Pammi, furor, without the e is also correct.

Oops, thats "...my point", not "...by point". I simply must proof-read better.

Yes, eSeamus, that's absolutely correct. 5's are rounded down to the even preceding digit to ensure that rounding up is as likely as rounding down. This avoids statistically skewing certain data, for example, when the exact average might be important.

I chose not to mention such details because it's generally not done outside the scientific community. It wasn't really relevant to what I was trying to say and, being somewhat off-topic, would have just obfuscated by point.

Truth be told, it isn't commonly done even within the scientific community unless you're working extensively with statistics. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientific calculator that will round in this fashion even among the most advanced models. You likely won't find a computer, programming language, or floating-point processor that does either.

I might suggest that rather than eschew "in actuality", you should embrace it and avoid saying "actually". Through misuse, words like totally, basically, actually, etc. have become interjectives, nearly devoid of meaning. By comparison, "in reality", "in actuality", "as a basis", etc., have very clear and specific meanings and are less likely to be abused, misused, or misconstrued.

An interesting take on this is at:

http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~karplus/185/w99/reader/A_Grammar_and_format.html

although, it does seem to be a list of pet peeves masquerading as a reference, and some of the statements on the site are debatable.

Wait a minute. I have to take issue with the fallacious question itself. It asserts facts that are simply incorrect.

First, dictionary.com says that the word "troops" DOES mean "soldiers". There are a whopping 23 different definitions from four sources, many of which include "soldiers" or "group of soldiers".

Second, this did not come about in "the last few years". This usage has been common since before any of us were even born.

That being said, it is still an interesting question. Reference to a specific number of troops, like "50,000 troops were sent" was publicly and commonly used in the media at least as early as the Vietnam War. Within the military, such usage was widespread during the Korean War, possibly earlier.

Troops was used more abstractly to mean a body of soldiers, (and, duh, NOT meaning a group of groups of soldiers!) by Roosevelt in World War II, and even by George Washington before the Revolutionary War.

"Troops", technically (if debatably) might have meant group of troops, but in usage, has really been referring to a collective group of soldiers or servicepersons, at least for the last few hundreds of years.

see:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003879.html

Oh, and in "...kinds of water...", water is singular. Kinds is plural. The same is true for "...kinds of thread..."

There seems to be a little confusion here. The word "thread" is not plural. It is never plural in any context. The issue is one of countable vs. uncountable nouns. It's especially confusing because thread can be either a countable or an uncountable noun.

Countable examples:

"How many threads are you weaving together to make that rope?"

"How many threads per inch does that nice bedsheet have?"

Uncountable examples:

"How much thread is in that spool? Fifty yards?"

"How much thread do you have in stock?"
"Over ten thousand yards. We carry at least fifty spools of each color"

As to the original question, I imagine "threads" would technically be correct, but "thread" would probably be better since you are likely using thread as uncountable. Imagine buying different brands of bottled water at the supermarket and asking how many different kinds of water they carry. You wouldn't ask how many kinds of waters.

Ghoti, regarding "...when there are real abominations out there, like 'I could care less.'"

That particular expression never bothered me at all. I've even said it on occasion. I've always understood it to be INTENTIONALLY stating the opposite of "I couldn't care less", in a sardonic manner. It isn't bad grammar. It's just SARCASM.

Neilbert, you make an interesting observation, but the debate is between "a"nt and "ah"nt. NEITHER one rhymes with any of the -aunt words you list. They are all pronounced "-aw"nt. So if the majority of the population says "ant" and according to you they're incorrect, the remaining minority who say "ahnt" must also be incorrect according to you, so, er, um, I guess EVERYBODY is incorrect?? The entire English speaking world?? Even you?? (I can only assume you say "ahnt" since you have only criticized the majority-spoken "ant")

I don't know if this is really definitive or relevant, but consider that the S in CMS represents the first S in Services, not the pluralizing s at the end. Would that suggest that -'s is the proper ending?