»In which whom shuffles off it's mortal coil

Photographic evidence of the eroded distinction between who and whom:

Although not an ex-word, whom, the objective form of the interrogative pronoun, is a vestige of Old English. Modern English usage rarely calls for a clear distinction between the subjective and objective cases, nor provides inflections for words in different cases: word order and context indicates case, not word ending.

Still, I do appreciate a piece of writing that uses whom properly. In the Language Log post, Geoff Pullum (author of The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax), notes "There is an error in the plural of thief, too, but that one is in the direction of regularizing the irregular (regular *thiefs for the irregular thieves). Using whom for who isn't regularization. It's a desperately insecure clutching after a form that people no longer know where to use or how to control. Whom is like some strange object — a Krummhorn, a unicycle, a wax cylinder recorder — found in grandpa's attic: people don't want to throw it out, but neither do they know what to do with it. So they keep it around, sticking an m on the end of who every now and then when it seems like an important occasion. Columbus Day, for example, or when trying to impress a grammarian or a maitre d'hotel (whom will be our waiter tonight?)."