Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!erisande@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu
From: "Kryst the Philosopher" <erisande@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: OASYS Extra (long)
Message-ID: <1993Aug11.212939.12034@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: ARCP&D
References: <1993Aug9.135727.21350@news.cs.indiana.edu> <248v9g$ut6@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 21:29:32 -0500
Lines: 17

dunhams@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu (Steve Dunham)
>Kryst the Philosopher (erisande@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>
>: 	Yes, it was just a comma, but I guess I am a stickler for that
>: kind of thing.  (I have yet to do this with the list of objects in a
>: room.  I would like to get that done sooner or later.)
>
>Every grammer of the English language that I have seen says that the
>comma in question (the one before the `and' in a list of three or more
>items) is optional.  

	Yes, but my book of it says it looks cooler.  ;)  Yeah, I know
what you mean, but I really like the extra one.  I think it adds a bit
more character to the list.  And to me, it seems (yes, 'seems') easier
to read.  Heck, I guess I should have left it as is, but to each his
own.  Thanks for pointing that out though.  I really didn't know it
was acceptable.		regards				Erin -
