Bob, I gave your post a cursory examination, and I think my answer is "No". Or maybe "Yes".

At the risk of being redundant (both of my last two posts, including this present one, are exactly the same (and, yes, I went out of my way to make that as intentionally redundant as I could possibly make it--on purpose)):

While in many cases there is no problem, being vigilant about redundancy requires us to think about our words; pointing out redundancies encourages (and in some cases might help) others do the same.

You can say that again.

In, on or at Cambridge Station yesterday I was invited to sit tight while the two sections of the train were "coupled together".

PS

"in three short weeks..."
"in just two brief months..." grrrrrrr

I recently heard "We shared the same taxi" - I'd like to have seen them share a different one.

We all know what people mean, so there's not a lack of communication - only a lack of precision with the language. It doesn't make me cringe the way that seeing something like "Your a really good friend" does!

Jayne, what would you say about a sentence like, "I'm wearing the same shoes I wore yesterday"? If you left out the word "same," it wouldn't change the literal meaning (I don't think), but somehow it doesn't sound redundant. Does it to you?

I was just reading an article by Matt Taibbi on George W. Bush. I thought this apropos:

Watching John Cusak's "The Raven" this morning, I caught two in one line of "Annabelle Lee":..."neither the angels in Heaven above, nor the demons down under the sea,...".

Here where I live, the second may be arguable, though, as I have often heard the phrase "up under". ["It ran up under the chester drawers."]

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.

Hmm, I always knew it was redundant to say "twinkle" twice, but I hadn't considered "up above."