"I dedicate this post to my brother, UltiPig, and my dog." This could easily be interpreted as UltiPig is my brother whom I am dedicating this post to along with my dog. However "... to my brother, UltiPig and my dog." avoids this. The serial comma has it's place to avoid ambiguity, which it doesn't in your example.
Davie, your example, "...to my brother, UltiPig, and my dog," isn't correct because there is a parallel structure error. You need to include "my" when you mention me, so it would need to be "...to my brother, my friend UltiPig, and my dog." Without the serial comma in your example, your brother is "UltiPig and my dog" (a strange name). Look up "Oxford comma" on Google Images for a better example if you want to. :)
Tuqueque, this is my last grammar-related post. I don't want to post controversial stuff anymore. It would make EMC a better place. *repetitive smiley face*
Things regarding the Oxford comma mostly haven't been set into stone (at least not in Dutch), so it's mostly up to personal preference, or the guidelines of the company you're working for. :)
A lack of parallel structure is not grammatically incorrect nor does it cause the confusion in Davie's example. Parallel structure is simply to improve the flow of reading, but it isn't necessary.
I use the Oxford comma when I can, but realistically sometimes, such as in Davie's example, it does not make sense to (just as in some cases it doesn't make sense NOT to). Realistically, "Ultipig and my dog" would never be somebody's name, and thus there's no confusion in Davie's Oxford-comma-less sentence.
Comments on Profile Post by ultipig