Blinky the Shark wrote:

> 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 ;-)
>
> If you Google the phrase "gullible is not in the dictionary" you'll see
> about 10,000 hits. That's fishing, pure and simple, as was my own cast.
>

And I was the only one who spotted it?
That's odd, since I am usually naive.