I think it was literally Mad TV. That skit literally makes me vomit until my spine literally comes out of my mouth. Literally.
Drives me bananas.
Dan Rather during the first shuttle landing:
Isn’t it ironic?
[Inigo]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[/Inigo]
I too am immeasurably bothered by the misuse of literally. I find the unnecessary use quite insufferable.
Little Bird - you literally beat me to it.
I guess I am going to have to find a source of quotes that no-one else knows…
My favourite/most abhorred version of this is, “I literally died” not merely because of the manifest untruth of the statement but because mere utterance of it demonstrates convincingly how richly deserved that outcome would have been.
The fact that people have been making this same mistake for years is only really useful as a refutation of the idea that modern education isn’t a patch on the stuff we had x years ago, where x is approximately the age of the speaker minus 10. People were stupid then, they’re stupid now. Pointing to other stupid people and saying “Hey, they’re doing it too” is an argument, sure, but not necessarily a convincing one.
Arguing that “literally” has a figurative meaning is either disingenuous or wilfully ignorant - “Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less” if I may misquote Humpty Dumpty. Is “literally” the only word with an entirely antonymous figurative meaning? How about “figuratively”? Sure, it literally means figuratively, but figuratively it means “literally”. Why not?
“I stormed out and figuratively slammed the door behind me.”
What other words can we assign figurative meanings too? Can anyone do it? (“Anyone” literally - in the figurative sense- means Richard the Lionheart, by the way. Just to clear up any possible confusion - by which I mean literally any possible oilstains)
It’s madness. Words mean what they say they mean. We use them to express ideas with clarity. The more meanings we assign any given word, the more ambiguity creeps in. I hate that. I wouldn’t mind if it strode in, took the best seat and the last cold beer and said “Hi, I’m ambiguity.” Which wouldn’t exactly be in character.
AMR
Oh, and inflammable is the correct usage. “In-” in this case is not a negative. It means “capable of going up in flames”.
Yup, inflammable is correct but it has fallen out of use in favor of flammable because many people thought it meant unflammable which is the opposite. We still say to “inflame” though or “inflamming”. Like induce and other words, the prefix is not a negation but it means “in” here (into flames).
I’d just like to take this time to mention that I literally loathe the 
smilie.
(Steps in front of all the flame-throwers aimed this way and says…)
I think you guys are a little uptight about this. I use it in this way frequently for effect.
When you hear someone say, “That bastard owes me money.” Do you get all upset that the person in question is not really illegitimate?
Or, “I’ve got a million things to do.” Do you really think to yourselves, ‘he/she dosn’t really have a million things to do’, that bothers me that they’ve used that word wrongly?
Try this: “When I saw him, I just about had a cow!” Really? Were they this close to literally having an actual cow? No. Were you bothered by their lying?
There are countless examples. WAY too many to mention. Read Dave Barry.
Not funny - He irritates me.
Funny - He drives me up the wall.
Funnier - He literally drives me up the wall.
Not all conversation strives to live up to Strunk and White.
It causes you to have a mental image of something (funny) that can’t really happen. Comedians use this type of thing all the time when they say, “This is a true story…”
What literally twists the knife is when they pronounce it “lit-tral-ly” instead of “lit-er-al-ly”. That literally makes my ears bleed.
Of course not. It is obvious from context that the “million” is used figuratively. If the hypothetical speaker had said “I literally have a million things to do,” then they damn well better be able to enumerate them. Otherwise the speaker has misused the word literally.
Again, the absence of the word “literally” clearly indicates the statement was meant figuratively.
Just because someone makes a living as a writer doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong. You should read Mark Twain’s critique of “The Deerslayer”.
“Learn to use the word LITERALLY!!”
—Learn to use WHAT word literally?
[English teacher: “There are two words in the English language one must never use. One of them is ‘swell,’ and the other is ‘lousy.’”
Lucy Ricardo: “What are they?”]
Bird.
Bird is the word.
