For all intensive purposes, they’re basically the same word.
ISWYDT.
I think it really stinks when somebody screws up stanch and staunch. You could say it really stenches. Then we need to staunch the stench with stanch correction. Or is it stanch the stench with staunch correction? 
It’s the latter. 
You could of worded that better.
I could care less about the wording. Or the wordling.
Ackshully they often don’t in my experience.
I’ve several times come across supposed cheat codes repeated across games forums like scripture that simply don’t work. There are plenty of people who like to sound wise by mouthing supposed hidden knowledge who are positively disinterested in whether their knowledge is accurate.
I suspect much SovCit stuff taps into similar psychology.
That is an amazing photo!! there are like 10 men working those Bofors. Clearly they are desperate!! Look at the depth of the empty casings all around them! The man in the right foreground who is supposed to be aiming the guns has left his position and is standing up to watch. It is possible that they see an approaching kamikaze and are getting ready to run from the danger. clearly there is a crisis at this point. Look at the arms of the man on the far left. All we see are his forearms extending from his rolled - up sleeves as he passes more ammunition up
Isn’t it supposed to be a pet peeve, not a pet peef? What is a peef anyway?
I was planning on walking away from this, because I really don’t care about being corrected on a message board, but you’re generally too nice* to not at least respond to. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m actually saying it’s technically wrong, but even Websters has given up that fight and includes it in their definitions. The prescriptivists are correct, as they usually are. But even if I do correct my behavior, the previous way I used it seemed to be perfectly understood, and it seems that argument will probably outlast everyone participating in this thread.
Hehe, my mom used “intensive purposes” and my dad used “intents and purposes”. They communicated just fine. However, things like “Get in the car and I’ll carry you to work” never ceased to amuse him.
*Heh, yeah, and it’s nice to be called a “fine poster”. Heck, it’s nice to be noticed.
I presume it’s a mythical creature said to inhabit the wretched underground of bad grammar, like the fearsome alot:
I was (mostly) not serious anyway, but a lot (or possibly, “alot” 
) of these usages come from simple mishearing, but the mistaken notion doesn’t become evident until it’s committed to writing. “Flout” vs “flaunt” is forgivable because it’s easy to forget which word means what.. “For all intensive purposes” is another good example of mishearings being promulgated through the language like a harmless but slightly annoying virus. Somewhat less forgivable because it doesn’t really mean anything.
Sorry for the detour. And now, back to sovcit idiocy!
Quite the moron sovcit here. I usually don’t like narrators who intrusively interrupt a video, but I’ve seen several of this guy’s and I quite like him. He’s either a cop or an ex-cop and his narration is quite informative. For extra amusement, the moron in question sounds exactly like Boomhauer in King of the Hill!
A navel fart.
Irregardless, I could care less.
I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that “peef” is their made-up singular form of “peeves”. By humorous analogy to “beef” & “beeves”, which are legit singular and plural terms for cattle.
So if you only have one petty personal annoyance, it’s your peef. If you have several, they’re your peeves.
I just don’t like being taken for granite.
That would be ignominious, as opposed to sedentary or metaphoric.
I sometimes wax metaphorical.
Makes it all shiny.
There’s also lunar waxing so that nice shine is well-illuminated at night.
Think of the money you would save if you waxed your legs (or other body parts) at the same time using the same wax! BTW, talk about false advertising? I went to the local surf shop and picked up some “Sex Wax”.
That did not work out at all!