Walter, you're on the wrong thread. This is the one where you have to get annoyed by things. Your approach sounds much more enjoyable though.

I just wrote "can possibly" in another thread. Bwahahaha! Who's peeved?

What's wrong with can possibly?

Julie, not many of hoi polloi are aware that "Bwahahaha" is, in fact, also redundant. In the original language (I forgot what it was...something ancient) ,the definition of our modern "Bwa" was "Now I say h". Therefore, the "Bwa" actually includes the "h" of the first "ha".

Since I returned here (UK), I notice the phrase 'going forward' has become a part of the language - it used to be corporate-speak, but it seems everyone is now going forward.
I shall resist.

I don't see the problem, you are going forward, not going backwards or going sideways. There's no redundancy.

I also think the 'rule of law' is not redundant, you can have laws but if they are not enforced then there is no rule.
Similarly with trains 'a complete stop' means all the carriages have stopped moving.
Also the train may be longer than the station so stop and station mean very different things.
absolutely is my fav redundant word, you can couple it with almost anything and it will still not mean a thing.

In reference to the passage of time, how do you go in any other direction? That was the usage I meant, and I assumed that was obvious.
True, if it relates to distance and direction, then it's valid.

But it makes sense to speak of going backwards in time, even if it's something that is not actually possible. "If I could go backwards in time, I'd do things differently." "The way he regressed, I almost felt that time was going backwards."

Your point, I gather, is that one cannot go backwards in time, one can only go forward. But in restating your point, I used "go forward" in a non-redundant manner with regard to time.

Roger makes a good point. We have to be able to speak of going back in time, even though it is not physically possible. When someone relates a piece of contemporary history, we need to be able to ask him, if necessary, to go back to the beginning. H.G. Wells had to be able to write of the Time Traveller going back in time as well as forward; asked to describe the plot, the language accommodates the impossible action without difficulty. I ask someone who gives me directions to skip one part, but I need the language to tell him to go back to an earlier part of his instruction as well.
Back to redundancies, plan ahead is a common offender. Going forward is fine, but advance forward would be a redundancy and must needs peeve I do believe.