blake murphy wrote:

> 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.

On the other hand, it still works.

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