I've noticed this word co-conspirator occurring with much more regularity over the past few years. It sounds ridiculous to me. Does it annoy anyone else? Isn't it redundant? Like saying someone is a co-team-member? Doesn't the conspirator part automatically imply the co part. For example: A and B are conspirators.
Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

I agree completely. The one that irritates me is "pro-active." Either you're active or you're not; this "pro-active" stuff is bull!

ohhh semantics! hate to play word games with a buch of copy cats.... all these news papers and articles are almost the same!

I have a problem with the phrase meet with.

I am going to meet with my friend.
You don't meet with. You just meet.

While we are on the subject, it is kind of annoying when someone says something is for free. It cannot be for free. It should be stated : 'I will give you this free'

If I buy one and get one free - can I take back the one I bought for a refund?

The agreement was if I buy one I get one free. Well I bought one and got one free but I am unhappy with the one I bought so I can take it back and get my money back. Right? I mean, I completed my end of the deal when I bought one - there is no stipulation that I keep it in order to keep the free one.

circular logic, skwirl--perfect for a Willhem clip

skwirlinator, that sort-of makes since.

circular logic, skwirl

Circular logic or not - its true

Good point, skwirl.
And it is not "circular" logic. Someone needs a crash course on "circular" logic.

In fact circular logic is an oxymoron. It should be circular reasoning. I fail to see how anything above is circular reasoning.