Urge to Kill

So quaint to remember, but when I was a child and worked in Sara's store, I read everything that was in the store.  Sometimes I would sit there for hours at a time, with few customers, and nothing to do but read all the magazines and newspapers that were sold in the store.  I think the two popular tabloids were "The Daily News" and "The Daily Mirror," and, working in the store seven days a week, I faithfully read them.   One paper, I think "The Daily News," carried 2  reader-submitted anecdotal short pieces;  one was titled "My Most Embarrassing Moments,"  such as a woman wearing the belt of her dress inside out with the size printed on the belt, for all the world to see, for heaven's sake.  The horror!  The other was "Pet Peeves," subtitled "The Urge to Kill,"  which dealt with episodes of being teed off and frustrated by the words or deeds of others.  I suppose now a column like that would be so wrong, on so many levels.
       I remembered that the other night watching David Letterman who was on a rant, blathering that although he knew language was and should be constantly evolving, that there was one addition to the language he absolutely abhorred.  After sufficient buildup, he revealed that the object of his anathema was the use of the word "bromance."  It drove him crazy and he wished to harm somebody every time he heard or saw the word.  His reaction seemed a little over the top, but then I realized that probably everybody has some pet language  usage peeve that brings out the urge to kill.  I know what triggers that flush of anger in me, even when I least expect to embrace the desire to do bodily harm.
      What  elicits  the red curtain of rage  is whenever someone says to me, "I don't want to argue with you."  That is wrong on so many levels:  First, it is an argumentative statement, meaning they are throwing down the gauntlet of argument, and not only denying what they are doing, but at the same time allowing no counter to their challenge.  They feign an air of superiority, with the implication they are above the lowly act of argument, which you by implication, are into, like the low-class being you are.  Kind of like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife" question.  Try to respond and you are doomed.  By default, any response means you, unlike the speaker, want to argue.   The initial point of contention is now subsumed by the issue of who wants to argue.  And if you pay attention, you will be surprised by how many people say this, and who those people are.  ...I'm going to bed now.....