[Stefan_H]

And with your clever repartee, no one will be able to contradict you.

Sarcasm aside, your comment is useless. I think that there is still significant ambiguity in the sentence as written as you parent comment does. It is only saved by the fact that after the "and" is "two onlookers", allowing the reader to make logical sense of the sentence, but it still holds ambiguity.

[mhurron]

You're wrong.

Read nbroyal's response above as to why. A, b and c is quite grammatically clearly a list.

It may be unclear if you are not a native English speaker, but it is grammatically unambiguous.

Eats, shoots and leaves.

[nitrogen]

Maybe there is some regional variation in how unambiguous this construct is. I can easily interpret your final sentence, "Eats, shoots and leaves," as saying that "eats" (n) are shoots (as in bamboo shoots) and edible leaves.

[Stefan_H]

If you initially parse everything after the comma as the aside, you then have only the fact that "two onlookers" is not something that George coul be to allow you to understand the sentence.