Who/whom misuse

[nq:1]From an article on Findlaw.com about an article in The Baltimore Sun : "Stick to your guns, Mrs. Ehrlich. But consider this," the newspaper advised. "Be careful whom you take aim at you might be doing them a favor."[/nq]
Is there something wrong there? I don't see it.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

[nq:2]From an article on Findlaw.com about an article in ... aim at you might be doing them a favor."[/nq]
[nq:1]Is there something wrong there? I don't see it.[/nq]
Be careful at whom you take aim. Seems correct to me.

The inimitable "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" (Email Removed) stated one day
[nq:2]Is there something wrong there? I don't see it.[/nq]
[nq:1]Be careful at whom you take aim. Seems correct to me.[/nq]
Lowthily speaking, you are right, but awfully stilted in the 21st century. I would have written "who you take aim at". I don't have a problem using "w

[nq:1]"Bill Bonde stated one day:[/nq]
[nq:2]Be careful at whom you take aim. Seems correct to me.[/nq]
[nq:1]Lowthily speaking, you are right, but awfully stilted in the 21st century. I would have written "who you take aim ... "whom . . . .(DISTANT). . . PREP". I know it's only a stylistic complaint, but I make it anyway.[/nq]
Substituting "who" is never wrong nowadays, but the "whom"

}> "Bill Bonde stated one day:

}
}>> From an article on Findlaw.com about an article in The }>> Baltimore Sun :
}>>
}>> "Stick to your guns, Mrs. Ehrlich. But consider this," the }>> newspaper advised. "Be careful whom you take aim at you }>> might be doing them a favor."
}>>>
}>>> Is there something wrong there?

[nq:2]"Bill Bonde stated one day: Lowthily speaking, you are right, ... it's only a stylistic complaint, but I make it anyway.[/nq]
[nq:1]Substituting "who" is never wrong nowadays, but the "whom" in that sentence is proper.[/nq]
At one time, perhaps, but today it isn't English as English is spoken. Some might even say it is Dead Wrong. Dead, certainly.
Charles Riggs
Email address

[nq:1]}>> From an article on Findlaw.com about an article in The }>> Baltimore Sun : }>> }>> "Stick to ... least since that joke about the Harvard library. I'm more surprised that the OP didn't take aim at the "them".[/nq]
I took it as referring to more than one of "them", therefore quite proper, no matter what one's preferences might be.

Skitt (in Hayward, Cal

[nq:2]Substituting "who" is never wrong nowadays, but the "whom" in that sentence is proper.[/nq]
[nq:1]At one time, perhaps, but today it isn't English as English is spoken. Some might even say it is Dead Wrong. Dead, certainly.[/nq]
Well, there's always some ...

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

[nq:2]Be careful at whom you take aim. Seems correct to me.[/nq]
[nq:1]Lowthily speaking, you are right, but awfully stilted in the 21st century. I would have written "who you take aim ... "whom . . . .(DISTANT). . . PREP". I know it's only a stylistic complaint, but I make it anyway.[/nq]
LOL! WHAT A TOOL! You CLEARLY believed there to be something gramatically wrong, when your subject is

[nq:1]}>> From an article on Findlaw.com about an article in The }>> Baltimore Sun : }>> }>> "Stick to ... least since that joke about the Harvard library. I'm more surprised that the OP didn't take aim at the "them".[/nq]
Again, GET A CLUE! Out of all three rules (who/whom, prepositions at the end of a clause, and him/them), the who/whom one is the one that still stand