people who think the oxford comma should always or should never be applied are tedious.

I've always wondered: What is the argument against the Oxford comma? Is there ever a time when it confuses the meaning?

@ 2. Barely. You could be confused by "I was at a party and saw Huffman, a stoner, and a stuffed animal."

That could be read as "I saw Huffman, who is a stoner, and a stuffed animal" or "I saw Huffman and a stoner and a stuffed animal."

There's no perfect solution, but the comma generally resolves ambiguity rather than introducing it.

Well, I will continue to always—tediously?—use the Oxford comma until they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I almost never use it, except when leaving it out would lead to the type of stupidity referenced above.

But if JFK and Stalin were the strippers, wouldn't a colon make more sense than a comma? As in: "We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin."

Arguably, adding an Oxford comma there could look like the demigod part is an appositive describing Mandela, so it's still ambiguous. I prefer Oxford commas, though. As I understand it, the only reason to drop them is to save space, which is why most newspapers don't use them.

Kudos to Brendan @3 for his gracious response.

I'll be less gracious. I cannot think of a single difference between American and British punctuation rules where the Americans are in the right. British rules for commas, quotes, and date formats are all more sensible than the American rules.

In this case the oxford comma would introduce ambiguity tying the first of the series to the next.
This sentence is an argument for rational use of the comma, not for universal use.

... highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an ex-President, and a dildo collector.

By slightly altering the sentence and including the Oxford comma the ambiguity is apparent.

The real problem with the sentence is improper order of the list. The writer should have rearranged the order for clarity.

... highlights of his global tour include encounters with an 800-year-old demigod, a dildo collector, and Nelson Mandela.

Now he can use the comma and the sentence meaning is clear.

Proper punctuation should not be relied upon to clean up poor writing.

@10: Exactly right.

Personally, I prefer the cereal, Comma. Or the rare grammarian affliction, comma toes.

Let me clarify my above statement: if you are the sort of person who feels so strongly about a piece of punctuation that you are incapable of understanding how nuance, context and style might affect it, then it is likely that you are a person who is very, very boring.

I like this one: The return of the final serial comma’s vital necessity

Or you can just re-write: I saw the stoner Huffman and a stuffed animal. ...encounters with ex-President Nelson Mandela and a dildo collector.

When I worked in magazines, they called it the Harvard comma. Anyone else? And who has an OED around to fill in the etymology?

Newspapers and magazines usually follow style guides that omit the serial/Oxford comma in both the U.S. and the U.K. (or, if you follow Chicago 16th, in both the US and the UK). The rationale was originally to save space and/or to follow French practice; there is no particular argument for it nowadays other than tradition.

Almost every non-news-related style guide for North America (including Chicago) actually argues for the serial comma. By contrast, most British style guides argue against it.

Neither system is "right" or "wrong." They are merely different and fine so long as part of a consistently applied system.

I am always amazed that people engage in this debate without first asking: What style guide are you following? If you say you follow Chicago, then everyone knows you use the serial comma and follow weird rules about ellipsis points. If you say AP, then everyone knows you omit the serial comma. If you say you use an in-house guide, then you might strike up a conversation about that guide that leads to drinks and a steady boy- or girlfriend in a subculture sorely in need of these.

If someone asks you what style guide you follow and you have no answer to that question, then (a) stop arguing for or against certain points of usage like serial commas, and (b) pick a style guide and use it.

I follow http://twitter.com/#!/FakeAPStylebook

meh - conventions have simply changed, and appositives like this are now signaled by colons, with a comma generally being read conventionally a succession of conjunctives. strippers: jfk and stalin vs stipers, jfk and stalin.

Periodical writers need to know and correctly apply the conventions of their markets. For the rest of us, all questions of style boil down to clarity of thought and expression. A fine example of a writer who creates his own style is Mark Jenkins: "It was there, in the whaleblack nights of boylong summers, that we'd talk." (Off the Map, Chapter 22) He even invents his own compound adjectives, yet you know precisely what he means, and no one could say it better.. Some of us are more concerned with using style than with arguing about it.