"whom"

[yesthattom]

http://www.qwantz.com/20050203.html
I have to remember this phrase for when the grammar nazis berate me:

Is “whom” a necessary English construction? Its role as object is already indicated by syntax.

Comments

[beowabbit]

The same, of course, is true of “I/me”, “he/him”, “she/her”, “we/us”, and “they/them”. So which set shall us get rid of, the subject forms or the object forms?

—beowabbit, who doesn’t care in the least about the distinction between “who” and “whom”, but will take any opportunity to be silly

[jss]

And while we're at it, we don't need the apostrophe in "its" ever, since its obvious from context what you mean, after all. And we can do away with the letter C sinse it kan be replased with K or S as nessessary!

[lediva.livejournal.com]

Right! The bolor supplement!

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

And kan get rid of present tense of verb 'to be' also, sinse implied by kontext, too.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Not to menshun the letter "x," sinse it kan be represented by "ks" instead. "Kontekst." Whee! Eliminate mor unnesessary letters! Or should that be "letterz"? Or should we eliminate "z" also?

[dossy.livejournal.com]

Eventually, this comment thread will produce Ebonics. Or Shakespeare. Wait, that wasn't meant to be a racist comment ...

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Bah! "They" is already all-but-legitimate as a first-person-singular pronoun, and within 50 years "whom" will be listed as "obsolete." Ignore the pagan disbelievers!