Grammar GeekLordy, Kooyeen - you haven't been paying much attention to Philip! He and I share a VERY strong preference for using "who" for people whenever possible.
LOL, no I actually paid attention! I just wanted to say I don't remember reading much about that in grammar books or forums. But I already noticed your answers about this issue here in EF, so don't worry, I pay attention.

But since this is not the first time I've seen you mention this difference, I got curious, and searched the net this time. Well, I was surprised to see so many results for "who vs that"! Ok, here's what I found...
This is from bartleby.com:The man that wanted to talk to you just called back. Some people say that you can only use
who and not
that to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. But
that has been used in this way for centuries. It is a quintessential English usage, going back to the Old English period, and has been used by our best writers. So it is entirely acceptable to write either
the man that wanted to talk to you or
the man who wanted to talk to you.This is Merriam-Webster:That, which, who: In current usage
that refers to persons or things,
which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities,
who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that
that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because
that has no genitive form or construction,
of which or
whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.
And then there are several websites telling people that only "who" is correct, but of course I don't understand that rule (and I don't accept it), for the simple reason that it doesn't reflect the way modern English is currently used. Actually, I don't even know where such rule comes from, since it seems "that" has been used instead of "who" for centuries. Go figure.