Words, usages, and phrases that annoy the shit out of you...

the stressed-"NEXT" part makes sense, it's just the "can i help who's" that makes me tear my hair out.

This is great if the next person in line happens to be Pete Townshend.

You used "thing"!

cooler-than-thou disinterest in the event

A *lot* of people get this wrong. To be disinterested is not to be uninterested. It's to have a lack of stock in the outcome (ie, "Jack, not a taxpayer himself, remains politically disinterested is this issue."). This does not mean that Jack is uninterested in the issue, but just that he has nothing to gain or lose from it.

Then, you're implying that you do care, if not just a little.

especially since it's an adjective of "ridicule," which i've never seen ANYONE spell "redicule."

i like "if you'll allow" better.

i will also echo the "rediculous" hatred and submit "definately" and all related butcherings of D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y, PEOPLE, for the love of...

1. Seeing "could of" or "should of" or "would of"
2. "The hell with..." - this can't be right. It must be "to hell with...", but I've seen the former version in print so many times I'm starting to wonder. But even if "the hell with..." is somehow correct, I still despise it with all my soul.

here here! (sic)

Geoffrey Nunberg in The Atlantic:

Unbiased and impartial will not do the work that disinterested used to be reserved for. But there is no point making a fuss about this change, because it was forgone that disinterested would lose its older sense once interested lost the sense of "having a stake in," which we retain only in the fixed phrase interested party. Even if disinterested had survived intact, therefore, it would eventually have become one of those curious asymmetric negatives like untoward and disgrace, whose senses are not recoverable as the sum of their parts. Invoking the second criterion, we should be prepared to admit that the fight on behalf of disinterested is a "lost cause," as Trilling described it. This may be an occasion for regret, but indignation would be out of place. Isaac Asimov writes, "I'm very proud of knowing the distinction, and insist on it, correcting others freely." The fact that being familiar with a distinction can be a cause for self-congratulation is, however, reason to eliminate it from the canons of standard usage, which should not be repositories of grammatical arcane.

Also, "That being said," and all variations of it. IF YOU WEREN'T RIGHT OR DIDN'T MEAN THE FIRST BIT WHY DID YOU EVEN SAY IT YOU ASSHOLE?

I should get a job

Language witched up by human resource departments (ew) however, deserves its own special place in the fiery hereafter. I recently got an email at work that proudly held forth on our NEW AND IMPROVED orientation program for new employees...except, instead of boring old "orientation", they're launching the new term "on-boarding". As in, getting someone ON BOARD. If you sat within 20 feet of me you'd have heard teeth grinding, I tells ya.

i take "that being said" to be an introduction to a follow-up statement, or a proviso. i appreciate the inverted-pyramid-style organization of thought here: lay down the most relevant information first, then start to put your own spin on things.

i'm sort of curious about the very english thing of diminutizing (infantilizing?) common nouns. "butty" and "sarnie" and "appie" and "footie" (although "footie" usually refers to aussie rules football, right?) and (to name a few where the diminutizations don't come with any shift in literal meaning) watching "telly," paying the "lecky" bill, getting a new "brolly" as a "pressie," etc.

i know i'm posting this on an "annoys the shit out of you" thread, but i have no problem with any of it!