That's a classic comment, Adw! People have been saying that about the younger generation for centuries! Haha! You're a living illustration of the fact that things never change.

correction--should read "...with an adjective (general)."

Actually, it's Majors General. It's the same as attorneys general. Both are pluralized nouns (attorneys/majors) with adjectives (major/general).

Correct, a conjunction is not needed, as you say, dogreed, but it may be used WITH a conjunction.

It seems, dogreed, that sigurd got the info from a website, and not from a book; and, therefore, there will be no role for a receipt.

The information on the website is absolutely correct. Like all punctuation, it's a way guiding the reader through the sentence. The reason we punctuate in the first place is so that the reader knows what to expect, which clauses are subordinate to others, and how to take in the information expressed in the words. If we didn't have these rules, it would be much more difficult to read texts, as we would not have the signposts of punctuation.

We could surely use a different system of punctuation--like a comma could be used where periods currently are used--and, as long as we agreed on the rules, there would be no problem.

So, rules are there for a reason. Just because someone is not aware of the conventions doesn't make them incorrect--just ignorant. I wish that all would be vigilant about making sure they punctuated correctly.

providencejim is right. It comes from the eastern coast of the U.S. The origin is seen in the following typical exchange:

Guy #1: Damn, dat girl's got a bangin' body!
Guy #2: But 'er face!

Someone took Guy #2's statement and modified it so we can now say that a girl is a butterface. Very sexist, yet oh so funny!

I would be concerned about the legality of posting something from the New York Times here without permission. I think that could lead to trouble for both the blog owner and the poster--be careful!

Ce n'est pas du tout fin, mon ami, William Safire. And to say "c'est fin," as Christ did on the cross (though of course he didn't use French) seems a bit much, now, doesn't it? But thanks for the last word on this thread. Alors, c'est vraiment fin!

It is also contradicting to write "need not". One need do something and then not do something. But if you needn't do something, it simply states that one does not need to do something. Put the words together, or it is a contradiction. Simple as that.

The issue you are talking about is transitivity. "To live" may take a direct object, as in your example, "Box turtles can live 80 years," but since the verb, "to live", may also be intransitive, your example involving "for" is also correct. "To run" (with regard to the specific definition of "ran" in your example) may be intransitive, but the object is always a distance, not a period of time. You may say, "I ran five miles" or "I ran a marathon", but you may not say, "I ran an hour and a half". If you use "to run" in other senses, i.e. if you mean it as to manage, it may also be transitive. You can "run a meeting". The issue is really just usage and how the verb has developed to either take direct objects or not to take them.