While I’m not incensed by “6 items or less”, I just noticed my local supermarket has it right “6 items or fewer!” Grammar pedants unite!
Any other honorable mentions of someone surprisingly getting something right?
For instance, I always smile when anyone uses a nice going-out-of-fasion plural, like “penes.” (Anecdote: we were discussing this, and I brought up that example, and Nick said “I like ‘penes’.”, but you can’t hear the quotation marks in speach…)
Oh yes, ‘penes.’ That’s good.
Trouble is that when pronounced it sounds like baby talk (‘peenies’ - singular, ‘peeny’). So I usually grit my teeth and say “penises.”
And the great galaxy of wrong plurals is fun. Peni, penii, penae… I haven’t actually seen ‘penera’ yet, but I expect it any day.
Yay! Which chain? You hardly ever see or hear fewer used correctly, they even get it wrong on the bleeding Today program 
Matt: Mmm… “Penera” How about Penil? Or Pendu? Or Penerontes?
Small Clanger: Sainsbury’s, in Cambridge, England. Unfortunately, I can’t for the life of me remember if it’s always been like that, or it’s been changed, or what other stores do.
I apologize for my ignorance, but I guess that’s partially why I’m here. What is wrong with “6 items or less”? This tells me that the clerk wants customers with items less than, or equal to six. I just don’t see any differences in the two statements.
Every time it rains, it rains
Penes from heaven.
My local Target says “fewer”.
ParentalAdvisory - “less” would apply to something that’s not quantified. As in, “this pile has less sand than that pile”.
“Fewer” applies when you’ve counted the items: “this pile has fewer grains of sand than that pile”.
As Bill Walsh on The Slot points out, “6 items or [fewer than 6 items]” is only one legitimate way to phrase the store’s message. “6 items or [less than that]” is equally valid.
Therefore, he argues – and I agree – that “6 items or less” and “6 items or fewer” are equally correct signs to post over your express lane. (Actually, he thinks the “or fewer” sounds ridiculous, but I wouldn’t say that.)
I’m all for correctness, but there’s often more than one correct answer, especially in a field as wild and woolly as grammar.
I think fewer is just not as nice or as used, even if it is somehow correct.
The flight will take 2 hours or less. vs The flight will take 2 hours or fewer.
Or for a counting rather than measuring example
The bill will be $200 or less. vs The bill will be $200 or fewer.
Sorry but fewer just doesn’t sound correct any more in any such similar uses.
Oh, yeah, I like that site. I did say it doesn’t bother me - but that it was nice to see it done the correcter way 
Surely 2 hours or fewer is wrong, as the hours are obviously continuous? $200 is stickier, but I’d be inclined to say something like “I have less money than $200” or “I ave fewer dollars than $200” even if they are wrong.
I see Smeghead, thank you for sharing, I must have been absent that day. Bippy the Beardless brings up some good points though.
My local Jewel supermarket also has “x items or fewer”.
How about “Wangs?”
hmmm. using > to mean the one on the left is greater(better) than the one on the right IMHO
I have fewer than three legs. > I have less than three legs.
I have fewer than $100. < I have less than $100.
Also is it true that ‘less’ is to ‘more’, as ‘fewer’ is to ‘greater’ in all uses?
I see photopat’s suggestion shows the answer to my last question is no.
Since my wang is greater than the lesser wangs of mere mortals 
My local Tescos has ‘…or less’. Tssk.
Seems to me like you could short-circuit the whole fewer/less debate by changing the sign to “No more than 6 items.”