My sense is that American English prefers "don't" and "do you not" is a speech act with a peculiar meaning: "I am now interrogating and instructing you" in a Socratic fashion. On the other hand, "do you not" is fairly common Canadian usage with raising intonation on the 'not.'

No doubt the confusion stems from both the fact that "rein" and "reign" refer to systems of control (both could be possibly "free" in a notional way), and that few speakers today will be familiar with equestrian terminology. We have lots of similar terms like "saddle" and "bridle," "chomping at the bit," etc., that are used metaphorically.

"Catch-22" is the title of a book by Joseph Heller. It's the origin of the term. "Catch-33" would have to be a neologism.

Colin - I work in a publishing house. We say things like, "lowercase that," "titlecase here," etc. As MS Word lists these in its "Change Case" tool, I think of them as written out as single words, but generally we mark them with abbreviations on manuscript, e.g., "l/c" for "lowercase." These can be used as both adjectives and verbs as needed by circumstance.

Saturday Night Live's "Jack Handy's Deep Thoughts" were uniformly of this sort, e.g., "“It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.” goo.gl/bScFf

As noted above, instead of "I," constructions such as "this researcher" are normal. "We" is a pronoun used when one author is writing on behalf of a team or group, but usually "the researchers" or the passive voice is used. It also depends on both the field and the journal in question.

There's a side question here regarding "old." Precisely as noted, prior to the introduction of formal orthographies, the word could have been rendered as "old," "olde," or some other variant. But why would a store advertise itself as being aged? In Japan in 1995 I remember seeing stores bill themselves as being extant "since 1993," so longevity (sic) has long been an imprimatur of quality.

I took the "Qaddafi or Sheen?" quiz today. I scored...well, let's just say way under 50 percent correct. Way under.

I agree with mplungjan. "I found my ___ by luck" is non-idiomatic. I can't imagine a native speaker saying that under any circumstances. "I found my ___ by coincidence" is quasi-possible as an introductory clause, in the event that something else happened of significance. "By chance" means "by accident" in this context and is natural.