Indeed You alone know Yourself by Your internal potency O Supreme Person Origin of all Lord of all beings God of Gods Lord of the universe The Supersoul You are the Supreme Primal Objective You are the ultimate resting place of the universe You are inexhaustible and You are the oldest You are the maintainer of the eternal religion, the Personality of Godhead Oh master of the senses Oh Primal Lord O Limitless One God of Gods Refuge of the universe You are the invincible source The cause of all causes You are the knower of everything and all that is knowable You are the supreme refuge above the material modes O limitless form This whole cosmic manifestation is pervaded by You O unbounded power You are the master of limitless might You are all-pervading and thus You are everything Omniscient The ancient The Ruler of the whole world Minuter than the atom The supporter of all Of form inconceivable Effulgent like the Sun and Beyond the darkness There is nothing whatsoever higher than you You are the Sapidity in Water The Light in the Moon and the Sun You are the syllable OM in all the Vedas Sound in ether You are the Virility in men You are the sweet fragrance in earth and the brilliance in fire You are the life in all beings The austerity in the austere You are the eternal seed of all beings The intelligence of the intelligent You are the Splendor of the Splendid You are the Strength of the Strong Guest
Ugochi Obi

Ugobaby

Lawyer : I Give Out As Much Resources As I Can

Wants to meet A Boyfriend : I Need A Change Please!

Articles
84
Followers
31

Preparation & Carefulness Are Key Qualities Of Smart People

The Fastest Way To Identify Intelligent People Is To Ask An Easy Question, Followed By A More Complex One.
Let’s Say You’re In A
...
Ugobaby Ugobaby 455
profile/4770IMG-20200918-WA0002.jpg
Ugobaby
Preparation & Carefulness Are Key Qualities Of Smart People
~3.2 mins read
The fastest way to identify intelligent people is to ask an easy question, followed by a more complex one.
Let’s say you’re in a Zoom call with your marketing team. You need ideas on how to spend the last, unallocated $5,000 of your budget. That’s a lot of money, so the ideas better be good. Whose ideas can you trust?
According to Shailesh Panthee, asking a very easy question in a group setting will reveal who’s eager — maybe too eager — to prove themselves.
For example, you could ask a basic question about marketing lingo. “Remind me again, what’s CTR stand for?” CTR means click-through-rate. It’s the percentage of people who click on an element after viewing it.
Most people in marketing know the term, and your team might think it’s a bit weird that you’re asking such a simple question in the first place. That’s okay, however, because what’s important is what happens next: Who shouts the answer the fastest and the loudest? Are multiple people on the call blurting out the answer? Do they talk over one another?
If you ask Panthee, people who engage in shouting matches over simple-to-answer questions are so desperate for brownie points that they a.) forget to consider how valuable the answer is and b.) skip fact-checking and thinking through their response. He says:
Smart people are smart enough to know that answering that question will not make them unique. They answer questions which require analytical and critical thinking rather than just recall or memory.
I’m neither a genius nor did I think a lot about positioning in high school, but as someone who raised his hand a lot, I can point to another reason why smart folks might hesitate to answer obvious questions: They suspect it’s a trap.
Whenever our English teacher asked for straight-up vocabulary translations, I was skeptical. Why did she ask us the word for “bread” again? Is she hiding a hard follow-up behind this simple opener?
If you’re on the other side of this equation, aka leading the Zoom call, that’s exactlywhat you should be doing. With the noise cleared away, you can now drop the actual, more complex, probably creative ask: How should we spend our remaining marketing budget?
Chances are, now, Overzealous Oliver and Valerie Validation-Seeker will hold their breath. They’re either content with the approval they snagged from answering the simple question or, quite frankly, stumped.
The smart ones won’t jump at you with an answer. You might even have to prompt them. Maybe, they’ll counter with a question: “Well, what’s our goal in spending the money?” Eventually, however, they will suggest an idea.
“How about we split the money five ways and run paid ads on five different platforms to determine which one we should double down on to promote our company next year?” Wow Intelligent Isaac, what hat did you pull that one from? Good job!
Smart people know that listening is more valuable than talking and that neither beats thinking for yourself. They try to avoid repeating the obvious so they can spend their time and energy on what requires analysis and creativity.
In fact, Isaac probably thought about this problem before you even brought it up. He stumbled upon it and spent a few minutes mulling it over. So when you asked him for an idea, he was ready. And yet, he was still cautious.
You’ll find this same balance of preparation and carefulness in smart people all around.
If you ask them an embarrassingly easy question in private, they won’t laugh at you. They won’t criticize you. They’ll give you the answer and not tell anyone about it.
If you ask them something more complicated, they’ll give you options, start with, “I don’t know,” or answer with a question to get more information. They’ll pause, hesitate, and never present their answer as the end-all, be-all.
Being too eager opens us to error and careless mistakes. Reserve and structured thinking won’t always stand out, but they’re always worth commending.
Ask easy questions, then follow up with hard ones. Smart people are all around us. Learning to identify them is only one part of the picture, but it’s great practice along the way of finding our own potential.
When To Use "who" Or "whom" In A Sentence. Read To Learn.

