Minor things that bother you

[zachary_amaryllis]

The trend of removing capital letters from corporate logos/names.

that doesn't bother me so much (says guy who despises capital letters in general) but the abbreviating of everything does.

village inn =vi
kentucky fried chicken=kfc

etc.

[ethanhopkin14]

The trend of removing capital letters from corporate logos/names.

that doesn't bother me so much (says guy who despises capital letters in general) but the abbreviating of everything does.

village inn =vi
kentucky fried chicken=kfc

etc.

Everything being lowercase annoys me.  It looks like a bunch of kids that were tired of their teachers telling them to use correct capitalization and punctuation got lose and started naming restaurants.  Throw in a company named after a verb, or a recent trendy word (or non-word) and you there you go.  I just liked it better when companies were named after the last name of the founder. 

[hbelkins]

What bothers me is my new crown feels funny.

You'll get used to it. My bite has changed slightly every time I've gotten a crown, but the adjustment period is fairly quick.

[wanderer2575]

The trend of removing capital letters from corporate logos/names.

that doesn't bother me so much (says guy who despises capital letters in general) but the abbreviating of everything does.

village inn =vi
kentucky fried chicken=kfc

etc.

And combining partial words to spawn a new brand name, with multiple capital letters.

InterContiTransAmeriCo.  We've changed our name to serve you better!

[kphoger]

The trend of removing capital letters from corporate logos/names.

The popularity of lower-case letters can be explained thusly:

WHICH OF THESE SENTENCES APPEARS MORE AGGRESSIVE
which of these sentences appears more aggressive

But that's not always what happens.

Which of these corporate names appears more aggressive:
  Macy's
  macy's
Neither one appears aggressive!

I mean, why not do this for state welcome signs:
  welcome to north carolina!  :-)

that doesn't bother me so much (says guy who despises capital letters in general) but the abbreviating of everything does.

village inn =vi
kentucky fried chicken=kfc

etc.

But Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC because fried chicken isn't very healthy.  They kept selling fried chicken, of course.  They just didn't, you know, put it on their sign.  (This was admitted by the president of US operations.)  I still remember the brief transition period, when they tried calling themselves Kitchen Fresh Chicken instead, as if they could do that and just make us forget what the letters really stand for.

Since 1991, KFC has been the official name of the company, so anyone calling it that is only being accurate.

[ethanhopkin14]

The trend of removing capital letters from corporate logos/names.

The popularity of lower-case letters can be explained thusly:

WHICH OF THESE SENTENCES APPEARS MORE AGGRESSIVE
which of these sentences appears more aggressive

But that's not always what happens.

Which of these corporate names appears more aggressive:
  Macy's
  macy's
Neither one appears aggressive!

I mean, why not do this for state welcome signs:
  welcome to north carolina!  :-)

that doesn't bother me so much (says guy who despises capital letters in general) but the abbreviating of everything does.

village inn =vi
kentucky fried chicken=kfc

etc.

But Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC because fried chicken isn't very healthy.  They kept selling fried chicken, of course.  They just didn't, you know, put it on their sign.  (This was admitted by the president of US operations.)  I still remember the brief transition period, when they tried calling themselves Kitchen Fresh Chicken instead, as if they could do that and just make us forget what the letters really stand for.

Since 1991, KFC has been the official name of the company, so anyone calling it that is only being accurate.

What bugs me about it is no one cared about a sentence in all caps vrs. written in mixed case until email and text messaging became the norm.  This tells me the phenomenon is relatively new.  I feel there is a "rewrite history" trajectory going on to make brand names all lowercase to make them more calming.  That in combination with people and their lackluster capitalization just because they can.  Again with the millennials.   

[JoePCool14]

But Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC because fried chicken isn't very healthy.  They kept selling fried chicken, of course.  They just didn't, you know, put it on their sign.  (This was admitted by the president of US operations.)  I still remember the brief transition period, when they tried calling themselves Kitchen Fresh Chicken instead, as if they could do that and just make us forget what the letters really stand for.

Since 1991, KFC has been the official name of the company, so anyone calling it that is only being accurate.

Congratulations, you've just made me want to get KFC for lunch! 

[Scott5114]

village inn =vi

If I go in there and write q! on the ticket they'll let me leave without paying the check, right?

[kurumi]

village inn =vi

If I go in there and write q! on the ticket they'll let me leave without paying the check, right?

No, you'll still be there; missing a colon :-)

:q!

[zachary_amaryllis]

village inn =vi

If I go in there and write q! on the ticket they'll let me leave without paying the check, right?

nerd 

but well-played.

[JayhawkCO]

I'm sick of this grep.

Chris

[kphoger]

This nonsense.

Warning:  Pine nuts contain pine nuts.

[Scott5114]

Of course, this is probably due to a regulation that says "Things that contain pine nuts must say 'Warning: Contains Pine Nut'" without an explicit exemption for cases where you're selling just pine nuts or things that are already marketed to contain pine nut (I would imagine, say, a pine nut variety of trail mix might also carry that unnecessary warning).

