Until recently, in most critical writing the post-punk era was "often dismissed as an awkward period in which punk's gleeful ructions petered out into the vacuity of the Eighties". Contemporary scholars have argued to the contrary, asserting that the period produced significant innovations and music on its own. Simon Reynolds described the period as "a fair match for the sixties in terms of the sheer amount of great music created, the spirit of adventure and idealism that infused it, and the way that the music seemed inextricably connected to the political and social turbulence of its era". Nicholas Lezard wrote that the music of the period "was avant-garde, open to any musical possibilities that suggested themselves, united only in the sense that it was very often cerebral, concocted by brainy young men and women interested as much in disturbing the audience, or making them think, as in making a pop song".
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What did Simon Reynolds describe the era of post-punk as a match for in terms of great music created?
Ah, so.. the sixties

The books written later in the Abbasid period in Iran are more anti Umayyad. Iran was Sunni at the time. There was much anti Arab feeling in Iran after the fall of the Persian empire. This anti Arab feeling also influenced the books on Islamic history. Al-Tabri was also written in Iran during that period. Al-Tabri was a huge collection including all the text that he could find, from all the sources. It was a collection preserving everything for future generations to codify and for future generations to judge if it was true or false.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): In the later Abbasid era, what branch of Islam did Iran adhere to?
Ah, so.. Sunni

To the southwest, the principality of Halych had developed trade relations with its Polish, Hungarian and Lithuanian neighbours and emerged as the local successor to Kievan Rus'. In 1199, Prince Roman Mstislavich united the two previously separate principalities. In 1202 he conquered Kiev, and assumed the title of Grand Duke of Kievan Rus', which was held by the rulers of Vladimir-Suzdal since 1169. His son, Prince Daniil (r. 1238–1264) looked for support from the West. He accepted a crown as a "Rex Rusiae" ("King of Russia") from the Roman papacy, apparently doing so without breaking with Constantinople. In 1370, the patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople granted the King of Poland a metropolitan for his Russian subjects. Lithuanian rulers also requested and received a metropolitan for Novagrudok shortly afterwards. Cyprian, a candidate pushed by the Lithuanian rulers, became Metropolitan of Kiev in 1375 and metropolitan of Moscow in 1382; this way the church in the Russian countries was reunited for some time. In 1439, Kiev became the seat of a separate "Metropolitan of Kiev, Galich and all Rus'" for all Greek Orthodox Christians under Polish-Lithuanian rule.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): Which neighbors did Halych develop trade relations with?
Ah, so..
Polish, Hungarian and Lithuanian