 |
| |
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
"Who is is that" ??? (I'll assume you simply typed "is" twice)
Well, that's the inversion of "That is who", where "who" is being used (incorrectly) as an object pronoun. It should be "That is whom"
/countercounter nazi |
You use "who" as the subjective form (e.g "he"/"she"/ "they"), and "whom" as a direct or indirect object (e.g "him"/ "her"/"them"):
As the grammatically correct question is "who are they?" or "Who is he?" not "Whom are them" or "Whom is he?"Agathon is correct, in his usage of "who" at least..
Edit - almost irrelevant typo.
Last edited by Dauphin on 07-03-2004 at 05:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
This is hard to do. There are many good debators. It's more a style thing. For example, Skywalker I respect greatly, and while I disagree with his opinions on most things, he strikes me as intelligent. Yet his debating style, involving capitals a lot, seems to be patronising, especially when it's not needed. Fez must be there as a joke. Ben Kenobi, while he has shown he can debate well, and is indeed the only hardline Catholic I've seen that can discuss their policies well, I'm not sure he'd be in my top 3. Oncle and Whaleboy use way to many -isms and generally take debates into a realm that isn't necessarily as grounded in reality as I'd like, so while I agree with some of their opinions, I wouldn't put them in my top 3. Imran would be true, but I haven't seen that much of his actual debating, and more of him having fun, it seemed to me.
Two I'm pretty sure about. Spiffor and Jaguar Warrior. Spiffor will almost certainly win this, and deservedly so. He knows his stuff, he can draw on both sides of the argument, but has his own firm (and occasionally slightly extreme) beliefs. But his contraversial posts on things like underage sexual abuse (a while ago) and the French anti-religion, which not only I agree with, but also are well argued and respecting of others. That's one of the main difference, apart from obviously opinions, I've seen in style between him and Ben Kenobi. He's also a thoroughly nice guy, which always helps in debating. JW has a lot more maturity than his age would suggest, and while I disagree with him on many issues, he seems to be able to debate them eloquently and respectfully, and even to reach a consensus in the middle at times. A lot of kudos for both IMHO 
The last I'm really not sure about. Slowwhand, while I disagree with him on a lot, we manage to discuss and agree on much, even some things about Iraq, like the motivations of various people, that I respect him for, while disagreeing with him greatly. Ramo also seems intelligent and argues well about things. However I'm not sure I'd put either of those in the top 3. The last one I can't decide on yet. So I'll leave it at two for the moment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:34
|
|
1)Wraith
2)Berzerker
3)MtG
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I must say that some seem very ethuisiastic for debating
JM
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2004 04:18
for Asher
|