Sandman
In article <eqmdne10u4-kJafOnZ2dnUVZ8kmdnZ2d@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood wrote:

I actually missed that, I thought it was "none" you were in reference to, which sort of speaks to how low your credibility with regards to English is and how any comment you make about it will be doubted until you give anything substantial.

I'm still baffled about the "gross" part though, but that's just you trolling though.

Tony Cooper
Use that dictionary you keep copy/pasting from: gross >>>>unattractively large or bloated.

Sandman
I am perfectly aware of the meaning of the word "gross", which is why I am baffled by your misuse of it. Accidentally writing "is" when one should have written "are" is pretty much one of the tiniest and "non-bloated" ways to make a grammar mistake.

That being said, a "gross" mistake is not something that is likened to being large or bloated, you picked the wrong definition. Words mean several things, and "gross" when used to describe a mistake is more aptly defined with the "vulgar, unrefined" part of the Oxford definition of the word, as opposed to something related to size. Or even the "complete, blatant" one.

Neil Ellwood
You are using an incorrect interpretation. 'Gross' in this context is an indefinite numerical simile.

Sandman
Tony has already claimed it was used to mean "unnattractively large or bloated", which is hardly indefinite. Even so, "gross" isn't used to mean "minor" or "slight", which "indefinite" would suggest is possible. "Gross" is used - when used as a numerical simlie, which Tony didn't - to denote something above or more than ordinary. It can be used to be the opposite of detailed as well.

In this case, either definition is equally ill-fitted though, which is why you used it of course.

Neil Ellwood
And that is why you are wrong.

Sandman
You just can't put into words why.