[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by George Simmers

I always mutter on a train when asked to ensure that I take all my personal belongings with me. What about my impersonal belongings? (A volume of poems with a classicist bent, for example?)

George, I think it's to discourage kleptomaniacs from taking other people's belongings with them.

[Adrian Fry]

Buffet car announcements in which we are advised that 'hot and cold beverages' can be obtained. They sometimes go on to list every conceivable beverage on sale, making the earlier phrase redundant.

[ross hamilton hill]

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.

[ross hamilton hill]

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.

[Alan Rain]

Originally Posted by ross hamilton hill

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

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.

[Roger Slater]

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.

[Erik Olson]

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.

[Alan Rain]

Of course, H.G Wells' time machine requires a going-back in time. Gazing into the sky is looking back in time. Hindsight is seeing the wisdom or otherwise of an alternative course of action. Etc Etc.

I am referring to the redundant clause 'going forward' plonked into a sentence when the speaker is talking about his or her intentions.
Simple as that.

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Erik Olson

Back to redundancies, plan ahead is a common offender

I don't know if I agree that "plan ahead" is a redundancy that ought to be avoided. I think it conveys a meaning that "plan" alone would often not convey. "Be sure to plan ahead" certainly sounds more natural to me than "Be sure to plan." Or, "I suspected it might rain, so I brought my umbrella. I'm glad I planned ahead." Wouldn't that last sentence sound a bit awkward if you left out "ahead"?

[George Simmers]

Well, it's never stopped me.