Not to pop your balloon, Dean, but it depends on whether you follow the Oxford or Cambridge grammar style. Both are correct, and both have serious and legitimate followings. I happen to follow the Cambridge rules. While "and" is indeed one of the conjunctions, the only legitimate times to leave out the comma before "and" are: when the two items are part of a nominative pair, such as "peas and carrots" or when a list of alternates are presented (though the Oxford style requires a comma prior to the an joining the last clause to the list of alternates. The use of comma before "and" when dealing with separate actions is actually correct, though I understand that the rules of grammar (as epitomized by the Microsoft rules of grammar) suggest Americans have a third convention in this regard. As with American ideomatic spelling, it is not something I care to follow since I am not (thank whatever diety you choose to address) and American. Well, I am an American, being Canadian, but since Usians have stolen the term "American" and claim it as their own I will concede that I am decidedly not American, and will not follow American rules of spelling or grammar.

I do understand that Americans have grammar rules, however, they are not the rules of English as I know it and love it* **. Yes I make mistakes, especially when dealing with things on-screen. I also find it difficult to proof my own work since I get bogged down in meaning rather than syntax and grammar in my own work. I do accept correction - but lets be clear about which rules of grammar are being criticized. I no longer use full English spelling, though for the longest time I did, since that was required of me. However, I do use the Cambridge rules of grammar and follow then automatically.

Elipses (the ...) strike me as a casual affectation, and, unless I have access to a word processor which allows for the proper use of he en and em bar, prefer not to use a "-" in my writing***. I am here precisely to hone my skill. Of course my sentences are too long. If I wrote tightly I would not be here, nor would I need to be.

All of which is to say - be as harsh as you care to be Dean - crticism is always useful. However, I will reject criticism that is based solely on American rules of grammar or spelling - (em bar, of course) since they are an abomination unto the eyes of the Lord and and a curse unto His ears, and, being a devout follower of a Jesuit education, I reject that kind of perversion (rotflmao).

*as an aside, the Oxford convention would be ; however, in the above sentence
** I am told that Americans speak and write English. I would take exception to that, or, if it is the case that English is used, would suggest a proper dictionary (the Unabridged OED springs to mind)
*** the en bar is properly used in numbers, the em bar is used in grammar. Thus, 1980-1989 requires the en bar, while the phrase - meaningless to some - uses the em bar twice, once before and once after the aside. The use of the minus sign the "-" properly only is used in depicting negative numbers of a subtraction.