Yeah -- the only difference is that it's a new person. In fact, someone should suggest she put it in the link section, if it's not already there.
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
OK, tiny, tiny nitpicky thing-- could we please, please change the blurb on the front page from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly"? Please? Is there a reason it's not there-- does ita not like serial commas?
Isn't the former grammatically correct as well?
Yes.
They're both right, and I didn't compose the text.
t assumes the vestments of the First Church of the Serial Comma (reformed)
Actually, it's an arbitrary choice.
However, all decent, non-pagan, well-raised writers make the correct arbitrary choice. That of the serial comma.
Fortunately, we of the FCSC(R) do not burn heretics at the stake.
We do, however, empty our pencil sharpenings into their bedclothes.
However, all decent, non-pagan, well-raised writers make the correct arbitrary choice. That of the serial comma.
Though I will point out that in the UK, despite it being the standard at Oxford Press, it is far less common.
I have never beta'd a UK writer who uses them, and I regretfully concede that yes, perhaps they are optional.
Unless I'm writing, in which case, you and me and the comma makes three tonight.
Isn't the former grammatically correct as well?
Not if you attended my strict Catholic school, sir; there, it was the comma, or hell. I didn't even learn about the optionality of the comma until I met the Buffistas.
t edit Which is not to say that the nuns were necessarily right-- just emphatic. t /edit
And I figured that whether ita wrote it or not, she'd be someone you'd not want to offend when you were running commas by your text.
Dude. I tried to make journalists embrace the serial comma. Do you see serial commas in papers today? No, you do not. Did I fail miserably? Yes, I did.
I have never beta'd a UK writer who uses them, and I regretfully concede that yes, perhaps they are optional.
Ahem! I would like to refute that, on the grounds that I was under the impression I used serial commas. It may be that I don't, or that I don't type them, or something, but while I accept they are optional, I think it reads better with the extra comma. My vote's with RL- change, please?