Oxford Comma

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford Comma?

Actually they're pretty useful.

I think I use both ways as the mood takes me, so I can't answer this.

I also roll both ways.

It looks wrong without one so I always use it.

Why would you speak to me that way :(

I tend to use them but won't freak out if they aren't there.

I tend to use them personally but I don't really register whether or not they're there when other people list things.

I generally love the Oxford comma, but then, I have a bit of an obsession with commas--they frequently show up, in great quantity, in the overlong sentences I can't seem to help but write.

It's one of those habits I have to deliberately reign in when I'm writing lengthy, graded work.

If they are needed i use them, wheres the option of common sense?

Two spaces after a period, I don't care that you can't see it, I still do it because it's just right.

Yes.

Because if not, it reads like this;

No, no-and-no.

In my mind at least.

Yes: without can lead to confusion, including it never does, and it keeps each term pleasingly separated.

@humanity said:

You can definitely see it, and it is definitely wrong.

commas, commas, and more commas!

Well now we'll know how many duders are bad people

"This book is dedicated to my parents, Joe and Martha."

Are the parents named Joe and Martha? An Oxford comma (or lack thereof in a world where everyone used them) would make it clear. In our DEBASED reality nobody knows.

Exactly. Even when there could be only one meaning, I don't like the idea of the word "and" taking the place of a comma.

@dixavd: Sadly, that's not always true. From the Wikipedia article:

The Times once published an unintentionally humorous description of a Peter Ustinov documentary, noting that "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector". This would still be ambiguous if a serial comma were added, as Mandela could then be mistaken for a demigod, although he would be precluded from being a dildo collector

Just do it. Please.

Always.

If it clarifies it should always be used!

That way people know that when you say "i love my two parents, videogames and skiing." ,you aren't somehow the child of a snow sport and digital software but rather that you love a series of distinct things; your parents, videogames, and skiing.

I'm a newspaper editor in England and, no, I would not use it.

Punctuation, where it is not necessary, slows down the reader and makes reading less enjoyable.

It just breaks the flow of the prose, without adding any extra meaning or value.

Sadly modern web design made it obsolete, but it is definitely not wrong if you're not a monster that is.

Precisely this. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should use an Oxford comma and this shouldn't even be a discussion.

When I see a comma, I pause my reading for a split second. It throws me way off when someone writes out a list of things and I'm stopping between each one and then my brain just reads the last two things as one. I can't argue with someone telling me that this is just a "personal problem", but those people should also know that it makes your writing look very messy. Ugh, it's so fucking annoying. I'll acknowledge that it is "just a little thing", but it's one of those little things that really bothers me.

Almost always.

I can begrudgingly accept it in a print newspaper (or any other kind of printed periodical) because that's one way you guys can save space. In any other case, it's the worst. You say it breaks the flow of the prose, but as I said above, the lack of an Oxford comma breaks it completely for me because I have to stop and think "oh, there should be a comma here", then start reading again.

Only a true godless heathen would forgo the usage of an oxford comma.

I smell nerds,,,just saying.

That's some real next level comma usage right there.

That said, Oxford comma all day. Nothing seems right without it although I have been docked points on papers for using it and I got annoyed by that.

I see. My use of "never" was over-emphasised; thanks for pointing me to the article and a counter-example. Still, I'd argue it wouldn't be ambiguous if people used the "- tangent -" more frequently.

• Were Mandela neither the demigod not the dildo collector you'd write: "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod, and a dildo collector"
• Were Mandela a demigod but not a dildo collector you'd write: "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela - an 800-year-old demigod - and a dildo collector"
• Were Mandela a demigod and a dilso collector you'd write: "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela - an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector"

Always.

I was taught or told at some point the same thing - either way is fine. But it's not that simple. Whether or not you include the last comma can make the sentence mean different things, because you can use an "and" or an "or" mid-list, and not using the comma relates those two items where using it separates them as "Separate entries on the list" - and of course this applies to the last item(s) in the list as well.

Just my take on the matter. Both are used enough where either can be considered technically correct by large parts of the population, but using them is more clear in some (somewhat rarer) cases.

EDIT: Just saw Mirado's post above mine and that is EXACTLY one of the cases why it SHOULD be used!

Writing clearly is hard enough, especially when so many people these days have trouble interpreting the tone or intent of written words/sentences, because the Internet has "dirtied" the written word - people are less likely to be carefully vetted and edited when they write something online, and it seems to have made the written word viewed more negatively in general - for example, in a book, before the 90's, people would tend to assume the writer is not being hateful or directing any sort of hidden meaning or sarcasm in their writing, unless that is the point. On the Internet, in a discussion, people will tend to take a negative view of, say, the same sentence when they see someone say it online vs. the same sentence making the same point in a "published" book or other more traditional publication. Mirado's example sort of illustrates both issues, or at least the issue of clarity of meaning.

in Dutch i was learned that you should not use a comma before 'and' in a list. As a notorious comma user, that's what keeps me restrained :) But i can totally understand why you would want to do it.

Instead of writing ' I love my friends, Benedict Cumberbatch and John Irving' and wondering if i should place an oxford comma, i rather rewrite the sentence as : i love Benedict Cumberbatch, John Irving and my friends. Now it's clear that Bendict & John are no friends of mine.

Is that damn hard to put the comma in there and make sure you are understood clearly?

I didn`t even know this was a thing. I don`t know if my school failed me or if this just isn`t a thing in Norway.

Always. People who are willing to potentially introduce ambiguity to a sentence by omitting a comma just to save space/avoid a pause/whatever are being absurd.

Is it sad that I feel stronger about the Oxford comma than I do about most politics in the US?

I do. It's all my diction dripping with disdain when I see the lack of them outside of journalism.

I knew I disagreed with your opinions Humanity but with this now I can just say I dislike you.

"Through the pain, I always tell the truth"

@blackout62: two spaces, never compromise, always stay true to the rightful cause.

Use the Oxford comma, people.

@humanity: I salute you. I had no idea we were in the minority, but I will never back down. Even if I wanted to, I don't think I could re-program my brain to NOT key the second space.

On Oxford commas: Yes, absolutely.