I say that big talk's worth doodly-squat.

I have no idea how this was omitted from my "pet peeves" list, but after mentioning this in last week's sermon at Providence Church, I felt inclined to immortalize this via the miracle of the Internet.

Quick Communication/Rhetoric Lesson ...

There is a difference between "vocal" and "verbal" as descriptors. In fact, 93% of the time (at least) I heard "verbal" when the person intends to communicate the concept of "vocal." In other words, this is a common faux pas.

Working Definitions:

• Verbal - of or pertaining to [the use of] words [or symbolic language]; note the Latin verbum for "word"
• Vocal - of, pertaining to, or uttered with the voice [i.e., audible]

Think back to the SAT. Remember the “Quantitative” and “Verbal” sections? Remember how quiet it was in the room, even during the "Verbal" part of the test? Of course, the subject matter was dealing with words, non-vocal words.

N.B. Verbal and vocal are not mutually exclusive categories.  For opposites, we'd have verbal vs. non-verbal and vocal vs. non-vocal. Thus, some communication can be verbal & vocal or verbal & non-vocal.

Verbal communication includes the use of words to convey a message. Non-Verbal communication includes all the ways we communicate apart from words (e.g., gestures, body language, moviment, or posture, facial expressions, eye contact, voice tone, voice volume, rate, clothing, hairstyles, architecture, etc.)

Some Examples:

• Verbal & Vocal - Someone speaking the words, "I'm happy."
• Verbal & Non-Vocal - Someone sending a text, "I'm happy."
• Non-Verbal & Non-Vocal - Someone smiling when opening gift, communicating happiness.
• Non-Verbal & Vocal - Someone loudly squealing with delight when opening the perfect gift, which even someone in the other room would recognize as a happy person.

Verbal communication is perceived through either sight or sound.  However, non-verbal communication can occur through any sensory channel, through sight, sound, smell, touch or even taste.

As an aside, the non-verbal and verbal components of communication may be in conflict.  When that occurs, the non-verbal is typically more readily believed than the verbal.  For example, think back to the last time you saw a child who was made to apologize to another child, especially a sibling.  When the words conflict with the eye-rolling or the sigh that precedes the words or the muffled manner in which they are spoken, the real meaning shines through.

In fact, the vast majority of our oral communication is non-verbal (in the categories of vocal and visual). UCLA Professor (emeritus), Dr. Albert Mehrabian's early communication study is often quoted in support of the belief that the actual verbal content of our communication is relatively small compared to the power of the nonverbal. The conclusion of Dr. Mehrabian's classic study looks like this:

• 7% of meaning is in the actual words spoken (verbal).
• 38% of meaning is in the way words are spoken, or tone - e.g., volume (vocal NV).
• 55% of meaning is derived from what we see e.g., facial expressions (visual NV).
• Ergo, 93% of communication is non-verbal in nature.

From a practical standpoint, this is important to remember because when we talk we tend to put a lot more emphasis on word selection, but when we (or others) listen those other aspects of communication dominate the message.

When I have taught preaching to seminary students I have emphasized this in a lecture dealing with style (word selection and message structure) versus delivery of a message.  How one delivers a sermon, for example, can go a long way to helping or hindering the communication of a message to an audience.

It's been said that one cannot not communicate.  I believe that to be true and I hope we can communicate with precision and with a view toward how our communication (verbal and non-verbal) impacts others, for their good and God's glory.

Okay, I'm done with the soap box.  It's available for anyone else who now needs it.

P.S. I realize that in much of the English speaking world verbal has become synonymous with something spoken as opposed to written down (e.g., "merely a verbal agreement," implying nothing in writing).  I may be the bad Ag, but I have about as much tolerance for that as I do "I could care less" now being synonymous in usage with the correct "I couldn't care less."

This is one time where television really fails to capture the true excitement of a large squirrel predicting the weather.

As one who taught junior high science in the past, I'm often amazed by the way contemporary "science" elevates specious and unprovable theories to the realm of fact. Coming to mind are the theory of evolution and the theory of human affected global warming.

For one, how can you test the theories? Can you duplicate what allegedly happened "by chance" contrary to known laws of science (e.g., 2nd law of thermodynamics or law of bio-genesis)? Can one compare to a control group to show an earth without humans to contrast how temperatures fared there over the last 150 years?

