l, not -l wrote:

>
> On 21-Jan-2008, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> > > It's weird that as much as we all think we know the word "gullible"
>> > > it's
>> > > not actually in the dictionaries.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Blinky
>> >
>> > Guess it depends on your ditionary; it's in my hardbound Websters
>> > Unabridged
>> > and the Merriam-Webster online;
>> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?gullible
>>
>> Maybe he was just fishing to see who was gullible enough to look it up.
>> :-)
>
> That would certainly be a good cover story, should one be caught making a
> bone-headed assertion ;-)

Actually, fishing for the gullible (or at least those with their guard
down) by saying that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary has been
a Usenet staple for decades. Perhaps you haven't been around Usenet very
long, if this is the first time you've observed it -- which would seem to
be the case.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net