Funnily enough, most of the rules around "me and I" etc. are not rules. They are conventions. Therefore there is no problem with using I or me. Remembering what language is for. It is a method of conveying meaning between two parties versed in the same medium. Therefore the role is to unambiguously provide meaning. Once you have done that, you have succeeded. I note that many contributions here are from umpires who are very well equipped to argue by way of a written down rule-book. English has no written down set of rules and restrictions. Faux pas such as your and you're, their, there and they're etc. are worth defending because they all mean different things and if your job is to get across meaning, you need to use the words which signify that meaning. Relying on mental gymnastics from your reader means that you're relying on them interpreting you correctly and as such their chances of success mean that they're less likely to come to the same conclusion as you there and then. However there is no ambiguity when you use "I" or "me". It is not against any rule and it is simply different people use different convention. The argument for/against literally being used wrongly, which it invariably is, is a little different. It has always been a victim of mis-use due to it having a slightly abstract meaning, but it has become worse recently with the advent of self publishing also known as social media. We are in a situation now where, idiots, to be heard, must clamour louder than other idiots. Everyone is in competition to be the opinion that others repeat and as such we are adding more and more superlatives to the otherwise worthless epithets which we inflict upon an undeserving and furthermore uncaring world. But for people to want to repeat your chosen piece of keyboard diarrhoea, you must make it apper to be as life changing as possible. Therefore literally has become more a superlative prefix than the boring old adverb it once was. To those who rail against those who rail against the misuse of literally. If i were to say; for example: "that pizza was exactly the same shape as Catbus in My Neighbour Totoro" when the pizza was just a little oval, you would get an entirely false impression of the pizza, and thus when, one day, you were called, under pain of death, to draw an exact likeness of the pizza you had been told about, you would end up murdered. That would be my fault for not telling you the truth. I should, in fact, have said: "that pizza looks a bit like Catbus in My Neighbour Totoro, becuase it was a bit oval and had eyes and mice growing out of it." That way you would have the correct information. Exactly, and literally do the same work as "a bit" and "figuratively" Misuse them and you may be put to death by pizza shape fanatics. Language has empirical meanings and conventions. Heed the meanings of things for they allow you convey information accurately, bend the conventions as they allow you to be as illuminating and lyrical as possible.