Baby Dies in Bucket of Mom's Vomit

[Tommy Tallarico]

haven't you figure it out? The US hates it's poor and stupid.

Poor is usually a result of being stupid. Fuck stupid people.

[Yoshi]

Opaque is the new buttcheeks. That retarded comma explanation is worse than the posta explanation.

lol Opaque totally let Icarusfall off the hook as the biggest idiot in this thread too.

[Yoshi]

Poor is usually a result of being stupid. Fuck stupid people.

[Saint of Killers]

I like it when we have threads like this. Many of you prove you're just as stupid and insane as me.

Man, I wonder why we try to no ttake womens babies away? hmmm? Is because we are not dirty commies?

I'm insane but you think fucking homeless people should be allowed to raise thier kids? If NOT HAVING A FUCKING PLACE TO LIVE doesn't prove you're incapable of caring for a child, I don't know what does.

[Frogacuda]

Why does this guy have 4 different TV specials with the same exact routine in each? I fucking get it. They call you Tater Salad. Shut the fuck up about it and write some new material.

[Saint of Killers]

doesn't matter. The state can't just start taking people's kids when normally the person would be a good parent. What if the parent had just then fallen on hard times? Maybe they will only be on the street for a while, like a week or a month? You can't just swoop in and take their kid in those situtations, or ever.

parents should have certain rights. They made the kid. The kid is their family and they should have a large say in how it is raised and what happens to it. Being on the street isn't like beaing raped, beaten or flat out neglected. Taking the kid away because it's life will suck when compared to everyone else's is bullshit. Whats next? Taking poor people's kids away? Then the lower middle classes?

I'm pretty sure this is your worst post ever.

Yes you can take kids away from parents that have proven that they can't raise their children properly. It happens all the time. It's a good thing. The infant's rights to not be be fucking homeless are far more important than the parent's.

[Joust Williams]

"But not written in a fantastical way.
IE: "Downing gin and smoking cigarettes.""

If authorities said she was downing gin and smoking cigarettes, then writing "authorities said she was downing gin and smoking cigarettes" is not editorializing. Secondly, drinking 20 oz of gin in a night is pretty much "downing gin". Do you believe she wasn't downing gin? I find it hard to believe that she wasn't. Considering there was a bucket of vomit, she must drink a lot.

[Dunlap]

Why does this guy have 4 different TV specials with the same exact routine in each? I fucking get it. They call you Tater Salad. Shut the fuck up about it and write some new material.

What do expect, this guy's smoking a freaking cigar!

[flux=rad]

No, really, it's not. I contacted my editor who said it was fine. My book is being published by one of the big houses and the editor works there. Similar sentences:

The man went to the bar and never returned home after that night.
Everybody knew about the car and it would have to be towed from its spot.

Etc. It would be one thing if Opaque had written: "She should go to jail and no child should be left in her custody for the rest of her life." That is an ambiguous (and incorrect) sentence.

Look, I'm sticking up for Opaque here. I can't stand him. Nash was right, though. The best way to have said it: "She should go to jail. No child should be in her custody for the rest of her life."

I'm certainly no grammar nazi in most cases. I don't think that good writing is simply the avoidance of errors, and I'm all for the "natural" use of commas and other punctuation. I also know that publishing companies have different standards than we do in academic writing. For example, publishers do not include the additional 's' on the possessive of a name that ends with 's' (Mr. Davis' car vs Mr. Davis's car), and they often don't change verb tenses for the subjunctive ("I wish I was a sailor" vs "I wish I were a sailor").

Still, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone would find Opaque's original sentence (She should go to jail and for the rest of her life no child should be left in her custody) acceptable. Without a comma after jail, this is a run-on sentence. The first example you provided ("The man went to the bar and never returned home after that night.") is a single clause sentence with a compound predicate. 'The man' is the subject of both halves of the sentence. Putting a comma between 'bar' and 'and' would needlessly separate the subject from its second verb. The second example ("Everybody knew about the car and it would have to be towed from its spot.") is closer to the structure of Opaque's sentence, and I would argue that this sentence needs a comma after 'car.' The reason I think it needs a comma there is simple: without it, you will initially read the sentence as "everybody knew about the car and it." It seems at first that "the car and it" is the object of "about." Sure, once you keep reading the sentence you'll figure out that it's actually two independent clauses, but clear writing is clear immediately. The reader isn't supposed to have to go back and reread a sentence to be certain of its meaning.

Of course, this argument is pretty ridiculous since Opaque's sentence is well above average for internet writing. If I wanted to call someone out for poor writing skills, I'm sure I could find more extreme examples.

[Fe 26]

The infant's rights to not be be fucking homeless are far more important than the parent's.

infants do not have more rights than adults.

EDIT: I don't even know why I'm arguing with you about this. It's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about as you've completely ignored any kind of middle man like the safeway house Vasteel described.