Why aren't colons optional?

[Courageous]

>On the other hand, those very "stodgy old grammaticians" are the very people 
>that allow other people to 'scale', understand a language, test limits 
>etc.... Without those persons, there would be no room to expand. What I mean 
>is that those very persons contribute to the whole. Every part is useful to 
>the whole, whether you agree with its usefulness or not. The very thing that 
>defines something as bad is "useful" in that it allows us to use it as a 
>model (or the opposite of) to follow/avoid.

Certainly. When I think of these things, I recall old memes, antiquated
and out of date: "Thou shalt not end a sentence with a preposition."
"Sentences are not to be begun with a conjunction." "Objects of the verb
'to be' or to be left in subjective case."

Ever pick up the phone and say "It's me"?. This is incorrect. In modern
American English, strict grammatical rules requires that objects of the
verb to be always be left in the subjective form. This, however, doesn't
account for how the vast majority of American English speakers actually
_use_ the language, which suggests to me that some stodgy old grammaticians
somewhere have neglected to stay informed of current affairs.

Language is dynamic. The people determine it's correctness, not a few
privileged folks in an ivory tower.

Speaking of rule breaking, "Way cool, dude." That's a comprehensible
sentence. And it's perfectly legitimate to write it, although they might
not teach you that in 11th grade English composition.

C//