I'm sorry, I have an issue with people who use Wikipedia. If you are going to cite a source, how about one that is reliable? Wikipedia is barely monitored and anyone can go in and make changes to whatever they want to. Use an edu, gov, or a org site if you are going to use one. com sites are commercial, and net sites are just domains on a network, which can be linked to certain organizations or businesses. Sorry, I am not flaming this person (I hope), I just can't stand it when, like I said, people use unreliable sources as a good source of information. ----- Original Message ---- From: Lawrence Ritchie <callmeinstead@xxxxxxxxx> To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 5:08:25 PM Subject: [projectaon] serial comma I imagine this was hotly debated to start with, but nonetheless: I balk when I see your adoption of the serial comma. Talk about unconventional! (In the British publishing world -- and Lone Wolf is British -- virtually every publisher eschews its use). It seems your main reason for adopting its use was to avoid ambiguities, but this is groundless. Whether you use it or not can create ambiguities (see ref below). It is easier to avoid it unless its use prevents an ambiguity (the editor's job -- and this is the only way due to the constraints of English style). I just can't believe you guys decided to add superfluous commas into the original works! Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- The secret of reallly being fulfilled is to know what your gift is and to live that -- and have compassion for other people, an understanding of other people's gifts -- Anthony Robbins ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com