD) and in the current thread it was used in this sense.
A pedant might say that it would be .. more correct ... :wink: to use 'more nearly complete'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Friendy
But I'm not a pedant and I won't! :lol:
I pretty much agree with everything you said but I just wanted to point out that it might be possible to stick to the rules .. maybe.
OK, OK, I agree that "correct", "complete" and "unique", and maybe even "binary" may sometimes be used comparatively and superlatively. Human languages are not entirely formal and admit a degree of freedom. The crucial part is to use that freedom conservatively. Just like you can say "животная" (n.) to emphasize the feminine aspect in certain circumstances, but if keep saying that all the time, it becomes simply sub-standard and illiterate.