Because the media swallow these as fact, so does the common man or woman who doesn't take the time to investigate, also labeling dissenters as morons or the like.

But what about when folks in the same scientific community dissent? It's typically squashed and not tolerated. Why? Clearly, it's bad science if they don't come up with the same results. (Some of us call that assuming the conclusion.)

I was encouraged to see a Nobel prize winning physicist resign his membership in the American Physics Society because of the new official position that global warming is occurring, noting that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

I applaud Dr. Ivar Giaever for his willingness to swim upstream and suffer the inevitable repercussions.

As an aside, if these scientists "believe" the earth is (at least) millions of years old, how solid is science that uses a sample size of about 150 years of recorded data to demonstrate the "reality of global warming," particularly attributing cause? In other words, can science prove that alleged temperature increases are attributable to human causes and not something else (e.g., cyclical patterns of weather change)? Don't forget, back in the 70s there was great concern over perceived global "cooling." (N.B. April 28, 1975 Newsweek article about global cooling).

Consensus non facit veritatem.
~[Latin] Consensus does not make truth.

I meant I was implying I didn't understand.

Some grammatical clarifications, not that I'm implying that you're ignorantly misusing the Queen's English.

I.e. vs E.g.

• I.e. (Latin, id est = "that is") - The abbreviation is used to express the sentiment "in other words." Usage: We went to a movie (i.e., "Star Wars"). In other words, the movie seen was "Star Wars."
• E.g. (Latin exempli gratia = "for example") - The abbreviation is used to suggest applicable examples. Usage: Let's go to a movie (e.g., "Star Wars"). Here, "Star Wars" is one among many movies you might go see. So, the e.g., could have been "Star Wars," "Jaws," or "Rocky," etc.
  

Sympathize vs. Empathize

• Sympathize - the emotional affinity in which whatever affects one person affects another person
  
• Empathize - the ability to recognize and experientially feel the emotion of another, typically as a result of a prior similar experience (empathy typically encompasses sympathy)

Presume vs. Assume

• Presume - to believe something to be true without proof of non-contradictory evidence (e.g., The defendant is presumed innocent.)
• Assume - often used similarly, but assume means to suppose, postulate, or claim something is true without checking or confirming it

Farther vs. Further

• Farther - refers to physical distance
• Further - refers to an extension of time or degree (It's "furthermore," never "farthermore.")
  

Who? vs. Whom?

• Who - used when referring to the subject
• Whom - used when referring to the object (Use the he/him method to decide which pronoun is correct: He=Who & Him=Whom, for example, "Who kicked whom? He kicked him.") (see my previous post for more)
  

Implying vs. Inferring

• Imply - for the giver of information to suggest indirectly; to put the suggestion into the message
• Infer - for the receiver of information to make a guess or conclusion in light of certain evidence; to take the suggestion out of the message (A speaker can imply, but a listener can only infer.)

Alas vs. Alack

• Alas - used to express sorrow or grief
• Alack - more old school way to say "alas"

Regardless vs. Irregardless

• Regardless - without regard for or despite something
• Irregardless - commonly used the same way, though somewhat nonsensically, since the "ir" should be used for negation rendering the term a double negative meaning "not without regard for/to"
  

The Chinaman is not the issue!

Did you see this story about a man who pranked the Muslim folks by putting ham in their shoes whilst they were praying?

Whether or not his action was good bull or bad bull is not the issue for me, so much as a trend I've noticed.

Those who don't like or don't respect the religious/political ideology of Islam are being labeled as "racist."

The title of the newspaper article is "Racist who filled Muslims' shoes with ham as they prayed in a mosque walks free from court."

Since when was religious persecution "racist"? Last I checked Islam was not a "race" or an ethnicity, but a set of beliefs that impact behavior.

Perhaps I'm just whipped by the overuse of calling someone racist who has a disagreement with a person who's white when the accuser is too lazy to actually interact on an ideological level.

To be fair, someone who hates the religious/political ideology of Islam may be many things, but of necessity one of them is not "racist." And I should know, because I'm not a racist and would resent any such insinuation.

You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.

True or False: There is a difference between being a Christian who is an American instead of being an American who is a Christian.

• If true, what's that difference?
• If true, which, if either, would you use to classify yourself?

You know what the first thing they teach in women's self defense is? Yell FIRE. People don't respond to HELP anymore.

I often hear women categorized as a "minority group," which I find ironic since they make up the majority in this country. That is, there are more females than males, more women than men in colleges, etc.

I think I understand what those who like to label things are trying to communicate, but perhaps they could devise a more appropriate term to better make their case.

Please, I'm begging you, have mercy; I've been wearing the same underwear since Tuesday.

Humans quite often misunderstand the concept of "Begging the Question."

People will be talking about a subject and someone will say, "That begs the question ..." and then offer up a related question.

For example: "Whenever a sequel comes out, it always begs the question, 'So is it as good as or better than the first one?'"

In other words, what they mean instead of "That begs the question ..." is "That raises a related question, which probably should be asked & answered."

"Begging the Question" is actually a reasoning fallacy and would be a criticism of what's just been stated. In such a scenario, begging question is really avoiding the/a question; it's NOT asking for the question. Confusing use of terminology, I know.

Begging the question presents a premise as though it's beyond question and uses it in making an argument. As part of the argument, a person uses as fact that which may be unproven or contested in order to prove a point or draw a conclusion.

For example, the guy who gets rejected when asking a girl out for a date is begging the question when he attributes her "No" response to her being stuck up or dumb or a female dog or whatever. Why? Because he's assuming he's a worthwhile individual in whom there is no flaw. So, it can't be something wrong with him. It must be a defect in her. The fact finder would challenge his questionable assumption, namely that he's not a loser.

Another example is all the environmentally friendly things we must do in order to have a planet left for our children and grandchildren. Yet, these assertions beg the question; what's disputed is the effect those things have on the environment. In other words, the question is avoided as to whether or not our fuel exhaust or factories actually affect climate change.

Want another example? Most of the impetus behind gun control laws beg the question. We need to ban all guns so there will be a safer America for our children. What's the question avoided? Do gun bans lead to reduced crime rates? Look at Chicago. Look at Washington, D.C. Look wherever you like. The reality is that studies will show law-abiding citizens bearing arms reduces violent crime rates. But the question is begged in order to get laws passed, etc. [cf. "Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws... It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem." -Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune]

In Christian theology, one indicator of begging the question is when a writer prefaces his premise with "Clearly," as in, "Clearly, X, so then Y." More often than not, X is not really all that clear. In fact, it's probably fiercely debated, else everyone would already be on board with Y.

"Clearly" tries to convince you that everyone already believes it, so you should too, which will enable us to move on to my conclusion.

An example, would be citing John 5:24 and 1 John 5:11-13, to show that a Christian cannot lose his or her salvation and then saying, "Clearly, a Christian cannot lose salvation, so Heb 6:4-6 & John 15:6-7 can't mean that."

Although I agree that a genuinely converted and justified person will not become unsaved, the reasoning is faulty. Someone might just as easily go to Heb 6:4-6 and John 15:6-7 for a bit and then say, "Clearly, a believer can lose his or her salvation, so John 5:24 & 1 John 5:11-13 can't be universally eliminating the possibility."

So, back to terminology ... if a statement raises the question in your mind, say, "That raises the question ..." or "That brings to mind the question ..."

Otherwise, you're actually criticizing the other person's statement, accusing him or her of a logical fallacy and playing dirty, if intentional.

N.B. Begging the question is related to circular reasoning or making a circular argument, but not quite the same. An example would be fossil dating. That fossil is 30 million years old. How do you know? Because we found it in the 30 million year old rock. How do you know that rock is 30 million years old? Because of the dates of the fossils we found there, etc. Another example of circular reasoning would be to say that the reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad. And the reason drugs are bad is because they are illegal.

I could care less about trigonometry.

Okay, we hear it quite often, but it should be "I couldn't care less," not "I could care less."

The former indicates an apathy than cannot be exceeded. The latter, however, expresses a certain level of caring by plainly stating that the one could care less than he or she does, but the person does indeed care.

So, on a scale of 0 to 10, their caring is somewhere above a 0 (zero). That person's caring may be at a 4 or 5 or a 2 or even a 1. But, the person still cares, unlike the person who couldn't care less. That person is at the lowest point possible on the caring meter.

In other words, the vast majority of people misuse the expression and wind up stating the opposite of what they'd like to communicate.

I know it's hip to be apathetic, but please don't be so apathetic that you're apathetic about the proper use of expressions of apathy.

Hey, Lou, don't you think we should have a prayer? We're all not savages like Cerrano.

One of the drawbacks of having any online activity is the propensity to run into random humans who want to engage you in conversations that can really beat you down.

A professing Christian took offense to a quote I shared regarding prayer. I share this because (1) it's a good quote for our National Day of Prayer and (2) so you can feel may pain of how strange people come across in cyberspace.

GUNNY ...

"Prayer is weakness leaning on omnipotence." -- W. S. Bowd

OTHER EARTHLING ...

Gunny! Prayer is not weakness, have you ever tried it? God said to "prayer about everything" through prayer, we ask God to help and bless people in their situations and ourselves, and God works with those prayers for the people we pray for and for us too. Payer strengthens our faith in God, how can He help us if we don't ask in prayer?

GUNNY ...

I have tried it. What a peculiar question to ask, sir, and seemingly a rather unkind accusation.

The essence of prayer is a recognition of our weakness and God's strength. (cf. 1 Peter 5:5, 6-7).

We do not pray because we are strong, but because God is strong.

Truth be told, I really don't disagree with what you said in praise of prayer. Prayer strengthens our faith in God, but not our faith in ourselves. Proud people don't pray.

May we boast gladly in our weakness (2 Cor 12:9).

Soli Deo Gloria,
Gunny

I hate watching my friends get everything their hearts desire.

Recently in Sunday school at Providence Church, I posed the following question about the nature of the human will: How can Martin Luther write a book entitled The Bondage of the Will and Jonathan Edwards write The Freedom of the Will and both essentially saying the same thing?

In other words, is the human will free or in bondage (i.e., not free)?

I summarize it like this: The will is free to do what it wants, but it is not free to do what it ought.

We might also talk about natural vs. moral ability, having the former, but lacking the latter.

Another way to say it is that human beings are free to do what they want, but they are also bound to do what they want. They must choose according to their strongest desire at the point of decision.

The question becomes, what motivates those decisions? Of what substance are those desires? One dead in sins (Eph 2:1), who loves the darkness (John 3:19-20), and cannot see the kingdom (John 3:3) must have a heart opened (Acts 16:14) and mercifully made alive (Eph 2:4-5) in order to desire Christ so as to choose Him.

Dr. D. James Kennedy: "Are Total Depravity and free will compatible? Yes and no. As we said to an earlier question, free will can mean one of two things. If we are talking about the sense in which free will exists in every human being, whether regenerate or unregenerate, then we can say “Yes”, obviously they are compatible because unregenerate people do make choices. That is the sense in which man is free to choose whatever he wants to choose. All men are free to do that. The unregenerate man makes choices every day: what tie he will wear, what he will eat for dinner; whatever it may be. But in the significant sense in which its used in the Bible, which is man is free to do what he ought to do, (which is repent of his sins, turn from his wickedness, surrender his life to Christ and follow Him in godliness), unregenerate man is not free to do that. The more he hears of it, the more he dislikes it. And his will and heart and mind must be changed for him to do that." (in DVD series "Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism")

Now, I have a whole bag of "Shh!" with your name on it.

I was speaking to a class at the middle school yesterday and saw this sign on the wall. I thought was neat and rather profound.

"LISTEN and SILENT are spelled with the same letters."

It seems that whenever you ask me a question, you already have the answer.

For your Monday, some good bull I received from Tim "Oilcan" Murray in an email entitled, "Rhetoric Fun for Gunny." He was right; this is right in my rhetorical wheelhouse.

1. Is it good if a vacuum really sucks?

2. Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?

3. If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?

4. If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?

5. Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

6. Why does "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing?

7. Why does "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing?

8. Why do "tug" boats push their barges?

9. Why do we sing "Take me out to the ball game" when we are already there?

10. Why are they called " stands" when they are made for sitting?

11. Why is it called "after dark" when it really is "after light"?

12. Doesn't "expecting the unexpected" make the unexpected expected?

13. Why are a "wise man" and a "wise guy" opposites?

14. Why do "overlook" and "oversee" mean opposite things?

15. Why is "phonics" not spelled the way it sounds?

16. If work is so terrific, why do they have to pay you to do it?

17. If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

18. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

19. If you are cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?

20. Why is bra singular and panties plural?

21. Why do you press harder on the buttons of a remote control when you know the batteries are dead?

22 Why do we put suits in garment bags and garments in a suitcase?

23. How come abbreviated is such a long word?

24. Why do we wash bath towels? Aren't we clean when we use them?

25. Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

26. Why do they call it a TV set when you only have one?

27. Christmas - What other time of the year do you sit in front of a dead tree and eat candy out of your socks?

28. Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

29. If pro and con are opposites, wouldn't the opposite of progress be congress?

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it?

A shout out to President Obama for a very nice memorial speech at Fort Hood yesterday.

An excerpt:

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next."

(read or watch the speech.)

HAPPY VETERANS DAY!

Thanks for your sacrifice on behalf of others as you stand watch on our walls.

As the French say, that certain "I don't know what."

I keep on noticing the prevalence of Schadenfreude among my children. Yeah, they were not familiar with the term either. It's a German word referring to taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune. They love to see each other get in trouble or have bad things happen to them, but that's a post on depravity we'll save for another day.

But, for your learning pleasure, I share some other neat terms from the Fatherland, terms that tend to express an idea better than English might.

• An sich - in itself
• Backpfeifengesicht - German compound word for a face that should be hit
• Besserwisser - "better knower," somebody who knows better or best and who does not hesitate to inform the others about it; akin to a "know-it-all"
• Dasein - existence or being there, an entity's potentiality¹
• Doppelgänger - "double goer" - a ghostly double, look-alike, or clone of a person
• Dummkopf - "dummy head"
• Fahrvergnügen - enjoyment derived from driving
• Freispiel - free play or free game
• Gemütlichkeit - connotes the notion of belonging, social acceptance, cheerfulness, the absence of anything hectic and the opportunity to spend quality time
• Gesundheit - health
  
• Heilsgeschichte - salvation history, God's positive saving actions throughout history
• Hinterland - remote area, back country
  
• Kaputt - out of order
• Kitsch - cheap, sentimental, gaudy items of popular culture, trinkets
  
• Schadenfreude - pleasure in someone else's misfortune
• Schweinehund - "pig dog," common term of insult
  
• Sitz im Leben - setting in life, context
• Spielzeug - play thing, toy
  
• Übermensch - overman or superman²
• Verboten - forbidden
  
• Verstehen - understanding
• Wanderlust - a strong need or desire to travel
  
• Weltanschauung - world view
• Wunderbar - wonderful
• Wunderkind - wonder kid, miracle child
• Zeitgeist - spirit of the time

See also nunchi, a Korean word for the innate ability to sense what would be the wrong thing to say in a situation (and presumably the ability to then not say it).

¹ - Dasein was famously examined by Martin Heidegger in Being and Time. It is derived from da-sein, which literally means "being-there/here," though Heidegger was not fond of this translation. Heidegger chose this term as a synonym for "human entity" in order to emphasize the critical importance "being" has for our understanding and interpretation of the world.

² - Übermensch was made famous as a concept by Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared the Übermensch as a goal for humanity, overcoming the herd, in his book Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Won't you gentlemen have a Pepsi?

Though I don't see this blog as my locale for venting, I thought I would share some of my PET PEEVES and solicit some of yours in response.

Communication:

1. Waiting on hold to talk with a company who has waffled and derailed my day.
2. When anyone thinks their "don't remember" might trump my "do remember"
3. When someone insists we just "drop it" (or the ultimate "whatever") the moment a conversation veers into an unwanted direction, particularly when the other person started the whole discussion/argument.
4. Trying to talk over music that is too loud (e.g., in a restaurant or in a car).
5. Hearing profanity in a public place, particularly around my kiddos.
6. Hearing references to deity as exclamations and/or cuss words.
7. Having such a small brain that as soon as I hear someone's name I've just as quickly forgotten it.
8. Wanting to have conversation during the game. I'll pause the TiVo and we can chat, but this is the form of media whereby it transmits and we receive. Conversation should only be limited to the game and be along the lines of, "What in the world was that ref thinking?!" or "C'mon, this is why the game takes so long!" (when we have to change pitchers for each batter).
9. When people announce "I'm not a racist or anything," but then proceed to say something that sounds curiously like they very well might be.
10. Exaggeration or use of extremes & superlatives to describe or make a point. It seems things are either loved by everyone or hated by everybody. The words lose their meaning when used in place of more moderate language.
11. "Close talker."
12. "One-Upper."
13. Going to someone's house and trying to converse over an unwatched television that just has to be on anyway.
14. Greeting another man and receiving a limp-wrist handshake in the process ... creepy!
    

Restrooms:

1. Installing a toilet paper roll so that the tissue unwaps from the under side of the roll.
2. Using the TP down to the last few squares without fetching a new roll.
3. In public restrooms, a tightly wound roll that is nearly impossible to unwind without each individual square becoming detached.
4. Restrooms where the exit requires me touching a door handle, thereby putting me in danger of contracting the AID.
5. Restrooms where they have the hot air hand dryers, thereby ensuring that I will have to wipe my hands on my pants to effectively dry them.
6. Automatic paper towel dispensers that give you just a sheet at a time, requiring me to flail my arms about in an erratic fashion to get more.
7. I'm a high kicker, but with my height it can still be a whippin to have the urninal handle too high. This, of course, can make the kick flush, while necessary, a risky proposition, particularly if the ground is less than dry.
8. The stall door that won't stay shut, requiring one to keep a foot or hand on the door while handling up on one's business.
   

Driving:

1. Taking forever to leave a parking space while others are clearly waiting for it.
2. Slowing down to enter the left turn lane.
3. Driving behind a SUV, van, or panel truck to where I can't see what's going on in front of me.
4. Not signalling, particularly when I'm waiting on the car to pass by on the cross street and then it turns right beside me. If he/she would have signalled, I could have gone.
5. Being asleep at the wheel and not taking a right on red or those who don't know that rule.
6. Being asleep at the wheel and not having the car in gear (standard transmission) to be able to go when the light turns green. I'm pretty confident it will turn green ... eventually. Put the thing in first gear now.
7. Having time consumed merging down to one lane in a construction zone only to see there's STILL no construction in progress.
   
8. Folks that change lanes at the last minute to jockey for position when it means they are now in the lane that could turn right on red, but they prevent a line of us from doing so since they are planning to continue through the intersection.
9. SUVs parked askew so that they ooze over into another spot, thereby rendering it useless except for a motorcycle.
10. Discourteous drivers who advertise affiliation with Jesus through bumper sticker or fish.
    
11. Teenagers who drive grandpa's car so they can park in the handicapped spots.
12. Paying $2.499 for a gallon of gas instead of just paying $2.50.
13. Paying $2.50 (or more) for a gallon of gas.

English Language:

1. Though it has become popular as of late, hearing that something makes one "nauseated" vs. "nauseous."
2. Hearing "incidences" vs. "incidents."
3. Saying, "I could care less" when one really means, "I couldn't care less."
4. In football, they now "defense" (a play) instead of "defend" against it.
5. What's with the pluralizing proper nouns? The popular media loves to talk about the "Bill Gateses and the Troy Aikmans and the George Bushes of the world."
6. The use of "Guys" to refer to a group that either includes or is exclusively female. Everyone nowadays is a guy, even a group of women is addressed as "guys" (even by another woman).
7. Needing to add "-ate" to some words to make them sound more important or whatever (e.g., orientate instead of orient, commentate instead of comment).
8. Wrong use of words that sound alike, but are spelled differently and mean something else (e.g., your/you’re, there/their/they’re, to/too/two, here/hear, principle/principal, past/passed, weather/whether).
9. An overuse or misuse like (e.g., "Like, you’re crazy, man," or "I was like, 'oh, my,' and she was like, 'un huh,' etc.).
10. The misuse of the apostrophe, which is not used with a personal pronoun (e.g., the dog lost its bone, not "it's"). The apostrophe shows possession (e.g., "Harley's bone was lost), but that is not needed with the possessive pronoun. The apostrophe also is used in contractions, being used in place of a letter or letters (e.g., it replaces the "i" when "It is a nice day" becomes "It's a nice day"). It is never to be used to pluralize words (e.g., "orange's" for sale).
11. The way email has somehow enabled us to abandon any and all English language convention, capitalization, spelling, and punctuation are all optional.
    
12. Sticking an extra "s" on words (e.g., "that's besides the point", "in that respects", etc.).
13. The inadequacy of the English language to distinguish between the second person singular versus plural. Fortunately, in Texas we have both "you" and "y'all."
14. That point is "moot," not "mute."
    
15. "Raise" is a transitive verb; it takes a direct object. "Rise" is intransitive. You rise from bed. You raise your glass.
    

Children:

1. When they're loud when you want them to be quiet and quiet when you want them to sound off.
2. Talking up a storm and shutting it down when you give them the phone to talk to Nana.
3. Caring so much about what other kids have.
4. When they have a really good trick, but won't perform on cue.
5. Hearing of their hunger less than 20 minutes after leaving the restaurant and their uneaten, yet paid for, meal.
   

Random Cag:

1. Hangers... how they get all tangled with each other in the closet so that a whole bundle fall to the floor when you just want one.
2. Sitting by the air conditioner or under the fan and then complaining about being cold and shutting off the ac or fan.
3. REALLY needing to get to sleep and not being able, a problem that seems to increase in intensity with the degree of need for rest and with the decrease of amount of sleep I'll be getting.
4. Tossing dirty utensils into the side of the sink where the disposal waits to gobble them up when no one is looking so they can make that unpleasant grinding sound when said disposal is activated.
5. The racket of trying to get everybody wearing bicycle helmets. Somebody's making bundles of money on that unnecessary industry. When I was a kid, we skinned up knees and elbows and whatnot. I'm in the vast minority here, but I think wearing a bike helmet is for sissyies. Even my girls don't wear them.
6. Movie rental places saying that we've seen the end of late fees and then charging me a late fee (relabeled as a restocking fee).
7. Non-conformists who conform together in their non-conformity.
8. When people enter through the exit door(s) and vice versa.
9. Heinously immodest clothing, particularly on those who should have ceased wearing such 50 pounds and/or 20 years ago. Do we really need to see undergarments or your rib or pelvic bones in everyday life?
10. People who are making a longer, rather than shorter, visit to my home who park in the driveway.
It's such a whip to gather up all my cag, make my way to the vehicle, only to realize I have to go back in to inform the driver of my need to use the driveway. Then the person has to find the keys, etc. It's a whippin. Just park in front of the house like the good Lord intended.
11. Reading a book that has endnotes instead of footnotes, which means I'm constantly referring to the back of the book to see if that note is of any benefit/consequence.
12. Having to peel stickers off my books (e.g., price tag, "sale" marker, etc.).
    

Computers:

1. I'm whipped by web pages that require you to change settings, download anything or read a tutorial.
2. Popups or loud music or other cag on web pages with no obvious or convenient way to disable that just annoys and/or delays page loading.
3. Having to restart the computer after making any seemingly insignificant changes.

Ecclesiastical:

1. "Arminians" are those who embrace a theology bearing the name of Jacobus Arminius (i.e., those who are not Calvinists). "Armenians" are people from Armenia.
2. It is the book of Revelation, not RevelationS.
3. Being treated as though I haven't actually studied and been trained to be a pastor/preacher.
4. Folks with their minds so made up that they are incapable of discussion or learning.
5. The inability to disagree with others in Christian love and not be mad at or hate them, that is taking it as a personal offense when disagreed with and/or seemingly criticized.
6. People who seem themselves as the standard of righteousness, particularly when they see the sins they don't struggle with as supreme, but the ones they do as trivial.
7. Seeing any one particular translation of the Bible as so vastly superior to others, particularly with disregard for objective standards of evaluation.
8. The false dichotomies, that is presenting an "either/or" choice when one doesn't need to be made or when both can be chosen (e.g., Christians should either be pro-life or care about the poor; Christians should just go save souls rather than talking about theology, etc.).
9. The straw man argument, that is presenting a false representation of a view with which you don't agree to win support for one's view (e.g., presenting Calvinism as a theology that doesn't believe in missions/evangelism since it adheres to the biblical doctrine of predestination, neglecting to mention the many great evangelists who disprove that theory (e.g., William Carey, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, etc.)).

Dining:

1. When my food order gets cagged (e.g., contaminating an otherwise unsullied burger with the tomfoolery known as vegetables and condiments, when requested to keep them far away).
2. When someone touches the salt or pepper shaker with really greasy or BBQ fingers.
3. Kids slooging the utensils and such at a buffet.
4. Restaurants that don't provide free reloads on drinks (e.g., White Castle).
5. When some goon takes 4 (or more) of the 8 pieces of the new pizza just out on the buffet.
6. People with fast metabolisms assuming that heavy people are such merely because they eat a great deal.
7. The curse of the male waiter and all his disinterestedness and inattentiveness, both of which scream that he'd much rather be somewhere else since this job is so beneath him.
   
8. Asking for a Coke in a restaurant and hearing, "Is Pepsi okay?" because it's not.