Re^5: Password request (*sandy*)

the unknown person is the subject of the clause

Exactly. And that means "who", not "whom".

You know, it's fine to be wrong. But it's not so fine to go "correcting" someone else with your wrongness.

You've handled your corrections with grace, though, so I kudologize you for that. :-)

Comment on Re^5: Password request (sandy)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Password request (sandy) by chacham (Prior) on May 19, 2015 at 17:04 UTC
it's not so fine to go "correcting" someone else with your wrongness. Considering i thought i was correct and i wrote, "i believe that should be," which denotes not being sure, i would not consider that "correcting." Rather, "suggesting."	[reply]
Re^7: Password request (sandy) by Anonymous Monk on May 19, 2015 at 17:51 UTC
Your lack of certainty should be a weight to the importance of making a public declaration of the incorrectness (that your perceive). As should the significance of the perceived errors, of course. Pedants are often perceived as nuisances. They tend to have exaggerated certainty. This contributes to a pedant over-estimating the importance of a correction which can lead one to publicly declare such despite it's insignificance to the actual content of the discussion. See also: nitpicking. Asking "Shouldn't it be 'whomever'?" in the Chatterbox seems a more appropriate approach for this particular distraction. Though, it appears that fewer would have been amused by you in that case.	[reply]
Re^8: Password request (sandy) by Anonymous Monk on May 19, 2015 at 18:05 UTC
Perlmonks has had a very long history of pedantry. Pedantry is always welcome here as we all learn as we go. If you perceive this as nitpicking then great, you deserve to be annoyed. Having said all that pedantry, yes the CB would have been the place to ask. WhoMever started this should be punished by implementing a Perlmonks "Sandy finder." -W	[reply]