Posting this a third time to correct the accidental run-on paragraph (why doesn't HTML recognize carriage returns by default?):
Good comments. I'm sorry to see so many derisive comments about your one mistake, so I thought I'd give you a few tips on the proper use of the pronoun 'who' Hope this helps.
Who is the subject form (i.e. We think this is a person who may be involved in the scandal).
Whom is the object form (i.e. This list is of people whom we believe may be involved in the scandal).
Whose is the possessive form (i.e. We received this list from an informant whose research brought this scandal to light).
Who's is a contraction (used interchangeably for Who is or Who was).
Hope this helps clear a few things up in the future (and don't worry too much, the various forms of who are commonly misused by adult native speakers, likely including many of those who've posted responses to you, and I, myself, am not perfect in this regard either).
In high school there was a small group of miscreants who took the phrase "To boldly go where no man has gone before" to new depths of depravity.
That's why there's a toilet on the ceiling in the bathroom. My brother said this one time after I modified the Star Trek opening in relation to our family's then 1978 Plymouth Voyager van.
Well stated. A good part of the reason people don't understand what the Children of Israel did in taking over what was then called the land of Canaan is caused by a lack of understanding of Canaan religious rites (which often involved, among other things, slaughtering children on their altars). Without understanding the culture of the Israelites at the time, we cannot fairly judge their actions.
Furthermore, the Israelites had nothing to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which took place well over a century before the Mosaic exodus (and the beginning of the Kingdom of Israel), and long before the birth of Jacob (who is called Israel). I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but from what the biblical record states, I believe it may have had something to do with a natural disaster, such as a volcanic eruption.
Irregardless of these facts, there have been thousands who have misused the basic precepts of Christianity since its inception, and they should be individually condemned without condemning the teachings they misused, but unfortunately, the teachings are generally castigated first.
I cannot see any justification for this; I see no attempt in these comments to troll anyone, merely to lay out a viable explanation to support Mr. Ormandy, finishing with a logical summary of the argument. I'm tempted to meta-mod in hopes of correcting this travesty (though having commented, I'm not likely to be given the opportunity). I see this kind of thing far too often. As several sigs point out, -1 disagree does not exist for a very good reason. Moderation is intended to punish those who are deliberately uncivil or abusive with their comments. -1 Troll, -1 Flamebait, and -1 Overrated are not, and never will be, acceptable substitutes.