[kphoger]

(I would imagine, say, a pine nut variety of trail mix might also carry that unnecessary warning)

And I'm fine with that part.  The whole point of the warning is, I assume, so people aren't expected to read the whole ingredients list in order to determine if a product will make them sick or not, and that's not a bad idea.

But it's an ingredient!  It doesn't contain pine nuts.  It is pine nuts.  Seriously, people.

[formulanone]

Seriously, people.

Nah, that's soylent green.

[hbelkins]

Some people have to be told that peanut butter contains peanuts, so there you go.

Lawyers ruin everything (apologies to Oscar, 1995hoo, and other attorneys who are members here.)

[kphoger]

Some people have to be told that peanut butter contains peanuts, so there you go.

Lawyers ruin everything (apologies to Oscar, 1995hoo, and other attorneys who are members here.)

I get the impression that lawyers tend to enjoy lawyer jokes.

Anyway...

[tchafe1978]

People mixing up the usuage of similar words, or different tenses of the same words. Examples:

Advise and advice: I would advise you to take his advice.

Worst and worse: Even the worst could be worse.

Lose, loose, loser, and looser: If you lose weight, your loose pants will become looser and you'll become a weight loser.

And of course, the ubiquitous your and you're; and there, they're, and their.

It drives me nuts that people can't seem to remember 3rd grade English.

[kphoger]

The one that trips people up in church is prophecy/prophesy.

[J N Winkler]

In the past few years I've been seeing reticent being used with the meaning of reluctant even in sources (such as the Guardian and the latest Dana Stabenow novel) that one would expect to have passed through the hands of paid copyeditors.

[kphoger]

Some people have to be told that peanut butter contains peanuts, so there you go.

With that, I can at least imagine a person thinking peanut butter is only artificially peanut-flavored.

But someone buying a package of peanuts, on the other hand...

Well, that's just nuts.

[1995hoo]

Some people have to be told that peanut butter contains peanuts, so there you go.

Lawyers ruin everything (apologies to Oscar, 1995hoo, and other attorneys who are members here.)

Heh, never underestimate the ability of some attorneys to engage in utterly pedantic stupidity. I recently saw something where an attorney felt the need to use the "defined term" "U.S." in parentheses after referring to the United States: United States ("U.S.").....like a reader wouldn't know what "U.S." means without that utterly unnecessary definition.

I saw something else where a party's name was a single word, yet the name was "defined" in that manner anyway–like if it said, Forum member hbelkins ("hbelkins") argues [whatever]. The "defined term" was 100% identical to the term that appeared outside the parentheses. I think some people just think there's some requirement that they "define the parties" (there isn't).

[hbelkins]

In the past few years I've been seeing reticent being used with the meaning of reluctant even in sources (such as the Guardian and the latest Dana Stabenow novel) that one would expect to have passed through the hands of paid copyeditors.

Probably because the term -- and I have seen it used interchangeably with reluctant for years -- can be used as a substitute to the phrase "reluctant to -------"

One example sentence is "she was extremely reticent about her personal affairs." Change "reticent" to "reluctant to reveal" and you can see why the confusion.

[Scott5114]

Some people have to be told that peanut butter contains peanuts, so there you go.

Lawyers ruin everything (apologies to Oscar, 1995hoo, and other attorneys who are members here.)

Heh, never underestimate the ability of some attorneys to engage in utterly pedantic stupidity. I recently saw something where an attorney felt the need to use the "defined term" "U.S." in parentheses after referring to the United States: United States ("U.S.").....like a reader wouldn't know what "U.S." means without that utterly unnecessary definition.

I saw something else where a party's name was a single word, yet the name was "defined" in that manner anyway–like if it said, Forum member hbelkins ("hbelkins") argues [whatever]. The "defined term" was 100% identical to the term that appeared outside the parentheses. I think some people just think there's some requirement that they "define the parties" (there isn't).

A similar annoyance is the practice in a lot of legalese of writing the words out then putting it in numbers in parentheses. That means the same thing is there two (2) different ways and it's irritating, because it looks like they were writing it for someone who is four (4) years old and struggles with numbers. I'm guessing this has something to do with keeping numbers from easily being altered on paper contracts, but it's two thousand and twenty-one (2021); the practice is archaic and should be dropped.

[kphoger]

A similar annoyance is the practice in a lot of legalese of writing the words out then putting it in numbers in parentheses. That means the same thing is there two (2) different ways and it's irritating, because it looks like they were writing it for someone who is four (4) years old and struggles with numbers. I'm guessing this has something to do with keeping numbers from easily being altered on paper contracts, but it's two thousand and twenty-one (2021); the practice is archaic and should be dropped.

At my job, the only time I do it is this:

0 (zero)

And that's just because I want anyone reading it to understand it isn't the letter O.