Observations, Discussion and Questions, and Hopefully, Answers · 3:26am Mar 17th, 2017
Apparently, a court case was just decided based on the omission of an Oxford comma. Several ironies follow.
Dictionaries! Now with fake computer buttons on the cover!
First off, the legal guidelines for creating the document said to not use an Oxford comma. The judge was aware of this, but still ruled against the document owner's side based on the comma's omission because (surprise) the sentence without the Oxford comma wasn't clear. It didn't matter whether or not legal guidelines said the comma should be included: what mattered was the text, and there wasn't a simple way to structure the text without using a comma that the legal guidelines said should not be used.
In further irony, CNN (who is reporting on this) is forbidden from using Oxford commas according to AP style guidelines, which makes it slightly tricky for them to report on the topic. That the AP does this blows my applebucking mind.
I have never understood this debate. It's just a comma, doing exactly what a comma does. Why are people so deathly afraid of this little comma? Why is it forbidden in so many written works—especially in law, where there's a legitimate rationale to include it? It doesn't make any damned sense to me. Leaving off the comma doesn't save you any space or time. Keeping the comma makes the text easier to read, and most importantly, less ambiguous.
Somepony please explain this to me. Why is a useful comma so dreaded that it is forbidden by most news agencies? 
Because news wants to be concise and quick. As a result they tend to make everything Black and White no shades of grey to confuse people
Because reasons.
4459618 The point of an oxford comma is to make things unambiguous. The news sources have rules that prevents its use, thus increasing ambiguity. Your comment suggests they should want to use the Oxford comma, but they don't.
This...
... this is beautiful.
I don't know, maybe because they like to confuse and frustrate and annoy people.......
By the way, Trick... for some reason I just cannot seem to take your profile pic seriously anymore .
4459672
I can't tell when you're being facetious, but that's actually okay, because I can't tell when I'm being facetious either. Is this blog post legitimate? Is it ironic? Am I simply trolling? Am I an inflatable sack of hamsters randomly hitting keys on a keyboard?
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/07/58/b9/0758b939a83e7a20154ea33811cdbe8c.jpg
4459677
Yeah, I'm gonna have to change it soon. I need to draw another pic to replace it though, and I draw slow. Probably Monday.
4459682 well Trick Question last I knew you hasn't been replaced by a bag of hamsters.
The Oxford comma does nothing but increase clarity. Take the popular example:
Ok, that sounds fine. Now remove the Oxford comma:
That phrasing makes it sound like JFK and Stalin are the strippers.
4459738
Of course, one can avoid ambiguity as well as the Oxford comma by simply rewriting the sentence:
Princess Celestia would approve of the elimination of that extraneous punctuation
That said, given that newspaper style guides disfavor the Oxford comma in part to save on ink costs, the rule does seem a bit outdated.
It is written in the Intelligent Scholar's guidebook "How To Be A Prig" that any debate must be obscure, seemingly pointless, and last forever.
There are other rules, but for the sake of brevity that is a short summation.
Now I just want a court case ruling against someone who used American-style punctuation of quotations, like,
As an outspoken proponent of commas, this is an incredible level of silliness. D:
Having Oxford comma's v. not having them, straights v. curves, and GPL v. BSD licenses. Some debates never end it seems.
4459843
Perhaps, but you're also an outspoken proponent of silliness.
4459745
I doubt they do it for ink-related reasons. I don't know why they do it. My best guess is that it is seen as overly formal, but I don't see many "ain't"-'s in the news today.
Most other stuff people bicker about, like quotes (as the above "ain't"-'s) can be done on a case-by-case basis, but the Oxford comma seems like a no-brainer to me. It's never bad, and sometimes good.
4459954
Ink may not be the main issue, but space certainly is (was?) a main concern of the newspaper industry. Print journalists have to adhere to strict word or character limits. Indeed, many elements of newspaper style guides emphasize brevity (e.g. omitting state names when well known cities appear in the bylines). Eliminating Oxford commas probably doesn't save much space, but their removal is consistent with attempting to be as concise as possible.
I've had people tell me that I use a lot of commas. I get this from my 8th grade english teacher who told me just to use a comma where ever a pause was called for. I've since never strayed from her advice.
4460384
The best part about that post is there were no commas.
(Wait, was that the joke?)
4460490 Huehuehue.
Oxford Commas are the best. I'm Morning Sun, and I approve of this court decision.
4460532
4459952
This is not my kind of silliness, madame! D:
4460679
The judge clearly sided with what was written. It's possible to pack things that will be distributed but not shipped, and vice versa. If read the other way, anything sold on site would be eligible for overtime pay (edit: for *just* the packers) which is at least as silly. It could have been just as clear by rearranging the clauses as adding the comma. So, the Oxford comma omission is doing what it's meant to- punishing people who arrange sentences poorly.
Personally, I'd just make lawmakers comment their legal code like it's the 20th century.