wrote in message
news:ualau31ovluapc176a5s272e4e40fjpd9n@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:36:36 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> wrote in message
>>news:0qfau3tvbhp3vecpnmprq6thm0lpeo02od@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:12:55 +0000, Martin
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>judithsmith@live.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:49:55 -0700 (PDT), "MAOgilvie@indaal.co.uk"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19 Mar, 08:30, Gary B wrote:
>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C_Clarke
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes! Another child molster is dead :-)))))
>>>>>> There's a world of difference between molesting children and having
>>>>>> . with nubile boys
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ffs - what is a nubile boy
>>>>>
>>>>Look at the works of Michelangelo or David Hockney, you'll figure it out
>>>>for yourself then
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh - you don't know what nubile means then?
>>
>>I'd have thought so. "Marriagable or .ually attractive (especially of a
>>woman)" (OED).
>>Doesn't seem to exclude the works of Michelangelo or David Hockney, if
>>that's what floats your boat.
>>
>
> I was wrong - I thought it meant only marriageable (not necessarily
> attractive) and pertaining to females.
I think that's excusable, considering the word is usually applied to young
women. No criticism implied or intended.
|