I Stepped Down From The Copy Department Of The New Yorker almost Two Years Ago, Hanging Up My Parentheses And Turning Over The Com
...
Ugobaby Ugobaby 886
profile/4770IMG-20200918-WA0002.jpg
Ugobaby
When To Use "who" Or "whom" In A Sentence. Read To Learn.
~6.7 mins read
I stepped down from the copy department of The New Yorker almost two years ago, hanging up my parentheses and turning over the comma shaker to my successor, who I know will use it judiciously, but I still love the magazine and lose sleep when an oversight (as we prefer to call it) sneaks into its pages. Copy editors never get credit for the sentences we get right, but confuse “who” and “whom” and you are sure to be the center of attention, at least briefly. If you thought the “who” in the previous sentence should have been a “whom,” you are not alone. Let’s review.
My test for the correct use of “who” or “whom” in a relative clause—“who I know will use it judiciously”—is to recast the clause as a complete sentence, assigning a temporary personal pronoun to the relative pronoun “who/whom.” “I know she will use it”? Or “I know her will use it”? No native speaker of English who has outgrown baby talk would say “her will use it.” The correct choice is clearly “she”: “I know she will use it judiciously.” If the pronoun that fits is in the nominative case, acting as the subject (“I,” “you,” “he,” “she,” “it,” “we,” “you,” “they”), then the relative pronoun should also be in the nominative case: “who I know will use it judiciously.” Yay! I got it right.

Suppose I had written that I turned over the comma shaker to a colleague who I have known for years. Recast the relative clause as a complete sentence with a personal pronoun: “I have known she for years”? Or “I have known her for years”? This time the correct choice is “her,” which is in the objective case (“me,” “you,” “him,” “her,” “us,” “you,” “them”); therefore the relative pronoun should be in the objective case (“whom”). I should have written, “I turned over the comma shaker to a colleague whom I have known for years.” Boo! I got it wrong.

But here’s the rub: if I wrote “who” instead of “whom” here, nobody would care. A “who” for a “whom” is much more grammatically acceptable than a “whom” for a “who,” which sticks to your shoe like something you stepped in that was not just mud under slippery leaves in the dog run. I could finesse the whole issue by writing that I turned over the comma shaker to a colleague I have known for years, doing without the relative pronoun, and nobody would miss it.

So why do we need this aggravation? Does civilization depend on the proper use of “who” and “whom”? Let’s steel ourselves for a closer look.

