On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:04 -0800, 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 ;-)
>
>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.

with all due respect, blinky, it was pretty tired even when it first
appeared.

your pal,
blake