Not sure I'm addressing your point, but I think there's a Frost poem with the line "...the woods were lovely, dark and deep."
I was told by the head of an English department that Frost's use of "lovely" would've been a crime had he included the Oxford comma, because then he would've simply been describing the woods using three adjectives, and "lovely" is a banal, meaningless adjective for that purpose. Instead, the absence of the Oxford comma conveyed that he was explaining why the woods were lovely - because they were dark and deep.
I think the point was that the Oxford comma was to be used in a list (eggs, toast, and orange juice) and the Oxford comma was to be avoided when the latter two items in a sequence were intended to expand upon the first item in a sequence, or that the absence of the OC means that the latter two items are describing the first item (thus, omitting it in your example would technically be incorrect).
Comment on ricochet.com wrote:
