There are quite a few DYNAMITE writers on this forum

[GammaGlobulin]

6 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

I think you'll find rounders is baseball in the USA.

The moon is not baseballer there, though to be fair, it is singular.

 

When Michael Collins and his friends went to the moon, they had to be careful to go at the time of the month to give them the biggest target.  Can you imagine the embarrassment of slipping between the horns of a crescent to embark on an accidental one-way interplanetary adventure?

 

Sometimes, I see people driving quickly on the roads, and I think - if they really needed to get there that urgently, they would have left earlier.  If it's not worth leaving early for, it can't be that important.

My Friend:

 

There are Rounders.

There are Bounders.

There are Rounders in British English which is not the same as Rounders in North American English.

 

OK?

 

I mean, it is not that I do not know what you are talking about.

 

Still, what is your British definition of a BOUNDER?

 

(Many years ago, the term "bounder" could not be found in most dictionaries. This is true.)

[StreetCowboy]

6 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

My Friend:

 

There are Rounders.

There are Bounders.

There are Rounders in British English which is not the same as Rounders in North American English.

 

OK?

 

I mean, it is not that I do not know what you are talking about.

 

Still, what is your British definition of a BOUNDER?

 

(Many years ago, the term "bounder" could not be found in most dictionaries. This is true.)

Most people would think a bounder a cad, but that would render the term "a bounder and a cad" a tautology, which I am sure it is not.

My image of a bounder would be formed by the character in the Monty Python travel agent sketch 'Bounder of Adventure', had I ever seen it visually, but I have only listened to it.  

[GammaGlobulin]

16 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Most people would think a bounder a cad, but that would render the term "a bounder and a cad" a tautology, which I am sure it is not.

My image of a bounder would be formed by the character in the Monty Python travel agent sketch 'Bounder of Adventure', had I ever seen it visually, but I have only listened to it.  

Believe me or not, 50 years ago, the term bounder could not be found in dictionaries.  The term could only be found in books.  I know, because I recall much searching.

I searched, and searched, before I finally realized that I was the perfect definition.

 

[GBW]

go away GG

[GBW]

GG you are the best ok, now PO and FO!

[Will B Good]

19 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Believe me or not, 50 years ago, the term bounder could not be found in dictionaries.  The term could only be found in books.  I know, because I recall much searching.

I searched, and searched, before I finally realized that I was the perfect definition.

 

"Gullible" was the same....not in any dictionaries .

[GBW]

19 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Believe me or not, 50 years ago, the term bounder could not be found in dictionaries.  The term could only be found in books.  I know, because I recall much searching.

I searched, and searched, before I finally realized that I was the perfect definition.

 

WGAF!

[Nojohndoe]

So is that "we" be took by a bounder and a cad who does rely on the unsuspecting naivety of the gullible? Does the record of a word in common use within a culture, sub culture, period need be entered into a book to establish validity even if in redundant application ?