81–90 of 172 posts
It's true that most cease-and-desist letters contain awful legalese, but here's a great example of a well-written, classy one: https://brokenpianoforpresident.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/...
What's nice about that one is it appears to fulfill their obligation to show that they are policing unauthorized uses of their trademark without causing any real harm to anyone else.
Scribd is a parasite. EDIT: oh look, the document is viewable again. I'm guessing someone paid scribd their ransom fee.
And all you need "feed" them is a PDF that's full of garbage text and a few images. Uniquely generated from LibreOffice and wikipedia.
I remember back when I was 16, I did a web page about my home town, claremont nh. I did this site: http://digitalsushi.com/midashi/claremont/ I was working for an ISP in town, and someone with the town called up the ISP to ask whom owned the site. Since I worked there, I was simply transferred the phone call. You can imagine how contextually confusing that would be, to be handed a call that technically had nothing to…
"ask who owned" not "ask whom owned". "whom" isn't just a word to put in to sound educated - it's used only when the "who" is an object. Here it is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Whom" is archaic and generally not used in English anymore anyways. Overzealous and misguided efforts to save the word have scarred generations of youngsters.
Whom is fine, but so is using "who" in its place. If in doubt, use who. On that note, it reminds me of a company I did some work for recently. They never used "me", only "myself": "Yes, he gave it to myself on Tuesday." I doubt anyone would argue that "myself" is archaic, but people using it incorrectly is definitely jarring.
Probably better advice. There's a bit of research literature on the death of "whom". I can't remember when exactly, but I want to say around the beginning of the 20th century it pretty much died out from the language. It's a nice progression, English doesn't use thee, thine, thy or thou anymore either.
re:myself.
That's just plain weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"ask who owned" not "ask whom owned". "whom" isn't just a word to put in to sound educated - it's used only when the "who" is an object. Here it is not.
For all intensive purposes, your right, but is they're really any need to go over things with a fine toothcomb? As me and everybody else seems to feel, the point hear is mute, and I'm sure yourself agrees. Its clear enough what was meaned.
Don't agree with the humor and tact of this letter even though "it worked". "Shmucking" someone can backfire in many cases and cause a bigger problem. To be spiteful (I mean do we really know the mental state of the attorney writing the c and d?) maybe he would decide pro bono to file some action even knowing it might fail, on his own time, to defend his honor. Which this attorney would then have to defend pro bono.…
Don't agree with the humor and tact of this letter even though "it worked". "Shmucking" someone can backfire in many cases and cause a bigger problem. To be spiteful (I mean do we really know the mental state of the attorney writing the c and d?) maybe he would decide pro bono to file some action even knowing it might fail, on his own time, to defend his honor. Which this attorney would then have to defend pro bono.…
Sadly, the letter is unreadable on Firefox Android. It's like everything is a widget these days, web pages are no longer self-contained, and usability, among other things, suffers.
Works fine on my stock Android browser. Android 4.2.2 on a Nexus 7.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"ask who owned" not "ask whom owned". "whom" isn't just a word to put in to sound educated - it's used only when the "who" is an object. Here it is not.
Years ago, someone taught me a very handy trick for determining whether to use the subject or object form: rephrase the sentence somehow so instead of who/whom, you're using he/him (or she/her, if you're so inclined). If "she" sounds right, use "who"; if "him" sounds right, it's "whom".
Or rather, only use it if you intend to go the whole hog and comply with all the pedantic, pseudo-latinate prescriptions of traditional formal English grammar.
"It is I."
"Bad grammar is something up with which I shall not put."
"This is an historic occasion."
And so on....