I think the point in the mini essay is that even trivial things like this can contribute to cheapening of the language, and in communication becoming less nuanced.

As another example, imagine witnesses to a shooting. Police arrive and speak to witnesses. A witness says, while in shock "it was just so random, the bloke just started shooting"

The proper usage of the word, without the bastardised colloquialism, would clearly imply that the shooter fired indiscriminately, the slang usage just implies that the witness hasn't seen a shooting before. If the witness believes that they are using random correctly, the investigation could become confused before it has started, with the idea of the shooter planning to target a specific person or people ruled out.
(clinteastwoodbradfield, Thu 21 Apr 2011, 14:59, 2 replies)

I think....
...that if I cared, I'd bother to read that, but I'm done.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Thu 21 Apr 2011, 15:08, closed)

Most people haven't seen a shooting before so the slang usage of the word would more than likely be correct


Either way, please stop going on about it now.
(Nanny Pat vote for me, Thu 21 Apr 2011, 15:13, closed)

The slang usage almost certainly wouldn't be correct there at all.
(clinteastwoodbradfield, Thu 21 Apr 2011, 15:16, closed)

You said:
'the slang usage just implies that the witness hasn't seen a shooting before'


And they probably hadn't
So it would be right.

So shut up guy
(Nanny Pat vote for me, Thu 21 Apr 2011, 15:49, closed)

Yes - the slang usage implies that the witness hasn't seen a shooting before - instead of implying that there was a random element to the shooting, eg that the shooter seemed to be indiscriminate in who he was targeting. So the slang usage is misleading or confusing, which was my original point anyway.
(clinteastwoodbradfield, Thu 21 Apr 2011, 17:09, closed)