Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.

[Q]: Possible Duplicate: When do I use 'I' instead of 'me?' A friend of mine asked me for advice about an e-mail he was writing. There was a sentence like this: I and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. I figured it was wrong, so I suggested: I and my partners are interested in investing in your product. This looks grammatical to me but sounds strange. Also, I have seen a lot of people writing this: Me and my partners we are interested in investing in your product. which I believe is not grammatical. So, which one of the options above is correct? Also, what would be a better choice of words?.
[A]: 'I and someone are interested' is grammatically correct. It is the convention in English that when you list several people including yourself, you put yourself last, so you really should say 'Someone and I are interested.' 'Someone and I' is the subject of the sentence, so you should use the subjective case 'I' rather than the objective 'me'. 'Someone and I' clearly means two people, so you should use 'are' and not 'is'. If it was 'Someone or I ...' then you would use 'is', because only one person is interested, either 'someone' or 'I'. It is not uncommon to hear people say 'Me and someone are ...', but this is wrong because it's the wrong case. When an educated person hears 'Me and Billy is going to the ball game', he immediately thinks this is either a child or a very uneducated person speaking. 'I and someone we ...' is incorrect because it is redundant. 'We' is simply another way of saying 'I and someone'. It adds no new information to the sentence, and so there is no reason to include it. You can't just string together alternative ways of expressing the same idea: If you really need it for clarity or emphasis, you have to surround it with some additional words, like a 'that is', or sometimes just punctuation that show its purpose in the sentence. You could say, 'We, that is, Bob and I, are interested ...' All that said, 'I and someone' or 'Someone and I' sounds strange to me, and I suspect most English speakers, because it is an unusual use of the word 'someone'. When 'someone' is used in a list with identifiers of other people, we usually say 'someone else'. Like, 'Bob and someone else are interested ...' rather than 'Bob and someone are interested ...' (I have no idea why this is so; it's just the convention.) 'Someone' without 'else' is normally only used when it's the only person: 'Someone is interesteed ...'


[Q]: For example, a computer security expert can be an expert and making a basic mistake, perhaps unrelated to his personality but highly relevant to his field of expertise and a mistake that just about anybody could do but just because he is a security expert he especially should not have done it. I don't mean stupid mistake or stupid error but I mean contradictory and almost similar to a double-standard. Jeff teaches English but he couldn't spell 'occurrence'. Or for example George is a professional Microsoft Windows programmer but he doesn't know what alt+tab does. Or Henry is a surgeon but he cut himself shaving. I don't necessarily mean something like a police officer who himself is corrupt or a judge who is corrupt because those are not accidents or mistakes but deliberate. Albert Einstein was a genius but couldn't remember his own address and entered the wrong house when going home. (Perhaps the above Einstein example is not a great example because scientist could be absent-minded.) I mean more like actually mistakenly missing the basics of your own speciality or making a human error that anybody else could do except you because you are supposed to be the specialist. I think the classic example could be Bill Gates trying to show how good Microsoft Windows is and it crashes. Or a news anchor, who should be a specialist in not making a word mistake, actually makes a word mistake. Or a judge or an attorney, who should be experts in law and rights, wouldn't know something trivial about law and right e.g. unknowingly about that blackmailing is a crime. I almost made such a mistake myself. I was an IT specialist and computer technician at a client's office and their boss was teaching himself the basics of programming and asking me about something basic. I actually got it right but I was not completely certain about something basic while actually being able to solve complicated and advanced problems for them.
[A]: Such mistakes are bloopers. ODO: blooper NOUN North American informal 1 An embarrassing error 'Home cooks perhaps identified with Mrs. Child, who, though she clearly knew her sauces and souffles, also committed bloopers on camera.'


[Q]: Example: [f] moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end. Is the language used in patents archaic or simply intentionally obtuse?.
[A]:
Patent lawyer here. I wouldn't call the language you cited either 'archaic' or 'intentionally obtuse.' 'Pedantic' or 'hyperliteral' may be better adjectives. The language you cited came from Claim 1 of US Pat. No. 6888460 Language in the claims section of the patent are considered the 'metes and bounds' of the intellectual property right. That is, the claim language describes the precise extent of the patent owner's monopoly. It is necessary for the language to be as accurate as possible in order to alert everyone to the scope of the patentee's property right. Because human language is so imprecise, it is very difficult to write text that comes even close to the level of clarity one would want in such a description. Some of the terms used are also jargon. Because patents are interpreted by courts, there is an entire history of court decisions determining the meaning of specific words. For example, the word 'comprising' means 'including the listed things but also potentially including other things as well' whereas 'consisting of' means 'including only the listed things.' In the language you cited, the word 'said' in the phrase 'said proximate end' makes it unambiguous that the reference is to the same 'proximate end' as previously recited ('wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end'). One might also use the word 'the' rather than 'said,' in this circumstance, but that's a matter of style.