I.O.U. — I'll describe-and-explain later, with links to pages that agree with me (Grammar Girl, Wikipedia,...) and some that don't. But for now, if you see me do any of these things, please realize that I know “the rule” and I know some people won't like it, but I (along with many other intelligent writers) disagree with the narrow thinking of the rule-definers.
silly "rules" for grammar: I often use split infinitives (to boldly go...) because usually this word-order is easier to understand — because usually the adverb ("boldly") should be placed before the verb ("go") as in "to boldly go [intro for Star Trek]" — and this usually flows better because the logical order-of-words is not distorted just to avoid "splitting" the infinitive; also, I don't feel guilty about beginning a sentence with and/but/or. {and later I'll add other silly rules} As an example of a silly avoidance, consider the meaning of this sentence by W.E.B. Du Bois: "To stimulate wildly weak and untrained minds is to play with mighty fires." Before reading on, think about what he intended to say. Did he really mean "wildly weak" minds? Or did his intended meaning get distorted by an illogical sequencing of words, thus causing confusion, because he wanted to avoid splitting the infinitive? I would prefer the split infinitive, with clarity! A reader should not have to read a sentence two (or more) times, to understand it, and sometimes this goal of clarity is achieved by putting the adverb before its verb (in the logical sequence of "adverb verb") with a split infinitive: To wildly stimulate weak and untrained minds is to play with mighty fires. Wikipedia describes the problem and a benefit of splitting: "The Columbia Guide to Standard American English notes that the split infinitive ‘eliminates all possibility of ambiguity’, in contrast to the ‘potential for confusion’ in an unsplit construction."
commas & periods with quotation marks: two sets of commonly used rules overlap/agree in many situations, but when they disagree I tend to use "logical" punctuation (British) instead of the arbitrary "typesetter" rules (American), but not always. / Also, I often follow the British custom of not putting a comma after "i.e." or "e.g.", rather than the American custom (which isn't a "rule") of using a comma, as in "i.e.," or "e.g.,"; I think either way is fine, and (even though I think the two consecutive punctuation marks in ".," looks strange) I won't criticize writers who use commas because they want to follow the American custom, or to show proper rhythm when it's spoken, "that is," or "for example,".
stylistic use of commas and parentheses: Yes, I use these more than some writers, but it's intentional because I think others should do it more, not me do it less. Why? Because commas can improve clarity and efficiency-of-reading (when using parentheses), and (with commas) for clarity so a reader won't have to read a sentence twice. {later, examples will be here} I also think it's helpful to use hyphens to "group" clusters of related words, as in "efficiency-of-reading", for clarity and thus efficiency, so you don't have to read a phrase twice, or continue onward without really understanding it.
silly spellings — For example, remembering is correct, so (logically) I should be able to use transfering (which I do) instead of the ugly transferring with an extra "r" that is technically correct but illogical. But unless there is a logical reason to resist it, as in these examples, I always try to use the accepted "correct" spelling.