On Nov 6, 5:02 am, Andrew Usher wrote:

This is false. The word 'that' in a restrictive clause can be used
equally for people or things so doesn't imply anything.

Your second sentence doesn't make sense. Like the
one constructed by Mr. Sloan, you have made a boo
boo, only yours appears to be leaving out an entire word,
whereas he merely revealed an appalling attitude toward
women /as goods/.


I myself

Redundant; who else could "I" refer to /but/ yourself?
;D


generally use it instead of 'who' in those situations.

I hope you do not encounter /those situations/ very
often.


But maybe you were just being sarcastic to intsult Sloan?

No, I was being observant of Mr. Sloan. It is much like
a Freudian slip, or a case where one of the Evans ratpack
reveals his innermost fears by attributing it ("projecting")
to a hated critic. In fact, I was not merely observant:
very soon after I wrote my observation, it was confirmed
by a follow up post by none other than Sam Sloan.


-- help bot