What's in a pronoun?

[Mark Ulrik]

Propinquity, it's all propinquity. Or as we say when we visit Denmark, "nærhed." No, I think we'll keep saying propinquity even when we visit Denmark.

You plan on returning?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Not to sidetrack this too much (but I guess I am anyway), what's interesting in the article is how reticent Lane appeared to be in revealing what Garrison supposedly told him. That's not how Lane operated.

My guess is that Garrison's "revelations" put Lane in a dilemma. Garrison believed that Oswald was one of the conspirators; viz., had attended the meeting where the assassination was planned, brought the rifle that was used in the shooting. That is, Oswald was guilty. But it was Lane's view from the very beginning (as far as I can tell) that Oswald was an American Dreyfus. He was innocent from beginning to end (the middle too). He wasn't involved in any way in the assassination. Garrison's "discoveries" then presented him with a major problem. If he reveals them then his work defending Oswald is called into question. If he refutes Garrison on Oswald, says he's wrong, then Garrison cuts him off from any inside information. Best option: show a little conspiracy leg but not too much.

Thus Lane's shyness - not something he was known for - in revealing in any details what Garrison told him.