"We want to be nothing if not persistent." - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 07/10/2011 02:44:20 PM
That, and shields. We LIKE shields. 
' />
There are at least 3, surely. But they don't contradict each other because they apply to different sets of words. There's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using " 's ", there's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using just the "s" with no apostrophe, and there's a rule for the treatment of "its" and "it's".
tl;dr, you're still wrong
What, exactly, makes them "different sets" of words? Different genitive declensions? I am kind of sleepy so you may have to jog my memory about the words (other than "its") that form possessives with "s" but no apostrophe. At present I can only think of zeebs examples, which, as I stated to her, are already possessive pronouns before adding "s," but acquire it when not immediately followed by their object. There are still three rules though, because words that end in "s" form possessives with the apostrophe alone, for obvious reasons. Again, I do not object to new rules when such compelling reasons exist, but creating one for NO reason, particularly if it affects but a single word, is bizarre. If I convince a majority of the public and scholars to spell "fly" with "ie" when referring to the insect, is it a legitimate rule? 
' />There are TWO rules, in direct contradiction. It is consequently impossible to be "right;" being "not wrong" is the only option, and inconsistency is a poor start toward that goal. One of the two rules is unique, arbitrary, unnecessary and confusing, hence I find those same objections to my habit unconvincing reasons to abandon it. The principal differences between that rule and my usage is that the latter is 1) consistent and uniform but 2) less popular. That alone is a rather weak claim to orthodoxy, particular at the expense of clarity and functionality.
There are at least 3, surely. But they don't contradict each other because they apply to different sets of words. There's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using " 's ", there's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using just the "s" with no apostrophe, and there's a rule for the treatment of "its" and "it's".
tl;dr, you're still wrong
What, exactly, makes them "different sets" of words? Different genitive declensions?
I am kind of sleepy so you may have to jog my memory about the words (other than "its") that form possessives with "s" but no apostrophe. At present I can only think of zeebs examples, which, as I stated to her, are already possessive pronouns before adding "s," but acquire it when not immediately followed by their object. There are still three rules though, because words that end in "s" form possessives with the apostrophe alone, for obvious reasons. Again, I do not object to new rules when such compelling reasons exist, but creating one for NO reason, particularly if it affects but a single word, is bizarre. If I convince a majority of the public and scholars to spell "fly" with "ie" when referring to the insect, is it a legitimate rule?