[Closed] Who gives a **** about an Oxford Comma?

One for the grammer Nazi's;

For an education in grammar, $10 million seems very good value.

I think the education in grammar is needed for the person who wrote the legislation. Given it has got to an appeal court, it clearly isn't a clear cut usage. Unfortunately it seems that the drivers have been getting underpaid and the company will now get stuffed for it...

This is why if writing an exclusive list, I use bullet points!

I thought this was the reason lawyers didn't use punctuation at all?

If they had written a law that didn't have unreasonable exclusions, grammar wouldn't even be a consideration. FFS how can a law be passed that protects workers rights then exclude some workers because they are not deemed important enough to warrant the same legal protection as everyone else.

One for the grammer Nazi's

Grammar Nazis 😉

Nazis, not Nazi's 😆 but that's a missing apostrophe, not a comma.

'I like cooking my family and dogs'

'Don't wear black people'

'Let's eat grandpa'

Commas - or the absence of them - do make a difference 😀

These ones are amusing but there are several examples in business which have resulted in big costs and losses.

I'm being dense here, but I don't see what difference the comma makes in this instance. I can't see how one meaning would exclude delivery drivers whilst the other one would.

I hate my parents,Godzilla and Donald Trump.
(I don't hate Godzilla btw)

Commas - or the absence of them - do make a difference

Indeed. After an unfortunate misunderstanding one time, I haven't been horse-riding with my Uncle Jack since.

My parents, Lynn Truss and Gyles Brandreth.

To name 4. Or do I mean 2?

phew I'm glad Mister P and frank are on the ball. I might of missed that. 😉

Assuming the latest posts are an answer to my question: Yes I understand how an Oxford comma can avoid confusion, but in the case cited I don't. If it said "packing [u]and[/u] distribution then I can see where the problem might be. But packing or distribution...... nope.

I shit at grammer but get the Oxford comma, but as above don't see how it affects the case in question

Thanks Stoner - maybe I've found my true vocation....... 😆

. I might of missed that.

Of instead of have? Now I know you are being a joker.

Utterly pointless use of grammar.

as the article says, does the law intend to exempt workers in the distribution of the three following categories, or does it mean to exempt the packers of the three categories stated afterwards?

Brilliant band. Seen them a couple of times.

[img] [/img]

I'm being dense here, but I don't see what difference the comma makes in this instance. I can't see how one meaning would exclude delivery drivers whilst the other one would.

if instead of a list separated by commas, it was a bulletpoint list, would that list be:

- canning
- processing
- preserving
- freezing
- drying
- marketing
- storing
- packing for shipment or distribution

or would it be

- canning
- processing
- preserving
- freezing
- drying
- marketing
- storing
- packing for shipment
- distribution

It is a very fuzzy differentiation but that's what the court ruled, that it's sufficiently uncertain that it might exclude them but might not.

Ahh right Get it now. Ta

I thought this was the reason lawyers didn't use punctuation at all?

Standard myth.

The legal documents in which you're most likely to find a paucity of punctuation tend to be related to land (purchase documents, leases, etc.). But those guys tend to be pretty antiquated at the best of times.

Lawyers spend inordinate amounts of time negotiating detailed drafting with each other, so anything where there is a potential for confusion tends to be ironed out. Unless, of course, the lawyers were state educated....

There's actually another issue with the clause: the "and" at the end of sub-clause (2)....

Brilliant band. Seen them a couple of times.