There, you dismiss my attempted explanation as pedantry
...when, in reality, you are the one who is guilty of being pedantic.
I used the word "putting," knowing full-well, the difference between the two idioms. And my explanation, while wordy, was an attempt to show that, what is commonly accepted as a malapropism, is actually, two idioms with exact-opposite meanings.
I'll use an illustration: the use of "pudding" places the judgement on the listener's reception of the metaphor, while "putting" shifts the judgement to the speaker. "the proof is in the putting" means that it doesn't matter what the listener infers from the metaphor, all that matters is what the speaker was implying.
You suspected me of using a malapropism known as an "eggcorn." The more commonly heard ones being: "...for all intensive purposes" "flustrated" "wheel-barrel" or "taken for granite." These errors are almost always committed by people who don't read, but get all of their exposure to information from the spoken word.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
