Why isn't it? It's probably good enough for everyone else on this forum.
Besides, you were simply wanting an assurance that I wasn't making it up. I gave you that assurance with the link.
"it is up to you to back up your claim"
I did! What's wrong with my cite? I stand by it unless you can tell me why it shouldn't be used.
Otherwise, this crap can go on all night -- I give you a link, you say no good, I give you another, you say no good, I give you another ...
Yet another un-cited assertion, robertpaulsen? One would think you'd have learned your lesson by now. Care to take a poll as to whether it is good enough for "everyone else"? I'll play. Will you?
Besides, you were simply wanting an assurance that I wasn't making it up. I gave you that assurance with the link.
What I wanted, and what I asked for is a matter of record, to be contrasted with your assertions herein. I'll let the record speak for itself.
The only assurance you offered was that yours was not an original thought, though that was not much of a surprise.
What's wrong with my cite? I stand by it unless you can tell me why it shouldn't be used.
I already told you, but since you seem to have reading or comprehension difficulties, I will repeat: I do not accept someone else's opinion. Instead, I desire an authoritative source, such as a dictionary published circa 1791, that supports your asserted definitions of "keep" and "bear".
Since you asserted to have authoritative definitions of these two words, circa 1791, why is this so difficult for you? Why do you obfuscate and redirect instead of offering proof? Could it be that you have been mislead, or that you are attempting to mislead? Surely not...