[john_horton]

Thanks - a few responses:

1. For that/which:

http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus...

I should note that some of these "rules" are bogus (a point made by Williams) and are regularly broken by great writers. Williams argues that writers should feel free to break them, but that they should just be aware of them and the possibility that they will be judged by others not aware of these rule's dubious status.

2. I would agree with you it would be impractical if someone were going to mechanically just apply all the "hits" and treat them as changes to be made---but that's not what it is for. The idea is that the writer would be reviewing the hits and making judgement calls in each case. For example, in the serial comma case, a smart writer would see that "oh, this is fine" and continue. So I think of the high false positive rate as a plus, esp. for the kind of writing this is most useful for (i.e., stuff you're going to publish & need to proofread/edit the heck out of).

I definitely agree that more linguistic knowledge would be awesome (and my Mathematica version had some of this).