The CEO of that company, the "next Steve Jobs," might not measure up to Steve Jobs. But he wouldn't have to. He'd just have to do a better job than Samsung and HP and Nokia, and that seems pretty doable.
That really should be:
The CEO of that company, the "next Steve Jobs," might not measure up to Steve Jobs. But they wouldn't have to. They'd just have to do a better job than Samsung and HP and Nokia, and that seems pretty doable.
- the idea that changing grammar is a way to fix moral problems.
- any barrier, taboo, or artificial distance between what one think and what one write.
any barrier, taboo, or artificial distance between what one think and what one write.
How was this case -- implying the person would be male, vs being gender neutral -- a barrier between what one is thinking and what one is writing?
The point is that all the good writers have used it forever. That includes Byron ("Nobody here seems to look into an Author, ancient or modern, if they can avoid it") and Wilde ("Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes") and, as Geoff Pullum wonderfully discovered, E.B. White: http://books.google.com/books?id=aqe9RoZorLIC&lpg=PA109&...
The kicker is that the real PC silliness turns out to have been generic he, which was imposed 200 years ago by grammarians who wanted to make English more proper and Latin-like. It never fully took, and now it's fading as social norms shift. If those meddling ideologues had left well enough alone in the first place, we wouldn't be having tedious pronoun battles today. Given the history, though, it's pretty clear that English is slowly reverting to what the real masters have been doing all along. Sounds fine to me.