Page 4: Âmarines deliberately left uncapitalized (itÂs Â250 U.S. Marines, but Â250 marinesÂ). See Chicago Manual of Style 13th Edition (hereafter CMS-13), 7.93.I feel in a way like some fanatical Christianist waving the Holy Scriptures around when I cite the Chicago Manual of Style, but this tome has been my oracle for several decades now (I've sorta stopped with the thirteenth edition because the fifteenth seemed rather tarted up). I can't wait for her to throw whatever bullshit authority she's relying upon up at me: The AP Style Manual? The University of Chicago pisses on the Associated Press! Hell, even non-believers acknowledge a hierarchy of superstition, and grant the Church of Rome more street cred than the First True Bupkis Church of Holy Snakehandlers of Rectum, Alabama.
Page 5: I donÂt find Âan estimated third of a million to be significantly more awkward than your suggestion Ânearly half a million, but letÂs compromise with Âover a quarter of a million, which has the virtue of being numerically closer to the actual figure than Ânearly half.Â
Page 5, penultimate line: No. That comma does not belong. On commas generally: Where your recommended placements do not offend me, I have generally accommodated you; elsewhere I have not. Please refer to the CMS-13 5.24-5.67. See also Âopen vs. Âclose punctuation, CMS-13 5.1-5.2
Page 11: Italics for ÂSan Francisco, yes; italics for ÂThe, no. See CMS-13 7.131 (note that itÂs also ÂThe New York Times, and CMS is adamant and explicit in excluding the definite article)
Page 13: Had I meant Âcriticize, I would not have not have employed Âexcoriate. Be good enough to assume that I do not pluck words out of my ass.
Page 15: ÂApril 18th., ÂAs previously noted, I do not presume to alter the orthography and punctuation of primary sources. [X] typed it that way, and so it will remain.
Page 16: Again, while we may condense, we cannot otherwise modify primary sources.
Page 17: Fine, you can have Âwith a will, although I canÂt begin to imagine what the objection to it might be.
Page 17: See page 13. Sheesh.
Page 19: Ya know, upon reflection even I will concede that Âraiments is a trifleÂhow shall I put itÂa trifle obscure for this century, but good lord, Âan array is an almost surrealistically unsuitable as a substitute. IÂve dropped the word altogether.
Page 20: The photograph dates from 2006. I donÂt know that itÂs necessary to state this in the caption.
Page 31: Âfar the largest (vs. your Âby far the largestÂ) is a perfectly acceptable and established usage, even if you are not familiar with it. IÂve rendered it here as Âthe largest.Â
Page 33: Nix on your line 1 comma. Penultimate line, same paragraph, emphatically no on the comma. Absolutely not. You need to purchase a copy of the Chicago Manual and sleep with it under your pillow.
Page 37: Fine, your IMDB chops pass muster, but I canÂt agree here. If [X] had been portrayed by, oh, James Mason or Leo G. Carroll, that would be worth mentioning, but since [Y] was an obscure (if obviously hardworking) character actor who spent almost his entire career in television and is today forgotten (I am willing to wager that if you stopped pedestrians on Market Street and asked them to identify [Y], you would reach your next birthday before anyone responded with the correct answer), and since he does not even appear in the film credits, naming him here is a distraction.
Page 39: ÂThe Beaux Arts aesthetic has been relentless  (ÂChoice of wording gives pauseÂ) And IÂm very glad of that. During the pause, the reader may call to mind the earlier discussion (p. 25) of the Beaux Arts Âhierarchy of spaces. Choice of wording stands.
Page 39, third paragraph: (Is Âs needed?) ÂSince thereÂs more than one conduit, I thought that throwing in the Âs would be a tidy and economical way of conveying the fact.
Page 39, third paragraph: I love a semicolon in its place. Its place is not where you have indicated, however. Better to split the sentence at that point.
Page 41, first line: LetÂs just assume going forward that when I ignore your inserted commas I have my reasons.
Page 41, third paragraph: Your substitution of Âutilized on the seismic retrofit for Âbrought to bear on the project strikes me as unnecessary, and would also involve us in a repetition of Âretrofit in consecutive sentences.
Page 44: 1880Âs ÂNix on the apostrophe. See CMS-13 6.9.
Page 45: [X] did not employ a comma where you wish to insert one, and even though I am inclined to agree with you here, we will respect his wishes given that we are quoting him.
Page 45, last line: No, this is not an appropriate place for a semicolon either.
I enter the new year full of piss and vinegar, and particularly piss.
cordially,