I often listen to sports talk radio as I drive in to work each morning. It's harmless, mindless background that doesn't detract from the attention that must be paid to driving, and doesn't make me homicidally furious like some other things I could be listening to. This morning, though, I found myself fixated on a lengthy interview with a former athlete turned analyst, who was "breaking down" (as they say) the upcoming weekend's action. I realized I had become riveted, rapt with fascination, counting the "You know what's" with which this fellow punctuated his answers to questions. I realized I was fixing on this to such an extent that I actually had no idea what he was really saying...or trying to say. I think I'm becoming more and more sensitive to, and irritated by, this type of verbial "tic", as I get older. On sports radio, of course, usually it's an athlete who just injects "you know" between every other pair of words in his answer. But the syndrome is certainly not limited to sports talk. I'm of the opinion that people have always injected "junk words" into otherwise meaningful conversation...either as compensation for insecurity, nervousness, or a desire to avoid a bunch of "um"'s and "uh"'s. Thinking back on it, I've also come to the conclusion that the fashion in these things changes over time. This would follow from memetics; these little quasi-ideas spread like infection. They're easy, they may seem clever, at least at first, they allow you to KEEP talking even when you don't for the moment, have anything meaningful to say, and, once you become aware of them, boy do they become annoying. Some of them irritate me more than others, but I think I'll try to fight back, a little bit, with some "meme warfare" of my own. Perhaps if these are pointed out, and attention drawn to them, people will stop. Well, a guy can hope. What follows is a short list of those verbal tics I find in wide circulation at the moment. I'm certain, though, that this is not NEARLY complete. There will be regional favorites I'm not familiar with, and doubtless there are entire sub-cultures with their own irritating conversational habits that I haven't been exposed to. Please feel free to add any here that I've missed, or /msg me, and I'll add 'em to this writeup. You know what?...already mentioned, of course, and in favor among various professional types and middle-management in the modern corporate work environment. I find it in heavy use by the type of back-slapping, golf-playing young executive who'll end up being my boss despite not being able to pass a SINGLE course I had to take in college. I think it gained currency within the last five years, but I would welcome any correction on this. It is what it is......also in wide use in various subgenres of broadcast punditry. I find this one irksome because it seems as if the speaker is trying to affect some sort of zen sophistication. Yup, it is what it is, all-right, what else can you say? MAN, he's deep. So......as the preface, often jarringly inappropriate, to any other perfectly viable sentence uttered by a speaker from Microsoft. As best as I can tell, it's limited to them, though it may be a Pacific Northwest regional deal. I find it hard to attend technical presentations by Microsofties, because twenty minutes of this drives me spare. Q: Should you develop COM components with a dual interface? A: So...you should implement a dual interface if you intend your component to be scripted... I remember hearing this at least as far back as a trip I made to the campus in 2000, does it go back any earlier? At the end of the day... ...I think this one's in heaviest use by political pundits, and to me it's the most irritating of all. The speaker here seems to be trying to affect some sort of British Parliamentery Rhetorical sophistication, though, once again, it means NOTHING. Dates, I think, from the late 90s. Junk verbiage, all of it. It's sometimes fun to string pieces of this together: You know what? At the end of the day, it is what it is. Boy, you sound smart. Boy, you make no sense whatsoever.