To fit with the OP, this is “terribly” entertaining to read.
I would say it is ironic that lissener originally “dared” (using those quotes for emphasis) someone to challenge him on his use of irony and then it happened… almost as if he knew ahead of time that it would and, despite basically asking (perhaps even hoping) for an argument about it then becomes obtusely defensive when the argument comes. But, then again, maybe that isn’t really ironic at all?!
Turbo.
The razor blade is not “turbo”.
The tape deck is not “turbo”.
Just stop it!
What advertising lackey decided that using the word “samwich” will make people eat more fast food?
“C’mon in and have an Egg McMuffin ™ samwich!”
Yeargh!
That’s nearly as bad as advertising something for the price of “five-hunderd dollars”.
Mispronunciation is, IMHO, the worst form of misuse of the language.
Something that annoys me that I’ve noticed on this board (It’s probably an American thing.):
“wrote you” instead of “wrote to you”.
But then I say “phone you” not “phone to you” so maybe I’m just being silly.
For years, my mum has been saying “flustrated.” Ooh, it kills me! I say to her that she can be “frustrated” or “flustered” but she can’t be “flustrated.” But, still, she tortures me year after year with this “Archie Bunker” moment. Oh, well. Nowadays, I just let it go. When she’s dead, I’ll probably think it was cute.
A very misused word is the one that I’ve heard people use countlessly to state that things are like they ought to be. The word to describe this is “normality.” It is not “normalcy.” Normalcy doesn’t even exist anymore. It was a rather significant policital concept involving the US sometime either during World War I or II and doesn’t apply to the present except for the fact that we’re all benefiting from it, directly and/or indirectly. So, when a person points out that someone or something is enjoying, has returned to or has never left “normalcy,” while he/she may be right, in a kind of a removed, unintentional way, it’s more likely that they mean to talk about the “normality.” PLEASE REMEMBER THIS! THANK YOU!
One word that I hear people use tirelessly is a word incorrectly applied to state the condition of someone and/or something being in the ideal, everyday state. The word for this is “normality.” It is not “normalcy.” Normalcy doesn’t even exist anymore. All I know about normalcy is that it was a rather significant policital agreement or attempt at something involving the US and that we’re all still benefiting from it today. So, when a person states that someone and/or something has returned to, is enjoying or is in a state of “normalcy,” he/she may be unintentionally right, but more likely trying to draw your attention to the “normality” of said person/object/place/etc. PLEASE REMEMBER THIS! THANK YOU!
And here’s another one that’s not only annoying, but downright dangerous (and uncacceptable because of the ambiguity of the very nature of English and because of the source of the majority of the usage and publication of the following problematic dual-form description phrasing, used frequently in commercial products): INFLAMMABLE (which means flammable).
I’ve heard a few stories about people who buy a product similar to kerosene or gas or some kind of a hygiene product and it says that it’s “inflammable” on its label. Well, this does not mean that it can’t explode or cause a fire when it gets hot. The person and or people suffer the obvious serious burns or at the very least the very ruination and loss of the product or maybe surrounding objects because of this misleading phrasing. I can’t believe that some corporations don’t have the foresight to check what they put on labels of products like this and think about how some people are going to interpret this (including ME interpreting this because for about a month or so I thought inflammable meant “not able to be combustible”). So, please…if you’re a company making this kind of a thing (hairspray, insecticide, gasoline, etc) remember KISS (“Keep It Simple and Stupid”) because this is very misleading. Thanks!
And here’s another one that’s not only annoying, but downright dangerous (and uncacceptable because of the ambiguity of the very nature of English and because of the source of the majority of the usage and publication of the following problematic dual-form description phrasing, used frequently in commercial products): INFLAMMABLE (which means flammable).
I’ve heard a few stories about people who buy a product similar to kerosene or gas or some kind of a hygiene product and it says that it’s “inflammable” on its label. Well, this does not mean that it can’t explode or cause a fire when it gets hot. The person and or people suffer the obvious serious burns or at the very least the very ruination and loss of the product or maybe surrounding objects because of this misleading phrasing. I can’t believe that some corporations don’t have the foresight to check what they put on labels of products like this and think about how some people are going to interpret this (including ME interpreting this because for about a month or so I thought inflammable meant “not able to be combustible”). So, please…if you’re a company making this kind of a thing (hairspray, insecticide, gasoline, etc) remember KISS (“Keep It Simple and Stupid”) because this is very misleading. Thanks!
I don’t know what’s going with my double postings tonight, but I apologize-something’s weird and I’m not trying to take up this much space.
One thing that irritates me is the use of made up words by some weather forecasters on TV.
“Temperturewise we can expect highs in the mid-90s.”
or
“Weatherwise this week holds surprises.”
Whoops, I meant to write temperaturewise. Either way the word doesn’t exist.
“All but gone” used to describe something that doesn’t exist anymore.
“The Dodo bird is all but gone”
This really pisses me off! If it’s all BUT gone, then it’s everything EXCEPT gone, meaning that it’s still around! ARGH!
Every once in a while, or phrase or action in humanity/the English language comes along which upon first registration upon the ear, eye and subsequently the psyche/brain seems a sophisticated, hip, and witty statement of the reality of, acknowledgment or claim of responsibility to or description of a condition, situation or such (and it spreads) but which upon succeeding visual, audial and/or logical excercise just begins to sound juvenile, simplistic, and dumb, primarily because people start to ask the question 'Why not just say it/act it the way people know and accept? There’s just no need to create a new way to say this! Period!" The primary example of this that I’m thinking about right now is “My bad.” Why not just say, ‘Oh, man…sorry,’ ‘I goofed!’ or ‘I made a mistake?’ “My bad” somehow makes a mistake sound worse than it really is and makes the maker of the mistake upon saying it seem extra infantile and not belonging to really any group of importance." As stated earlier by someone in this incredible universe of expressive and educational litany to another person, “Why not just start talking like an adult? Please!”
Also I can’t believe the textual mistakes of the above posting…lord…!..please forgive
My point in presenting the dare, Realhoops, is that I’ve noticed the recent fashion of militarism re: irony. Nowadays, no matter HOW you use that word, someone here will challenge you on it; as if, ever since Alannis More-is-less misused it, it’s somehow IMPOSSIBLE to use it correctly. Therefore I knew that, even though I was using the word correctly, someone out there would try to show off their limited grammatical knowledge by “correcting” me on it.
Moot is always used to mean “besides the point” rather than “disputable”
Yes, it should be, “It pisses me off!” 
This doesn’t really bother me, but I find it interesting. a few years ago I read that “livid” (as in “He was livif with anger”) is usually misused, or at least misunderstood. Most people think that it means red, probably because this is the only way the word is used in everyday speech. But “livid” means “purple” (actually, it means “the color of lead”). One is this Purple with Rage, which is a shade beyond red (pun intended).
The article conveyed the exasperation the author had with this misuse. “Don’t they realize that they’re misusing the word?” was the implied message. To which the answer is “They do not realize that they’re misusing it. They are inferring the meaning from context. But since no one uses “livid” in any other way, they never realize that it’s wrong. At least until some lexophile points it out.”
Re: Apple’s “Think Different” slogan.
Imagine your interior decorator describing to you her idea for your living room: “I’m seeing orange and cream tile, with an avocado countertop and raspberry paisley curtains. Think funky and colorful, think original, think retro!”
Think Different.