Mortified does not mean horrified. Besides the misuse of “literally”, that is number one on my list of pet peeves. I cringe every time I hear it used incorrectly.
In what way is literally misused to you? I think we’ve already established that it is perfectly acceptable to use it as an intensifier, and has been for years.
Unless you’re a little kid, who actually thinks he’s “intrinsically” good and bad depending on what his parental units have told him in the last five minutes… I wonder if that leads to the confusion? (my nephew speaks Spanish only, so I know whether he is being permanently or only temporarily)
“I’m good” is perfectly correct. “I am well” is also correct, though it implies a more restricted meaning.
“To be” takes a subjective complement, which can be an adjective, but not an adverb. Why would you object to using “good” when you’d describe yourself with an adjective in a thousand other ways?
“I am sick.”
“I am Canadian.”
“I am confused.”
“I am tired.”
“He seems stupid.”
“Jane is young.”
All correct, all adjectives, so what’s wrong with “good”?
As to the other common argument against “I am good,” which is that “Good” means something other than “in an acceptable state,” I’d suggest that “Good” has in fact had that meaning since before anyone posting in this thread was born, and my dictionary agrees.
I already pointed out that this has nothing to do with an adverb vs adjective war, as well is just as much an adjective as good is, in this particular usage. I’m not arguing with you about your definition of “good,” even if I were, it’s a silly point to argue about. However, I would like to know what dictionary you are using, because neither my elctronic Oxford has this definition, nor does Merriam-Webster Online. Both have a definition akin to “disease-free; healthy,” and MW even gives the example of “one good arm.” No dictionary can or should be treated as some sort of infallible religious text, and, of course, just because a word’s definition is not in a dictionary does not mean the definition is unacceptable. (Heck, the fact that people are bemoaning the use of literally as an intensifier shows us that some people consider at least some dictionary definitions unacceptable) I by all means support and encourage people to say “I’m good” if they want to say it. As such, I am quite interested in seeing a dictionary definition that supports the evolution of the word good.
My earlier nitpick wasn’t so much an attack on the blessed word good, than it was on the idea that “Good is bad because it isn’t an adverb.” Just like the now-ingrained attitude that “me” should be avoided at all costs, poor “good” suffers from the same overcorrection.
This, like most grammar nitpicks, is a fight that will never be won head on. You can spend an hour convincing someone that literally as intensifier is okay, and two more folks will show up immediately griping about it. It’s not really worth the effort.
No, it’s not worth it at all. But it’s either this or do something constructive. 
Ah, of course. Carry on, then. 
“I wrote the President” (feels wrong)
Vs
“I wrote a letter to the President” (correct)
I am not sure whether to add this to my pet peeve list or not - just because I am not sure whether this is correct usage, or whether this is another example of accepted usage.
Once we have a consensus here I will amend my pet peeves list.
“a letter to” is implied in the first sentence. Implied words and letters are all over the English language and perfectly fine if the listener understands what you mean.
Oh, geez, the “me” thing.
My current frustration is tautologies. “Plan ahead.” Christ save me, I’m gonna strangle, throttle and choke the next person who says that.
As for the definition of “good,” I’ve now lost my dictionary when I moved, so go figure. However, the first online resource I went to was Merriam Webster Online, which lists over a dozen acceptable meanings, including “Adequate,” “satisfactory,” and “in good health,” as you have pointed out, which is in fact what people are usually trying to convey.
One of my pet peeves. “Quantum” (“how much” meaning a vague amount) has been around for over 2000 years! The Physics usage is recent by comparison. My AH computer dictionary gives the Physics meaning as fourth. Why on Earth do people thing that it can only be used in a Physics context now is beyond me.
A little knowledge means you can worry about something else.
Blame Scott Bakula and Dean Stockwell, I know I do.
People often abuse the phrase RSVP. For example,
Please RSVP (including indicating date) for meetings you plan to attend.
Please RSVP drivers that will be attending
I’ve even received junk mail about some events in the area that asked me to RSVP. They didn’t even know my name!
If a response is expected only if someone is going to attend, this is not RSVP!
I’ve been seeing “sentance” around here lately. I can’t believe that there are people who do not know the correct spelling of that word.
As long as we’re on spelling, people on this board - a truly amazing number of people, I think - still cannot tell when to use “its” and when to use “it’s.” I don’t see what’s so hard about it, and yet it persists.
On another note, I’m always surprised by the terrible English I see in business writing. In casual writing, on a message board or in E-mail, it’s not a big deal. But it amazes me what people will allow to be written in professional contexts. Today I reviewed a company’s quality manual, a document they had paid over TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS to have written for them. It was 60 pages or so and contained - and this is a very conservative guess - at least three hundred outright errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation. That’s on top of just generally ill-advised sentence structure like run-on sentences, bizarre word choices, poor paragraph structure, and that sort of thing. It was amazing to behold. The guy spelled “Foreman” as “Forman.” Forget how good you are at spelling in general; how can you work in industry for decades and not know how to spell “Foreman”?
Not to mention the fact that “please RSVP” is sort of redundant.
I am neutral good with lawful tendencies. 
My complaint: people who throw in diacritical marks for the fancy foreign feeling, when the idiots are too lazy to actually figure out where the symbols go.
I once came across the word döppelganger, a monstrosity spawned by a pretentious English grad student. I imagine this blowhard has earned his PhD by now, but I will always remember him as an annoying punk who put on a show with his language instead of making sure he actually had something worthwhile to say.
You have brought blessed fact to a den of baseless complaints, for which you deserve full credit, but this ain’t necessarily true. Plenty of native speakers give honest replies to the question. Me, for instance. Also: other people like me. Rare? Maybe. But we exist.
If you want to see some impenetrable language, I give you this from my alma mater, an explanation of a new program which has drawn some criticism because nobody knows exactly what the hell it is. I am taking this exceprt from the page titled, as God is my witness, “Project Rational.” They meant “Rationale.” This is from a university, for Christ’s sake. Anyway, here goes:
Um… what?
I mean, try to parse those sentences, especially the first and the last. If I had submitted an essay with sentences that terribly written in grade EIGHT, Mr. Julian would have spit on it, crumpled up the paper and thrown it back at me.