(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.

(‘It was eerie to be standing’) on a grammatically correct end (‘It was eerie to be standing…” or “It was eerie to stand…”). What are the differences between two types of communication?

I would say it is mostly a choice of style, in this case. The two statements could be read as exactly equivalent. So, the simple answer is that the author thinks “…to be standing…” simply sounds better. What is the whole answer?

eerie describes the verb when one digs deeper into something. In this case the verb is ‘be’;’standing’ describes how he is being, and ‘eerie’ describes his feeling about that (about ‘being’, and about the whole clause, ‘being standing’).

What would be used in other case to say “stand”. Is this the state of being? He would feel at just about both of them sitting in front of him, with everyone waiting. It is the being in front of them, with them waiting that is eerie – not what state he’s in while he’s there.

Another note is that’standing’ means ‘being still’. What is the greatest advantage in sitting? To use them as opposed to action verbs – “It is exhausting sitting down and standing back up all day’- in which case you are neither’sitting still’, nor’standing still’.