From the issue of October 15, 2018: “Mark Judge, whom Ford says watched Kavanaugh pin her down . . .” One sees the problem immediately: the context is so sordid that it is impossible to look past it to the syntax! The same is true of an example from the issue of June 4 & 11, 2018: “A woman in California called the police on three black women whom she thought were behaving suspiciously.” The content of the sentences—misogyny, racism, racism and misogyny—is so disheartening that one loses the will to examine the form. And yet it must be done: “Ford says he watched”; “who Ford says watched.” “She thought they were behaving suspiciously”; “who she thought were behaving suspiciously.” Happy Thanksgiving.

A few copy editors have proposed a radical solution to the “who/whom” problem: kill off the “whom.” Emmy J. Favilla, who formerly headed up the copy department for BuzzFeed, titled her 2017 style guide “A World Without ‘Whom,’ â€ and David Marsh, the former production editor of the Guardian, called his 2013 book on language “For Who the Bell Tolls.” Both are clever titles, making jokes at the expense of “whom” while exploiting its negative capability. But the writers have a point: if we just used “who,” we would never misuse “whom.” In this way we would hasten the departure of “whom,” which linguists predict will go the way of “thou” and “thine” any century now.

And yet there are those who believe in “whom” and wish to see it used correctly. June Casagrande, a prolific writer on grammar and usage, devotes a special section of her new book, “The Joy of Syntax,” to “Common Mistakes with Whom and Whomever,” and Bryan Garner, the closest thing we have in our time to a reincarnation of H. W. Fowler, devotes a column in the third edition of his Modern American Usage to instances of what he calls “the nominative whom.” (I know there is a fourth edition, but I find the third more manageable to read in bed.) Most of the specimen sentences are from newspapers—the Rocky Mountain News, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, the Minneapolis Star Tribune—though one is from a novel by the famously erudite William F. Buckley, Jr. The “who/whom” error is especially common in journalism because reporting, getting behind the news, often involves paraphrasing speech and attributing thoughts and feelings: “she thought,” “he said,” “they suspected” are locutions that occur frequently in news stories and to which readers and writers must be alert, because they introduce an object—whatever it is that a source thought, said, or suspected—in the form of a clause with its own syntax.

Here is a sentence (edited for length) from the Op-Ed page of the Times: “The true test of our compassion and grit will be in the coming months and years when the fate of the most vulnerable—who we’ve always known would be most affected by climate change—will be largely in our hands.” Here, too, the context of the sentence is alarming—the wildfire that destroyed Paradise, California—but “who” is correct. Some might be tempted to use “whom” because the antecedent (“the most vulnerable”) is the object of a preposition (“of”), but the relative clause has its own syntax. “We’ve always known they would be most affected”; “who we’ve always known would be most affected.”

I have been avoiding this subject for months, because of an overwhelming feeling that in the current climate, actual and political, no one cares. But we have come to a sorry state when the news itself discourages us from caring about the way it’s conveyed. A while back, I read a piece in the Oregonian about the state librarian, a woman who was getting fired—or, if you prefer, a woman whom the governor of Oregon was letting go—apparently for taking too long to finish some project. She had the support of her fellow-librarians, but government officials had grown impatient with her. After a debate in the state legislature, one state senator voted against the library’s budget, but not because he had anything against the librarian. The article concluded, chillingly, “He voted on ideological grounds that he doesn’t see a need for the State Library to exist, he said.” This is exactly the attitude we’re up against. Why do we need to keep “whom” on the job if it is not performing effectively? Rather than inquire into its virtues or lack of them, let’s get rid of grammar completely! A fable for our times.

So does civilization depend on the vulnerable “whom”? Yes. No matter how bad the news, we must not stop caring. To paraphrase Carson, the butler on “Downton Abbey,” “Keeping up standards is the only way to show the bastards that they will not beat us in the end.”

Written by Mary Norris

Mary Norris began working at The New Yorker in 1978 and was a query proofreader at the magazine for twenty-four years. She is the author of “Between You and Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen” and “Greek to Me: Adventures of the Comma Queen.”

Advertisement

Loading...

Link socials

Matches