Ranking top 5 rookie running backs by who will be most productive in 2024: Trey Benson leads the way

[Crimson Warrior]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

A pause, for dramatic effect alone, is not grammatical. It can’t, cover up other, grammatical errors. You can’t cover up a comma splice, and say it’s for dramatic effect.

That’s why, misplaced commas are a thing.

You’re sooooo dramatic!

 

[Stout]

I do it without thinking and go back and edit it out to hide my age.

Blasphemy. Failure to use the oxford comma is akin to eating with poo on your hands

 

[daves]

I stated that it is grammatically correct to have a comma after the first word of a sentence, which others argued against.

Literally no one argued this.

@GoldGloveschmidt noted the typo and asked, "Why is there a comma there?", which is a valid question given that putting a comma there makes the sentence false and even if it were true, makes no sense in context, as it's not a retort to someone claiming that "no RBs were selected in the first round".

You came in stating, "You can have a comma at the beginning of the sentence with just the word No." Everyone knows this and no one has claimed otherwise, so you were apparently already on the wrong track.

When @gimpy agreed with you but pointed out that it changes the meaning of the sentence, you followed with, "Exactly. The comma at the beginning was to note a pause" - missing the point about the changed meaning making the comma in correct in this use.

It's as if you're determined to misinterpret everyone else's criticism of the article and keep arguing a point that's irrelevant and has not been opposed by anyone.

 

[SECTION 11]

It’s grammatically incorrect. There is no debating it.

 

[SECTION 11]

Ok, you can debate it, but you’d be wrong.

 

[legend]

Has Benson signed, yet?
If not, what could possibly be the snag?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Literally no one argued this.

@GoldGloveschmidt noted the typo and asked, "Why is there a comma there?", which is a valid question given that putting a comma there makes the sentence false and even if it were true, makes no sense in context, as it's not a retort to someone claiming that "no RBs were selected in the first round".

You came in stating, "You can have a comma at the beginning of the sentence with just the word No." Everyone knows this and no one has claimed otherwise, so you were apparently already on the wrong track.

When @gimpy agreed with you but pointed out that it changes the meaning of the sentence, you followed with, "Exactly. The comma at the beginning was to note a pause" - missing the point about the changed meaning making the comma in correct in this use.

It's as if you're determined to misinterpret everyone else's criticism of the article and keep arguing a point that's irrelevant and has not been opposed by anyone.

That's rich. You and just about everyone else debating has been misinterpreting my posts.

I spoke about the article exactly one time, what you quoted above. I didn't even read the full article after the first paragraph.

The rest of the time there has been a discussion on whether a comma, used as a pause for dramatic effect is even a thing. You are being disingenuous at best here trying to summarize my point, so I will state it again clearly.

Without taking anything in the article as context. ' No, running backs were taken in the first round of the 2024 NFL Draft -- so it's a challenge to sort which runners will be the most effective as rookies. This is a grammatically correct statement. The No or the comma immediately afterward will be caught by Grammarly, Outlook, or any other grammar checker.

That is the only point that I am making. If you want to debate that point, let's do so. If not, that works for me too.