That colon’s no good either.
This is in fact correct, the rest of her reasoning isn’t.
Where you’d use it is something like this:
The box contains: red, white, and blue crayons; A4 and A3 paper; and instructions written in English, Spanish, and French.
To summarize, the debates always boil down to: Journalists are pressed for physical space, and therefore don’t use it. Most other fields do use it, because it’s demonstrably clearer. Which camp you fall in depends on how you learned to write, or who taught you. Whichever camp you’re in, the other camp are idiots, and your correct use/nonuse of the serial comma must be defended to the death.
Well, I don’t know about that, but I’d defend it to the point of starvation, disfigurement and shunning.
I’m much more mortally concerned with series that are not parallel. They are annoying, grating and irk me.
Don’t ever take a course on electronic circuits.
IMO, the “semi-colon as super-comma” rationale indicates the writing needs to be tightened up. A single sentence that contains a list of qualities, that in turn each contain a subset of other qualities, is a sentence that is too complicated. (And that’s an ugly sentence, but you get my drift.) I would never write “Given A, B, and C; X, Y, and Z; and 1, 2 and 3 . . .” regardless of whether it was strictly correct or not.
As far as correctness is concerned: I was taught that a list set off with semi-colons required a colon, whereas a list set off with commas did not. The complexity of your sentence dictates which structure is used. Quartz gave a good example of a sentence in which semi-colons are properly used to separate a list of items, where the list is introduced by a colon.
Not really. Some of us don’t really give a shit about the issue. I grew up with AP Style, but have since thought about it and prefer to punctuate my prose Chicago Style. As long as a writer (or publication) is consistent, either is fine by me.
So I’m not just wrong. I’m wrong twice. Thanks for the info.
I hate semicolons.
Hmm…I seem to recall a rule that you’re not supposed to use a colon between a verb and its object, as you have. For example you sentence would be okay like this:
The box contains the following: red, white and blue crayons; A4 and A4 paper; etc…
But, as written, the colon is superfluous.
I don’t have any style books at hand, but a quick web search finds this, among a bunch of other sources that seem to agree with me.
I was thinking that too, but then thought the list might call for it.
I think that’s the general rule, but it doesn’t take into consideration that the object is a compound list (i.e., a list of lists), which you want to set off from the rest of the sentence for coherence. For example, a reader scanning the sentence “The box contains red, white and blue crayons; A4 and A3 paper; and etc . . .” may be jarred by the second item of the list, since until he/she gets to it, they don’t know they’re reading a compound list. The reader thinks, “Okay, the box contains red, white, and blue crayons . . . semi-colon? What? Oh, it’s a compound list.” Whereas if you set the list off with a colon, the reader knows that’s what is coming: “The box contains: A, B, and C; X, Y, and Z; and 1, 2, and 3.” So IMO the colon is not superfluous in that case, but serves a purpose.
What is superfluous is filler language like “the following.” IMO, anytime the sentence would be acceptable with the inclusion of filler language, then it should be acceptable with the filler left out – and filler should almost always be left out.
IOW, I agree that as a general rule a colon should not follow a verb (since the verb does the same function as the colon: introduces the object). But I think the compound list is an exception to that rule because in that case the colon adds clarity to an otherwise confusing sentence.
Well, I have an AP Style handbook here, so if anyone has Chicago Style, please look under semicolons. My AP Stylebook does not use a colon in that sort of case, and I personally think a colon looks weird there. Maybe Chicago Style disagrees, but here is the example:
I assume, if I’m understanding you correctly, that you would put a colon after “leaves” in that example. I would not. I’m curious to see if Chicago Style advocates this usage or not.
Nice one. (I hate those too.)
Actually, I wouldn’t use a colon after “leaves” in that example, because the first item in the list is not itself a compound item. The confusion I’m talking about therefore doesn’t exist – i.e., you think you’re reading a list, and only when you reach the first semi-colon do you understand you are reading a compound list. If you re-arranged the sentence so that the first item is itself a list (the “three daughters”), then I would use a colon.
Thus:
He leaves a son, John Smith of Chicago; three daughters, Jane Smith of Wichita, Kan., Mary Smith of Denver, and Susan, wife of Williame Kingsbury of Boston; and a sister, Martha, wife of Robert Warren of Omaha, Neb.
But:
He leaves: three daughters, Jane Smith of Wichita, Kan., Mary Smith of Denver, and Susan, wife of Williame Kingsbury of Boston; a son, John Smith of Chicago; and a sister, Martha, wife of Robert Warren of Omaha, Neb.
IOW, I would use a colon if it clarified the sentence, and I wouldn’t if it didn’t. I have no idea what any style manual says about it. 
Allright, I admit it. I put the colon in to cause more trouble. I can’t spell worth a darn either. When the SDMB has a spellcheck function, my posts will look much better.
One of my colleagues hates semicolons so much that she tells her students not to use them at all. I think they may, in fact, be slowly fading from use. Most people prefer to use a comma and a conjunction or some other construction rather than to mess with a semicolon.
YMMV
A rule that serves me well for the serial comma is to use it in academic writing and leave it out in business writing.
“Allright” should be two words. 
OK, now I’m just being obnoxious. Please excuse me.
Just like sentence fragments. Nasty, annoying things.