Thread: Putin

[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. 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.

Originally Posted by bad manners

only 1 false establishment (‘Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue’)

Can you cite me calling you a demagogue? You're a liar, Veedey.

I just wanted to say I didn't call your a demagogue. If I did please give me a quote.

And to speak English fluently is not equal to be well educated, silly.

Originally Posted by Veedey

Originally Posted by bad manners

only 1 false establishment (‘Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue’)

Can you cite me calling you a demagogue? You're a liar, Veedey.

I just wanted to say I didn't call your a demagogue. If I did please give me a quote.

"With your aptitude for demagogy".

And to speak English fluently is not equal to be well educated, silly.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bad manners

A few English words, such as "correct", "unique" and a few others do not have the superlative form. Saying "most correct" is illiterate.

There's nothing wrong in saying "most correct".
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 .

AFAIK those are only acceptable in American English, and that isn't English.

Originally Posted by scotcher

AFAIK those are only acceptable in American English, and that isn't English.

Did you mean only "most unique" or "most correct" also?

Originally Posted by Veedey

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?

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).

Now please apologize to me for calling me a liar.

I apologize for calling you a liar. You simply have a tendency to spread lies. And you have an aptitude for idiocy. Ясна логика?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Friendy

I'm very sorry to interfere, but otherwise some learners of English can be misleaded.

Originally Posted by bad manners

A few English words, such as "correct", "unique" and a few others do not have the superlative form. Saying "most correct" is illiterate.

There's nothing wrong in saying "most correct".
http://www.nst-ep.com/english/eng_headline008c.htm (a table with examples)

Well, given that the page is written in Thai or something, it may simply be wrong.

http://esl.about.com/library/lessons/bl_auction1.htm

This page uses "most correct" in "most correct sentences", which means the "biggest number of correct sentences".

http://www.threes.com/dundes/3.17.txt

Here the word is used out of any context, only to demonstrate the grammatical aspect. Not conclusive.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=best

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? Немцов? Новодворская? (извините за издевку). Ну согласитесь - никого нет

Originally Posted by bad manners

I apologize for calling you a liar. You simply have a tendency to spread lies. And you have an aptitude for idiocy. Ясна логика?

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.

Originally Posted by Alexander

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? Немцов? Новодворская? (извините за издевку). Ну согласитесь - никого нет

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…
А вообще я считаю, что к президентской работе в нашей большой стране по-настоящему готов тот, кто уже успешно руководил регионом, либо крупной компанией.

Originally Posted by Veedey

Originally Posted by bad manners

I apologize for calling you a liar. You simply have a tendency to spread lies. And you have an aptitude for idiocy. Ясна логика?

Same old dirty BM.

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.

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?

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".

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.

On Mars, mayhap. On Planet Earth, it works a bit differently.

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.

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).

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.

That would explain why you're so hysterical about Khodor & Associates, Sons, and Fellow Oligarchs.

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.

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.

I think that Putin is real man for today and tomorow.
Without him Russia will be a colony in next five years.

Originally Posted by bad manners

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".

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Veedey

Originally Posted by bad manners

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".

There are three big TV channels in Russia. They are RTR (РТР), ORT (ОРТ) and NTV (НТВ).

I said "my country", Veedey. Say, can you do anything without fudging things up?

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?

I do. So what?

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’.

If you think that television is an accurate source of information in any country, then you indeed have an aptitude for idiocy.

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.

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.

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.

Слив засчитан.

Originally Posted by bad manners

http://esl.about.com/library/lessons/bl_auction1.htm

This page uses "most correct" in "most correct sentences", which means the "biggest number of correct sentences".

Very sorry for that.

Originally Posted by bad manners

"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".

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"?

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.

Originally Posted by Friendy

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"?

A pedant might say that it would be .. more correct ... to use 'more nearly complete'.

But I'm not a pedant and I won't!

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.