... and I hope everyone is aware of both the virtues and the limits of that work.

I'm not. Care to enlighten me?

There was a good article in the Chronicle of Higher Education a while back:

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...

Note that Pullum is also the one who's probably written the most about this on LL, but certainly that's a nice consolidated case instead of a scattering of examples - thanks! :)

Virtues: A lot of the style rules are great guidelines.

Limitations:

minor:

Style rules shouldn't be followed when they make things awkward or harder to understand; that's more a problem with some readers than the book, but it's something to keep in mind...

less minor:

A lot of the grammar proscriptions are confused at best (and not followed by the authors themselves, in that work or others). Language Log has oodles of examples: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll

A fun parlor game: choose a claim from the book that you think the book itself follows. Then your opponent has 5 minutes to find a counter-example.

Very nice.