3 ms·

> Rogan took so many things it's impossible to credit any one part of his cocktail. Of course. I'm not saying that's what fixed him, mostly just that mocking s

> Rogan took so many things it's impossible to credit any one part of his cocktail. Of course. I'm not saying that's what fixed him, mostly just that mocking someone for their stupidity in trying early treatment whom also recovered in above average time...

Taywee 5y ago
Rogan was sick for 3 days and said that one of those days was really rough. Is that better than average for somebody who was vaccinated (as Rogan was) and took a giant cocktail of things, including monoclonal antibodies, which are proven to combat COVID? As an aside, "whom" is incorrect there.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > "whom" is incorrect there. I was describing what I was saying, and thus Rogan was not the subject of the sentence. I'm all for pedantry though, so please do elucidate. :)
  - Taywee 5y ago
    It's not the subject of the sentence, but "who" is a pronoun in nominative case because it is the subject of the appositive phrase. You wouldn't say "him also recovered", but "he also recovered" in any case. You use "whom" where "him" would make more sense and "who" where "he" would make more sense. It's very pedantic, because it's the subject of a pronounal phrase which is itself an object in the sentence. Personally, I'm not a fan of "whom" in general. It's not technically necessary, can always be replaced with "who" in modern English, and I see it used incorrectly almost as often as correctly. This sort of thing is easier for German speakers, who have to inflect all pronouns correctly for every part of speech. English speakers largely get who wrong because there are very few words in the language that make you have to keep track of more than primary subject and object. It's not their fault, really, it's just an archaic construct of English from when the language was more modal.
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      Thank you! I actually really do appreciate this. I'll review further.

Taywee 5y ago

Rogan was sick for 3 days and said that one of those days was really rough. Is that better than average for somebody who was vaccinated (as Rogan was) and took a giant cocktail of things, including monoclonal antibodies, which are proven to combat COVID? As an aside, "whom" is incorrect there.

reedjosh 5y ago
> "whom" is incorrect there. I was describing what I was saying, and thus Rogan was not the subject of the sentence. I'm all for pedantry though, so please do elucidate. :)
- Taywee 5y ago
  It's not the subject of the sentence, but "who" is a pronoun in nominative case because it is the subject of the appositive phrase. You wouldn't say "him also recovered", but "he also recovered" in any case. You use "whom" where "him" would make more sense and "who" where "he" would make more sense. It's very pedantic, because it's the subject of a pronounal phrase which is itself an object in the sentence. Personally, I'm not a fan of "whom" in general. It's not technically necessary, can always be replaced with "who" in modern English, and I see it used incorrectly almost as often as correctly. This sort of thing is easier for German speakers, who have to inflect all pronouns correctly for every part of speech. English speakers largely get who wrong because there are very few words in the language that make you have to keep track of more than primary subject and object. It's not their fault, really, it's just an archaic construct of English from when the language was more modal.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    Thank you! I actually really do appreciate this. I'll review further.