Regarding: "...the standard practice is to use a single space after a period, as you [Doug] did in your own post..."

and: "...As a matter of fact, every person here used a single space in their post..."

You cannot draw any conclusions about the intent of any posters on this site. In HTML, extra "white space" is automatically deleted. Double spaces (or more) after periods are automatically replaced with a single space. This applies to all posts on this site. Just to demonstrate, I double spaced after all periods in this very post. As you can see, they have all been replaced with single spaces.

I am amazed at how many posts on this site center around a simple lack of understanding that there can be many ways to say the same thing and that they are all perfectly ok.

This is just an off-the-cuff comment, but I think it's an idiomatic issue. You can't quite put your finger on what's wrong because all of the versions you've asked about are grammatically correct. the problem with them is that they are somewhat awkward phrases that are not commonly used. Few would say "That house has a great construction." Rather, one would say "That house is well-constructed" or "That house is well-built" or "That is a well-built house." It's sort of like saying "My, you have had a great cutting of hair!" when most people would say, "Hey, that's a great haircut!" Both are grammatically correct, but the former sounds like you're an alien from another planet and learned English solely by monitoring old radio and TV broadcasts that have leaked through space across many light-years to your home world.

Once I received a piece of junk mail that had my correct name on it. It had the street address from a company that I used to work for, but drastically misspelled. It also had a different city, from my current job listed. The zip code was for my HOME address. Other than my name, not one thing on the address was correct or consistent. Miraculously, the mail was successfully delivered to my home! Just for fun, I tried to mail myself something with only my name and zip code on it. Didn't work. Surprise!

Gilbert, as inarticulate as Bush may be, and as much as I blame him for many, many things (and I really do), I'm afraid you really can't blame him for this whole troop/troops thing. It predates his term by years/decades/centuries. Scroll up to my previous post.

Furthermore, and I'm sure this will start another argument (at least, I hope so:), I think that criticism for his use of "decider" is misplaced. I would propose that adding -er to the end of ANY verb to create a noun is ALWAYS correct in English, even if it's not in the dictionary, even if it's never been done before for a particular word by any single human being ever, even if it results in a stilted, awkward-sounding word. The -er paradigm itself is a universal method of nounification. And, by the way, nounification is a real word, too. I just coined it. Making up such words in context is also allowed in English, actually, in every language. That's how ALL language was created in the first place, right? Like it or not, Bush WAS the decider, I guess we were the decidees. If you want to join the many other criticizers in making him the critizee, go right ahead.

In general, it's "...prohibits you from..." and "...allows you to..." Similarly, it would be "...stops/bans/keeps you from..." and "...permits you to...", but simply "...lets you (run, eat, whatever, verb without preceding 'to')..." I would suggest that in the above post, "In California, state law prohibits you TO USE [emphasis mine] your cell phone while driving." is incorrect.

Let me go out on a limb here. I would suggest that there is really no such thing as formal correspondence via e-mail. I consider the very medium to be unreliable and informal by nature. It's unpredictable both in terms of delivery time and even assurance of actual delivery. The recipient could take a week to read his or her e-mail, or just delete it. It could get gobbled up by a spam filter. I would list in approximate order of formality from lowest to highest: post-it note, instant message, email, phone call, fax, memo, letter, letter with delivery confirmation. I realize I'm making generalities here, but let's face it. Most business e-mails start out: "Hi, I have a question about your product..." or "Bill, can you make the meeting at 3PM?" or "Hi all, Please note, Boeing will be visiting the plant on Monday..." but absolutely never "Dear Sir or Madame, Please be advised..." If a situation required that level of formality, it would also require transmission by certified mail or FedEx with signature confirmation.

When you hang a door, the space between the door and the door frame is called a "reveal", not a "revelation". Also, in a TV ad, the moment when the product is displayed, often as a solution to some consumer problem, is called the "reveal" in the advertising industry.

Actually, Name, a malapropism is a ridiculous, absurd, or humorous, misuse of a word. It isn't necessarily similar in sound, but usually is. As such, I would say it is exactly what Ian has described, except, of course, for the intentional part. I'm not sure what you're describing. If the word replacement is purely arbitrary, say, “I think I’m having a lamppost.” instead of “I think I’m having a coronary.” then I guess it wouldn't be a malapropism. It certainly wouldn't be funny or ridiculous. It also wouldn't be what Ian was describing. It would just be a pointless non sequitur.

To Ian, what about "malapropism"? It's not exactly what you are looking for, but it's close. It describes the word misuse exactly, but does not require the misuse to be intentional. Of course, you could just say, "intentional malapropism". I have a friend who does this both often and unintentionally. My favorite was his description of a philanthropist as a philanderer.