ARGH!!! Nothing but a bunch of pedantic grammarians here, eh? 
Just like Astro posted, American Heritage says “literally” as an intensifier has been used for over 100 years.
Here’s the cite:
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition.)
What is the big deal about using “literally” as an intensifier? Have y’all not heard of hyperbole? Next thing is you’re gonna get on my balls for saying “I couldn’t care less” and “I could care less” are both OK. And yes they are.
The use of literally as an intesifier is bad because it not needed as an intesifier (we alread have “really” and “totally”), and using it as such weakens a word that does serve a purpose.
“Literally,” in its useful sense, means, “Even though my statement may seem unbelievable or be couched in terms of a common figurative expression, I am not using hyperbole or speaking figuratively.” If “literally” is routinely tacked on to hyperbole, from the mildest to the most outrageous, it loses its meaning as a marker of a literal statement.
If I say, “The pain was so bad I was literally curled up in a ball,” the listener is left to wonder, “Does Podkayne really understand the word ‘literally?’ Was she actually curled up in a ball, or is she just exaggerating?”
If I say, “He has literally thousands of CDs in his collection,” the listener wonders, “Really? Thousands? Or does he just have a lot?”
So now if I make a literal statement that might be confused with an exaggeration or a figurative expression, I can either use “literally” and hope that the listener doesn’t think I’m an illiterate moron–or that he isn’t an unlettered buffoon himself–or I can append all statements with, “No, really, I really mean it.”
Agree with Podkayne and others in favor of the “keep literally pure” camp.
If ‘literally’ gets relegated to a mere intensifier, how do we express that something really, not figuratively, happened?
A few of the “best” ones I’ve heard:
“The stuff I was reading about bin Laden yesterday literally scared the pants off me.”
(these from a realtor)
“That house is literally a piece of shit.”
“The garden of their house is literally the 605 freeway.”
Are you guys really that uncreative? How about a simple “actually?” Or omitting the “literally” all together?
It’s nothing to do with being “uncreative”, actually. It’s to do with wishing to express yourself clearly and accurately and even, if you’re feeling particularly daring, to use nuance to create subtle shades of meaning. This sort of thing becomes difficult when you cannot tell how your audience is going to interpret what you say. One solution is to surrender and cease to use words which are commonly misused. This strategy only has so much for going for it, as it does tend to tacitly encourage the misuse of words, or perhaps the subversion of words would be a better term.
Consider:
“The floor was so messy you literally couldn’t see the carpet”.
“The floor was so messy you actually couldn’t see the carpet”.
Similar in meaning, sure, but different, I would say, in tone. To me, the word “actually” renders the sentence dull, a mere statement of quotidian fact. The word “literally”, on the other hand, suggests a situation so extreme that the reader/listener is not expected to believe it, yet should accept it word for word.
Omitting the “literally” altogether solves nothing, as it leaves our audience guessing whether or not to take this statement literally.
As an exercise, try replacing the last word in the first sentence with the last word in the sentence above. Doesn’t work, does it?
If simpletons can’t keep the meaning of “literally” pure, why will they stop with “actually”?
As noted before, the word “literally” is used to indicate a statement is literally true, not figurative. Without “literally” a statement can reasonablly be considered figurative. Go back and read Podkayne’s excellent post.
I’ll grant you the point you made in your earlier post that the dictionary, including Merriam-Webster, includes the use of literally as an intensifier.
I respectfully disagree. I will continue to criticize sense 2 as a misuse. So will these folks
(invisible smilie link)
(another, just for fun)
There is even a organized fight against the misuse of literally.
Important guy from Canada expounds on the subject here. Robert Fulford is a Toronto author, journalist, broadcaster, and editor. He writes a weekly column for The National Post and is a frequent contributor to Toronto Life, Canadian Art, and CBC radio and television. His books include Best Seat in the House: Memoirs of a Lucky Man (1988), Accidental City: The Transformation of Toronto (1995), and Toronto Discovered (1998).