My conclusion -- and thanks!

Posted by Massimo Mazzucco on May 11, 2001

In Reply to: The wicked "which" posted by ESC on May 11, 2001

Since I don't see any major contradiction between R. Berg's rules' exposition and yours (thanks to both), I would tend to consider the basic reasoning (on the restrictive/non-restrictive aspect) as a "rule" proper, and your [ESC] comma/non-comma hint more as a second-guessing, tremendously useful "red-flagging" device.

Just a secondary, personal curiosity here. Are you guys (the "aficionados" I mean -- R. Berg, ESC, Bruce Kahl, etc.) mostly from the Uk, or the US? (None of you obviously needs to answer this one).

Thanks to all again - this site has been one of my best "discoveries" on the web ever!

Massimo Mazzucco

• A mnemonic R. Berg 05/11/01
  • Caveat: sheer idiocy of my own, here. Massimo Mazzucco 05/11/01
  • A comma, you say? Massimo Mazzucco 05/11/01
    • A comma, you say? Billy Bright 05/13/01
      • A comma, you say? Bob 05/14/01
        • A comma, you say? R. Berg 05/14/01
          • And the answer is... Massimo Mazzucco 05/14/01
            • And the answer is... Barney 05/15/01
  • A mnemonic ESC 05/11/01
    • Invasion R. Berg 05/11/01