Interesting and Humour - page 3199
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
You have taken it upon yourself to lecture a few "misunderstanders" with such gusto...
Have you not tried to read carefully? Didn't you notice that the original reference was not toan ancient Russian city? On a commemorative coin it says: "Ancient cities of Russia".
And now include logic and common sense - is there something unrelated to Kaliningrad in the definition "Ancient Cities of Russia"?
- is the city ancient? - Yes, it is ancient (it had another name, was founded by Prussians, belonged to Germans, etc... - these secondary points do not give grounds to argue that the city is not ancient);
- whose city is it at the moment, which state does it belong to? Russia's city.
Now put it all together and you get: "Kaliningrad is an ancient city of Russia", and for those wishing to develop their erudition a footnote to Wikipedia, like "was founded in..., captured in..., renamed in...".
It's time for you to familiarise yourself with two terms [apparently] new to you:"succession" and"succession".
It's simple, most Russians have no concept of culture, much less national culture. The theme perfectly reveals the psychology of the Russian man - there is no culture, what's taken is ours.
When you see the inscription "Ancient cities of Russia", you think about the cities which formed the culture of Russia. How could Kaliningrad and Derbent influence on formation of culture of Russia?
Yes, there is something irrelevant in the definition of "ancient cities of Russia" in Kaliningrad. Because the term "ancient city of some country" implies a city in which a culture influencing the development of the country was formed.
For instance, if Carthage, as an ancient city, was now part of modern Italy. It would be easy to have a commemorative Italian coin with the minting of the ancient walls of Carthage,
then all those "liberals" would be kissing the soles, ass and other body parts of western politicians in one voice, shouting in all corners that this is normal.
This point of view makes more sense.
For example, if Carthage, as an ancient city, was now part of modern Italy. There could have been a commemorative Italian coin minted with the ancient walls of Carthage,
and all those "liberals" would be kissing the soles, ass, and other body parts of western politicians and shouting in every corner that it's okay.
...Here's another thesis - it's all the liberals' fault.
No, not at all. Liberal and liberal are different terms. I mean the two terms in completely different ways.
An ancient city within Russia.
this is the most correct definition
ps
Whatever topic you bring up will inevitably descend into politics.
It's amazing how some Russians have switched to using only one word "OK" instead of "good, great, agreed, etc."
What is good about the emphasis on introducing a distinction -- "ancient city of Russia" and "ancient city in Russia".
Because now we can begin to slowly challenge the right to ownership.
Compare "family ring" and "family ring". In one case, ownership is indisputable; in the other, it is questionable.
There was no talk of liberals.
And yes, there are no liberals in Russia and never have been -- there are and have been liberals in Russia. It's just that some like-Russians don't like being called liberals. The connotation is not ambiguous.
It's simple, most Russians have no concept of culture, much less national culture. The theme perfectly reveals the psychology of the Russian man - there is no culture, what's taken is ours.
When you see the inscription "Ancient cities of Russia", you think about the cities which formed the culture of Russia. How could Kaliningrad and Derbent influence on formation of culture of Russia?
You say, I want to say - nonsense, as if clearly trying to please some extreme nationalists, and it does not matter what.
In general, there is a concept of cultural influence, and if you know the history of Russia well, you should understand,
That this vast territory is home to at least 190 nationalities with their own cultures. Do you deny all of these nationalities in the concept of culture or just the Russians?
All cultures influence each other in one way or another.
p.s.
By the way, you are teetering on the edge, you should use such phrases with great care.