The apostrophe error is glaring. Less obvious is the errant colon. Once again, the simple elements of a sentence should not be separated by internal punctuation. In this case, a colon is separating the preposition from its object. 

Submitted by Ian Cummings

Submitted by Megan Berry

This is an example of just how disturbing apostrophe misuse can be. 

Submitted by Wilson Captein

This boobery is big -- figuratively and literally. Why the ODVA would want to showcase their grammatical error in dramatic capitals is beyond me. This slogan makes no sense at all. 

Everyday is an adjective. Every day is something quotidian. "We're everyday people" denotes ordinary people. "We're every day people" denotes people who stay people on a daily basis. (The Society recognizes the bad syntax in the second example; it's for effect.) These words should not be interchangeable: their distinction safeguards meaning that would be lost if they merged. That is, everyday veterans are different from every day veterans. Everyday Mocha $1 advertises something entirely different than Every day Mocha $1. (This one's actually a sign I always whiz by while riding in the car; I have yet to capture it clearly in a photo.) 

The Society applauds the correct plural apostrophe, however. It's not every day that little dude is used correctly. If only it were an everyday occurrence. Getting the picture? 

Some people speak a whole 'nother language! "Whole" is not an infix. All the same, the Society appreciates that the author marked the omission with an apostrophe, however booberific.

I'm starting to think The Society needs an entire page dedicated to the boobs at The NYT. Jon Caramanica (Commamaniac) is crazy for commas. The caption isn't the only problem: Caramanica boobifies throughout his entire article, popping commas in unnecessarily and inappropriately and leaving them out when they are necessary and appropriate. 

Submitted by SAGB member Dan Dunning 

No -- the establishment's name is neither Cocktail nor Cocktail's. 

Spelling (and sign placement) boobery. 

Why must The BBC leave us hanging and torture us with the uncertainty? Or perhaps they don't actually believe it? 

Unfortunately, this is not the only time The BBC has made this error. The Society recognizes the likelihood that the authors are in fact quoting someone. But why do they choose to quote the words they do? That is, was Bin Laden not also called "Al-Qaeda" and "Leader"? Quoting everything that has ever been said would be just as logical.

Check out these other unnecessarily quoted word blunders:

Surely the words "photographer" and "deaths" were also uttered. Why not quote them? 

I don't want to know what "using facebook" really is. I do, however, wonder how much money the YouTube star actually made, why the film-makers are being slandered, and what is meant by royal "courage." Maybe cherry cordial? Perhaps The BBC is simply trying to infuse as much irony and sass as possible into its publications. Whatever the intention, the result is illogical boobery. I mean "boobery" because, you know, I called it that.