I agree with several of you that we all vary our practice according to medium. The degree of formality is likely to reflect a continuum from speech to the most formal cases of writing. This forum is clearly closer to “a written conversation” as my downsideup bro remarks.

I thought Paul Robinson’s argument was, taken all in all, quite attractive. He recognises the value of common rules as a foundation for clarity of communication. He also notes that this is of itself likely to prove inadequate, requiring a greater investment of care from writers in order to foster a style or (as Jackie hated!) a “philosophy” to underpin practice.

Robinson clearly identifies his own intuitive bent, being a legalistic rule-based tendency. He moves on to add that style is a personal response to the aesthetics of typography. After all, from what does Stunk & Bite derive its so-called rules if not an emotional or aesthetic response to language? Robinson states that “I recognize legitimate alternatives, and I'm quite aware that punctuation has a history.” This seems an honest recognition that style is a matter of codified aesthetics which change over time.

> Rhubarb commented that the extra comma in England would be categorically incorrect.
fwiw, M$ Word recognises no grammatical fault in either of these two statements when set to either UK or USA English:
I bought apples, oranges, pears, and bananas.
I bought apples, oranges, pears and bananas.
Personally, I do not get an uncomfortable feeling reading the former, but feel slightly rushed by the latter.

I too sometimes vary my punctuation by deliberately reflecting a desire to steer towards my intended 'voice', using it almost like a stage direction tool. However, I agree with him that “Periods and commas are lovely because they are simple. They force the writer to express his ideas directly […] By way of contrast, a colon can be used to smooth over a rough logical connection. […] Periods and commas, because of their very neutrality, make one an honest logician.” His clarity of expression is certainly making me reconsider my approach to punctuation. Since my style tends to an unfortunate prolixity, I admire his urging of clear structure. I accept his argument that clean punctuation reflects, and in turn helps enforce logical discipline in the structure of writing. Despite personally tending to overuse parenthetical clauses I agree that this habit often results from a failure to focus on a linear argument. I unreservedly agree with his strictures on footnotes.

So overall, I guess you could say I largely approve his arguments, and intend to use them to modify my own practice in formal writing.

Not here but!