[QUOTE]\n: On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:43 -0400, PeterN\n:\n: >On 8/16/2012 8:44 PM, John McWilliams wrote:\n: >> On 8/6/12 PDT 8:20 PM, tony cooper wrote:\n: >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:00:32 -0800, [email][/email] (Floyd L.\n: >>> Davidson) wrote:\n: >>>\n: >>>>> You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what\n: >>>>> all of the elephant must be like.\n: >>>>\n: >>>> Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...\n: >>>> What a shame.\n: >>>>\n: >>> You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam\n: >>> correcting capitalization in posts.\n: >>\n: >> That should be: "Your objecting to gratuitous personal insults is on par\n: >> with nospam's\n: >> correcting capitalization in posts."\n: >>\n: >> Or: "You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, are on par with nospam\n: >> correcting capitalization in posts."\n: >>\n: >> Always glad to further a 'discussion'! :-) :-) :-) :-)\n: >>\n: >> -\-\n: >> “If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in\n: >> each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”\n: >> ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow\n: >>\n: >\n: >\n: >OK\n: >Objections are; or\n: >Your objection is; ;-)\n:\n: But, it's "you...objecting...is... as I wrote.\n\nAfraid not, Tony. The commas around the verbal phrase "objecting to gratuitous\npersonal insults" make it appositive, and therefore removable. This leaves\n"You is on par with nospam ...", which is clearly ungrammatical (and possibly\nnot even true).\n\nBut John also quibbles with how the sentence would read without the commas. He\nsees "objecting", with its modifiers, as a verbal noun phrase and the subject\nof the verb "is". The rule here is that pronoun modifiers of verbal nouns, at\nleast in such cases as this, should be possessive. (I.e., "your objecting",\njust as it would be "your objection".) I'm afraid most grammarians, including\nmy 11th-grade English teacher, would agree with John.\n\nIf you want to prolong the agony, the argument you might make is that you\nmeant the subject of the sentence to be the verbal noun phrase "you\nobjecting", implying a slightly more continuous and less finite action than\nthe other interpretation. Note that John let you get away with that\ninterpretation in the phrase "nospam correcting capitalization" (vs "nospam's\ncorrecting capitalization", which would imply that he actually did it) later\nin the sentence.\n\nWhy all this? Well, it's Saturday morning; I'm bored; it's too wet to mow the\nlawn and too early to leave for the juried show at the Griffin Museum of\nPhotography; and wasting time on Usenet is a proud tradition to be upheld.[/QUOTE]\n\nOn reflection, I agree with the correction.