No, goofy. Either one is not correct. "I" is correct. ICUUCME, "me" is correct.

That is be true, John, but there are certainly examples where "further" cannot be replaced by "farther". "Further" may also mean "additional" while "farther" cannot.
"Here are further examples of this" cannot be replaced by "Here are farther examples of this." and you have never heard "farthermore", have you?:)

OK Slemmet, My first posting of August 2nd did use "while", in "I met him while drunk", but that was purely a typographical error. I simply meant to type the original phrase in question, "I met him drunk." Similarly, "I e-mailed John while sitting at my computer", while not a typo per se, could just as easily been written as "I e-mailed John sitting at my computer." This applies to the other ambiguous versions of example phrases as well. Consider this as an amendment to that posting. I stand behind everything else I said in that posting with the changes just mentioned.

This question has already been answered categorically and incontrovertibly nearly 8 months ago. I am amazed that it is still generating such discussion and dissent!

I was going to agree with you, Rebecca, but consider this. Let's recast any or all of the sentences without the "while". Let's say they're ambiguous (which I already did say). If you reform any of the sentences in an unambiguous fashion, i.e. specifying which version you actually mean, then the "while" must be used.

"I met him drunk" becomes either "I met him while I was drunk" or "I met him while he was drunk".

Thus, I would suggest the the presence or absence of the "while" becomes meaningless and irrelevant; the absence of the "while" becomes simply an elided version of the same sentence with it.

I'm not sure I agree, John. My dictionary lists two different pronunciations of "that" but does not say anything about a correlation between which pronunciation goes with with which definition.

And while we're at it, here is a question of semantics for everyone to debate: If the dictionary lists more than one definition for a word, oh, let's say five. Does that mean there are five different words, or is it one word with five different definitions? (are you claiming, John, that, by definition, a word can only have one definition?)

PS - I could not actually read your phonetic symbols on several different PCs. I suggest you use plain text only.

I think the phrase may be somewhat ambiguous. "I met him while drunk" could mean "I met him while he was drunk" or "I met him while I was drunk". Only, I would think it more likely that the speaker is the drunk one. Try constructing some similar sentences with missing pronouns, only ones where it is clear from the context what is meant. Consider: "I e-mailed John while sitting at my computer." Grammatically, either "I" or "he" could follow "while" and it's certainly possible that John was sitting at my computer, but I think no one would assume so. If I wanted to suggest John was in front of my computer, I think I would have to say so to be clear. I can't think of a single sentence that would be understood the other way, even if the context makes it clear.

"I met the President while visiting New York."
"Wuddya mean, visiting? You live in New York."
"No, HE was visiting."
"Oooohh, why didn't you say so?"

"I met the Pope while hearing confession."
'Wow, you heard the POPE'S confession???"

"I met Roy Rogers while riding Trigger"
"What were you doing on his horse?"

I don't think any of the above sentences can really be understood to be ascribing action to the object, even when the context makes it clear. I can't think of any sentence which does. The more I try, the more stilted the sentences become.

I think maybe the office vote picked "him" only because there's a natural tendency to distance oneself from what may be perceived as a negative activity.

I've been hearing and saying "hey" for at least the past 30 years. And, by the way, I asked her and it turns out that my Mother-in-law IS speaking Yiddish when she says "oi", afterall!

I have to agree with the others. "...as best he can" is just an elided version of "...as best as he can", universally understood to mean doing something to the best of his abilities. I not sure I can even understand how you can parse this phrase to mean "...in his usual fashion, better than everyone else". Gee, maybe in some sort of 16th century poetic grammar? Or maybe if if were spoken by Yoda?

Now, let me get this straight, Justin. Are you actually positing that generations of the uneducated incorrectly using "me and John" as the subject of a sentence are causing a backlash of use of "John and I" as the object, and that, as a result of this over-correction, it may be come acceptable?
That's actually kind of interesting. I do agree that in many cases, misuse of "I" is a result of robotic mis-application of "corrected" grammar, in an attempt to seem more literate, but I don't see this as becoming acceptable, or even remotely mainstream any time soon.
Also, regarding the use of "I" in "He is taller than I (am)." Note the verb "to be" is a copulative verb, thus "I" should match case with "he", rather than be treated as an object. I would agree though, that "me" in this case is becoming the norm.