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"): When did post-punk music lose popularity to contemporary scholars?
Ah, so.. unanswerable

Pius XII asked Archbishop Montini to Rome October 1957, where he gave the main presentation to the Second World Congress of Lay Apostolate. Previously as Pro-Secretary, he had worked hard to unify a worldwide organization of lay people of 58 nations, representing 42 national organizations. He presented them to Pius XII in Rome in 1951. The second meeting in 1957 gave Montini an opportunity to express the lay apostolate in modern terms: "Apostolate means love. We will love all, but especially those, who need help... We will love our time, our technology, our art, our sports, our world."
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): When was Montini's first meeting addressing the unification of Catholic lay followers?
Ah, so.. 1951

The 1850 census saw a dramatic shift in the way information about residents was collected. For the first time, free persons were listed individually instead of by head of household. There were two questionnaires: one for free inhabitants and one for slaves. The question on the free inhabitants schedule about color was a column that was to be left blank if a person was white, marked "B" if a person was black, and marked "M" if a person was mulatto. Slaves were listed by owner, and classified by gender and age, not individually, and the question about color was a column that was to be marked with a "B" if the slave was black and an "M" if mulatto.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): How were slaves listed in the 1850 US census?
Ah, so..
by owner