Mr Tea said:I didn't want to needlessly antagonise you. Oops. ::ha::
Eats, Shoots and Leaves : the approach to zero tolerance punctuation, Truss L., Gotham Books (Penguin Groups) 2003"Come inside," it says, "for CD's, VIDEO's, DVD's, and BOOK's."
If this satanic sprinkling of redundant apostraphes causes no little gasp of horror or quickening of he pulse, you should probably put this book down right now [...] for any true stickler, you see, the sight of the plural word "Book's" with an apostraphe in it will trigger a ghastly private emotional process similar to the stages of bereavement, though greatly accelerated"
lolMr Tea said:To my eternal chagrin, CaptainQuark, I was entirely unaware of the term 'Oxford Comma' until I read your reply to my post. Fortunately, this is 2005, I am online, and there is Google. Within seconds, I had access to 54,988,046,221 potential sources of information with which to rectify my ignorance (truly we live in an age of wonders); I made straight for the horse's mouth, where I found a clear (if somewhat partisan) explanation.
So, in answer to your question, yes: I wholeheartedly embrace the Oxford Comma (but sometimes have to wash my hands afterwards).
Sorry to be a pedant, but the phrase "Lot's of great people, all fanatical about Mac's" should not have any apostrophes in it.
Typical bleedin' author - "It's my book/post, so I'll write what I want, how I want it, and copy editors and good English be damned!"
Why do I bother?
(Note the correct use of the comma before the first 'and', there. ::angel:: That's NOT an Oxford Comma, but a comma indicating a separate, but integral part of the sentence. Had I used an Oxford Comma before the SECOND 'and', that sentence would not have made sense!)
"It is so called because it was traditionally used by printer's readers and editors at Oxford University Press. Sometimes it can be necessary for clarity when the items in the list are not single words:
These items are available in black and white, red and yellow, and blue and green."