I hate that saying

[Carlston]

Sports casters mostly because their popular usage is wrong from the get go.

Ironic/irony. Deals with opposites not coincidence. If a diabetic going to get insulin is hit by a truck carrying sugar it is coincidence. If it was carrying insulin that's irony. A state of affairs opposite for the desired intent and in mockery of the appropriate result.

Prodigal. Does not mean wandering,running away and returning. it means recklessly wasteful.

Sour grapes. Is not jealousy. It is about rationalizing failure. Can't reach the grapes, well they'd been sour anyway. Sports writers and others you can't force something wrong to be right by saying it over and over.

 

[maninahat]

Irregardless.
ITS NOT A REAL WORD.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless


Webster disagrees.

Yet Oxford and Encarta agree.
It's tautology at its finest; "irregardless" and "regardless" mean exactly the same thing. The former seems to be a combination of "irrespective" and "regardless" creating a whole new word that creates a double-negative.

Plus, Mirriam-Webster, though accepting that it is a word, actually encourages people to "just use regardless".

 

[maninahat]

"The exception that proves the rule."

I hate this saying because people who say clearly don't understand that it means the exact opposite of what they think. It should be;

"The exception that proofs the rule."

Pardon me, but what?

It's a scientific phrase. A scientific proof is a document compiling all the information on a given experimental procedure. The hypothesis, the test, the materials needed, the method, the kind of results and how the interpret the data. The proof would be presented to other scientists who would then try and break the experiment any way they can. If they find something that shows the experiment isn't consistent enough of many tests then it is rejected, if they can't it becomes an accepted theorem.

Later on with new information, technology and techniques old information is revisited and a new crop of scientists try to break the experiment again. If these new circumstances showed that the experiment is unsound it would be declared "The exception that proofs the rule" and it would be rejected and the whole idea rethought. In essence the rule is wrong so we need to remake it, not the rule is always right except for that one thing.

I'm aware. I was trying to be a jerkass. I'm still counting this as a success.

Specifically, to "proof" something is to "test" something, as one would traditionally "proof" fresh iron and steel to see if it is up to engineering standards.

 

[Mythbhavd]

"Would Of" as in, "If I'd had the money, I would of gone."
"Should Of"
"Could Of"

All of those are bad. It's Would/Should/Could have or a contraction of them: would've/could've/should've.

Also, might could, use to could (or eustacud), may could, might can...and so forth.

 

[Dr.Sean]

'Same difference'.

It makes.
No.
Sense.

People who use that saying should be shipped off to the Gulags/Aushwitz in a metal box.

 

[snowman6251]

"Cool Beans".

No. Beans are not cool.

 

[Eri]

others you can't force something wrong to be right by saying it over and over.

I've tried saying this multiple times, but most people say "no youre wrong! If it gets used wrong enough, it is correct!" No. No it's not.

 

[StonkThis]

"God bless you"
When people say that when I sneeze, I want to punch them. Not everyone is religious or of that religion...

Dude, calm down. I'm not even religious and I say that. Why would you even get offended regardless, they are wanting their god to bless you. Even not being religious, it wouldn't hurt.

It just annoys me. Maybe I don't want their god to bless me. It's hard to explain why I hate it so much.

It's not even religious anymore. It's just good manners.

It's still religious, but people usually don't think of it that way because that's the way most people were raised.

 

[Carlston]

others you can't force something wrong to be right by saying it over and over.

I've tried saying this multiple times, but most people say "no youre wrong! If it gets used wrong enough, it is correct!" No. No it's not.

Why the term popular usage pisses me off.
What it means is "We screwed the phrase up so many times in the past, we just don't want to correct ourselves and seems like ignorant tards."

Eh