Here will go the links to people who I agree/disagree with. Here are those who polemics I denounce, and those who also sort through the vitriol to determine what’s really right. And some standard-bearers whose opinions you should be familiar with, right or wrong. This list is still expanding, as is probably obvious.
Jack Lynch’s Guide to Grammar and Style – an English professor from my old New Jersey stompin’ grounds who I think has it mostly right. Lots of good stuff on usage, delivered not as a browbeating to scare you into agreeing with him, but as gentle advice to avoid pitfalls and punks who believe their language usage doesn’t stink.
Paul Brians’s list of errors and non-errors – tons of advice, most of which (if at times a bit harsh) seems to jibe with my intuitions. His list of non-errors is top-notch, denouncing oodles of bad advice that old curmudgeons brainlessly repeat.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage (full view on Google Books) – a quite nice reference on both proper and actual usage. Pretty up-to-date (1994), and not wedded to old beliefs. Sufficiently popular amongst linguists manning the ramparts against prescriptivism that we just call it MWDEU — which is still an unfortunately awkward name.
William Strunk’s The Elements of Style (1918) – predecessor to that little book foist upon you as a college freshman, full of questionably valid complaints about what those kids and business folks are saying and writing. Somewhat less supercilious than most grammar books, but still utterly convinced of its moral rectitude.
H. W. Fowler’s The King’s English (1908) – from the pen of the man who first suggested that which and that should carve other their own niches. It’s about British English though, so some of the prescriptions might seem a bit daft, while others might go so far as to be crackers.
Why are you saying these things?
The Normative Reference to h3h English – an example of the sort of thing that I hope you do not do. In some ways this is a great idea – everyone has their own style and it’s nice to see someone actually specify their conventions. The problem in the blind application of some of the rules (e.g., writing et. al. instead of et al. to put periods after every word in an abbreviation, even though et is not an abbreviation in et al.) and the vicious defense of the questionable motivation behind some of the rules (e.g., the hopefully tongue-in-cheek claim that using different from upholds “correctness and patriotism”).
The Oxford English Dictionary (1989 edition, subscription-based) – definitions, complete with etymologies and timelines of cited usage. It’s sufficiently conservative that few would fault you as a crusader for common usage(!) if you cite usage data from here.