I did not know that yesterday!

As befits a master of deception, much mystery surrounds the death of Ehrich Weiss, better known by his stage name, Harry Houdini. The most common misconception about his death arose from the 1953 movie Houdini, starring Tony Curtis. In the movie, Houdini died during a failed escape from the infamous Chinese Water Torture Cell.

The truth was slightly less dramatic. According to the Houdini Historical Center of Appleton, Wisconsin, the famous magician, author, psychic debunker, aviator, and movie star died on Halloween Day, 1926, in Detroit, Michigan. The official cause of death was peritonitis caused by appendicitis.

Another misconception has it that Houdini's death resulted from a blow to the stomach:

Houdini was known for his tremendous physical condition, and could withstand blows to the abdomen by tensing his muscles. While performing in Canada, however, he was challenged by a student who didn't give him time to prepare for the punch. Whether or not the blow ruptured his appendix, it did not cause his appendicitis, which is a bacterial infection.

All dogs lick themselves. Some eat their own feces. Humans (most of 'em, anyway) do not. So how in the world can the mouth of a canine be cleaner than that of a person? Simple -- it can't.

According to ABC News, this is basically an urban legend. However, unlike the one about the psycho killer with the hook, this story has a grain of truth. Although the mouth of a typical dog is full of bacteria, it's "species specific." So, if a dog were to lick a person, most of the germs wouldn't transfer. "Bottom line -- you're more likely to get a serious illness from kissing a person than kissing a dog."

The myth may have stemmed from the way pups lick their wounds. A dog's tongue gets rid of dead tissue so wounds heal faster. Perhaps folks concluded that dog saliva is "healthy." Hardly the case, but you shouldn't be afraid of licks. They might be gross, but they're not dangerous.

While it's true hair is sometimes shinier after a hot oil treatment or a beer rinse, the switching shampoos theory seems to be a tangle of marketing hype. Because unless the suds are prescription or for dandruff, most shampoos have the same active ingredients.

Regardless, some believe an occasional clarifying shampoo can get rid of " product buildup." Where do people get this idea? From some stylists and some product lines. I need more proof.

According to Cosmetic Mall's Beauty Tips , frequent use isn't the only reason to purchase a rotating cast of shampoos. The weather is also a culprit. "In dry winter air, a moisturizing shampoo may become necessary. In the summer, you may need a volume-building shampoo which will help keep your hair fuller."

But before you spend your paycheck on shampoos for all seasons, famed colorist Robert Craig has another theory: it's the water. After learning detergent manufacturers alter their product based upon each region's water hardness, he developed shampoos to do the same. He says, "if you are using a shampoo formulated for the water it is used with...there is never a need to change products." Maybe only a different kind of marketing hype, but it's an argument I'd buy.

I've heard it's because pants and shorts have two legs. But shirts have two sleeves, and you don't have a "pair of shirts." Hmm, so much for that theory.

According to The Mavens' Word of the Day, pants in the plural form is an Americanism first recorded in 1840. The word is short for pantaloons, a term that originated with a character in Italian commedia dell'arte who wore both stockings and breeches.

World Wide Words states that these types of clothing (pants, underwear, shorts, tights -- or the equivalent terms for them) were made in two parts. One part for each leg, then belted in the middle, somewhat like chaps on cowboys. Over time, they ended up as one piece of clothing, but the habit of referring to the old "pair" persisted.

This reference isn't universal, however. The clothing industry often uses the singular form of pant, but not consistently. So pick your favorite, singular or plural -- you'll still put them on one leg at a time.