# Who is Opal?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [October 22, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441 "2005-10-22T17:45:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441/21 "2005-10-23T01:59:29Z")

</div>

> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> Well, **Hal** misused it once. But he got criticized for it, and it made him feel sheepish! 😉

And now it really gets his goat.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441/22 "2005-10-23T02:30:21Z")

</div>

BTW, I don’t see anyone saying that Opal was _wrong to begin with_.

At any rate, I can’t find any justification for saying that numbered lists must have at least three items in my _Chicago Manual of Style_. Why would anyone make this claim? It seems like a silly affectation to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441/23 "2005-10-23T02:35:46Z")

</div>

> [@Exapno Mapcase](#):
>
> BTW, I don’t see anyone saying that Opal was _wrong to begin with_.
> 
> At any rate, I can’t find any justification for saying that numbered lists must have at least three items in my _Chicago Manual of Style_. Why would anyone make this claim? It seems like a silly affectation to me.

It’s now in the _Chicago **Reader** Manual of Style_. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tomcat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Tomcat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tomcat)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441/24 "2005-10-23T08:03:17Z")

</div>

> [@Exapno Mapcase](#):
>
> BTW, I don’t see anyone saying that Opal was _wrong to begin with_.
> 
> At any rate, I can’t find any justification for saying that numbered lists must have at least three items in my _Chicago Manual of Style_. Why would anyone make this claim? It seems like a silly affectation to me.

My WAG is that if you do not have 3 items to list, then a simple “A & B” in a sentence or two suffices. Using a list of bullets or numbered points when an either/or works is a bit silly.

"The differences outlined in the discussion basically came down to using two or three items in a list.

-vs-

The differences outlined in the discussion of how many items should be in a list basically were:

1. Two
2. Three
3. Hi Opal!"

-Tcat

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\
**Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441/25 "2005-10-24T01:57:29Z")

</div>

Asked and answered.

TubaDiva

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-opal/327441.md?page=1)