People who say “Geneva convention” (singular), when it’s “Geneva conventions” (plural), i.e., a set of conventions or protocols to be followed. True, someone might be referring to one of the conventions/protocols/rules, but more likely, they’re erroneously referring to some hypothetical big meeting itself where all this stuff was decided.
The conventions have evolved and been added to over the years. In today’s wars they seem to be largely ignored. 
But if you do it wrong, you do diffuse it. Or rather, it becomes more diffuse of its own accord. 
I’d guess probably half of all references to the Geneva Conventions reveal an ignorance of what they are.
The general assumption is that the Geneva Conventions lay out all rules for war. When I was in the army I probably heard two dozen people say this weapon or that weapon, like hollow point bullets, are “against the Geneva Convention.” Well, no. The Geneva Conventions say nothing about bullets - that’s the Hague Convention. Nor do the Geneva Conventions forbid the use of gas in warfare - but the Chemical Weapons Convention does.
The Geneva Conventions are specifically rules of war concerning who is or is not a legitimate target in war and how people who aren’t should be treated humanely.
Quibbling about ‘wrong’ usage (disinterested, belie, beg the question etc) is pretty pointless since over time usage convention just changes if enough people are ‘wrong’. Disinterested is one where it has pretty much officially changed to the previously ‘wrong’ definition of ‘not interested’ being acceptable. Another theme of many answers is malapropisms. In this case the complainers have more of a leg to stand on, since it’s less plausible that convention will ever make ‘loose’ an acceptable substitute for ‘lose’.
But it’s basically a technical artifact that you would even notice errors like that in web post/comments, presumably what is being referred to since you still seldom see errors like that in real publications and few people write letters anymore. Technical artifact because a) these are the errors of writers whose writing would be riddled with spelling errors if it wasn’t for spell check, in which case the malapropisms spell checks can’t catch would be less obvious b) we’re probably not far from widespread use of checking software that can also correct errors like loose/lose. When those errors disappear, it won’t be because of some advance in average English internet commenters’ abilities. And also in an era of globalization and near historic high % foreign born population (in most English speaking countries) more of what you read in English isn’t by native speakers.
True. But consider that if it weren’t for Latin purists, we wouldn’t pluralize those words that way in the first place. Instead, they’d get an -s just like most English nouns. Not that I’m advocating we do it the purist way, just pointing out that your position on this is not logically consistent. But then this is language, so logical consistency is not really required.
There are over 20000 search results on Google Scholar where dudes with PhDs writing peer-reviewed papers used the word “seagulls” so you’re wrong.
Sure, but those are discussing Jonathan Livingston.
Not on Google Scholar they are not.
The “Twinkie defense” is so misunderstood that Unca Cecil wrote a column on it.
Actually, I think in medicine, you are addicted if you go into physical withdrawal when the substance is removed. Substance abuse counselors talk about “psychological withdrawal,” but that’s really just a metaphor.
I’ll see you and raise you one “chester drawers.” Goodwill sells those a lot.
These folks are overconfident hyper-achievers. If they attempt something, dammit, they are damn well going to accomplish it!
The song Shuffle Off To Bison.
How do you know? Maybe he actually cares one scintilla of an iota of a smidgen. He doesn’t really give a rat’s ass…but, yes, he actually could care less.
A woman I knew worked in a building where the cafeteria regularly served “chili con carnie” which sounded a little too soylent green for my taste.
Eccchh, carnies, gross…
:D:p
Also, lots of “rod iron” items on Craigslist! (Listed right after the “dinning table” for sale.)
My peeve is “shuttered” when you mean “shuddered.” Or mixing up “past” and “passed.”
Woe to those of us who occasionally read fan-fiction–you can find some real howlers in those “stories!”
Well, tell the dictionary writers and all my professors. I’m sure you’ll sway them.
And then there are all the people who want “octopi” to be the plural of “octopus.” If that’s correct, it’s only for the descriptivist reason that so many people do it that way, and not because it follows any correct rules.
Infer/imply. The speaker implies, the audience infers.
Paraphilias are an overwhelmingly male phenomenon, though people often act as if men and women have similar inclinations towards perversion.
The eye of the storm is the calmest, not the most intense.
Seasons are primarily due to the Earth’s tilt, not the Earth’s distance from the sun.
Evolution doesn’t stop. There is no direction. Humans are not at the top of a tiered hierarchy of evolution.
People blame or praise the POTUS for things he has relatively little control over, such as the economy or fuel prices. You can make arguments for ways he did influence them, but most people don’t do this.
Communists and fascists are not the same. Communists, socialists, social democrats, and liberals are all meaningful distinctions. Left libertarianism is not only coherent, but the original libertarianism.
I tried to think of some. The first two seem to be in a state of flux, the others are old and buried.
Peruse - read or examine carefully (new use: skim or glance over)
Bemused - confused (new use: amused, often by unexpected or strange events one is trying to understand on the fly)
Awful - awe inspiring
Terrific / Terrible - causing terror
Fast - firmly secured
Bully - term of endearment
Artificial - skilled or artful
Decimate - destroy one out of ten
Nice - pedantic
If those professors and lexicographers had taken Latin like all educated people should, we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems.