<p>The point is also that those speechwriters SHOULD know better. If someone hired to write or proofread a speech for the President of the United States doesn’t know better that what hope do the rest of us have? The more often the common folk hear it used that way, the more likely it will become accepted. I heard it on the news four times last night. I finally had to shut it off.</p>
<p>Lol – just had an exchange with an appliance salesperson that put the lie to at least one piece of advice here. She said, in reference to a cheap appliance I was considering:</p>
<p>“It’s fine for casual use, but for all intensive purposes you’d want a more durable model.”</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with that usage, which would be correctly transcribed as “all intensive purposes.”</p>
<p>Made me laugh, in light of this thread.</p>
<p>I told her I was weary of all the costs I’d been incurring lately and would have to pass on the more expensive model.</p>
<p>Do you mean she thought for intensive jobs, complicated pots and pans if you will, the el cheapo model was not going to work?</p>
<p>Exactly. I thought her usage was really funny. </p>
<p>Co -worker used the "mightn’t couldhve’ at a meeting today. She is supposed to hr my supervisor. </p>
<p>Hate it when posters ask about ‘recieving scholorships’ (certainly not if correct grammar and spelling are required).</p>
Just read a CC post referring to cutting a child off from money (which is used to pay for underage drinking).
The (not a) word spickett was used instead of spigot.
Though I did like the unintended word play of spigot and the topic of alcohol.