"which" vs "that"

"That is something, up with which, I will not put."

 

"Comma sprinklers" versus "non-comma sprinklers?" Isn't that getting off topic?

 

I don't care (which is obvious from my posts) :D

 

"This" makes some good points. It's worth a read. However, it's completely wrong here:

Pullum, the author of the article, is arguing something to the effect that Wilde, Stoker, and Montgomery couldn't have been in error in one matter because, if they had been, that would render them as not knowing how to write. There's a clear logical fallacy there. All people great in their field have flaws and sometimes err. No one is perfect. Those among great authors who have written the equivalent of "No one are perfect," have, in fact, made an error. That they are otherwise competent grammarians does not render the error correct, and neither does the fact they made an error demote them to being unable to write. Pullum's logical fallacy is a form of Appeal to Authority ('if these three authorities did it, it must be correct') compounded with the cognitive all-or-nothing fallacy ('but if they were in error here, then we must strip them of their authority and render them as not having known how to write'). That's an unpersuasive argument.

Worse is his asking us to accept that three examples constitutes the usage of the day. How many examples of correct usage could be found in all that literature that he didn't present?

"One" is singular. It doesn't get more singular. That's all the evidence one needs to know the cases with plural agreement are errors. So, when you write none in the sense of 'no one' or 'not one,' use the singular verb.

 

I don't know how authoritative it is considered to be either, but the argument in what you quoted is more persuasive than Pullum's.