The Winner in "Unintentional Humor...."

[PoliticalChic]

...of the week!

Perhaps.....of the year!!!



"In Jerusalem, metal detectors humiliate Muslims!
The saga of 'anti-Palestinian metal detectors' at the Temple Mount continues (see below). The outrage caused by these metal detectors frightens Israel's leaders. They don't know if they should keep the detectors in place or take them down to appease 'Palestinian' leaders and local Islamic clerics (Raphael Ahren, Dov Lieber, "Amid protests, Israel weighs taking down Temple Mt. metal detectors", timesofisrael, July 19, 2017).

More to our point here, no Arabs complained that the Saudi metal detectors at a revered Islamic holy site (in Mecca) had 'humiliated' them. No Arab complained that the Saudi metal detectors were a 'collective punishment' against Muslims (Ali Waked, "Exclusive: Fatah official: Israeli metal detectors at Temple Mount are 'collective punishment' of Muslim worshipers", breitbart, July 18, 2017).

No Arab politicians called for a Day of Rage anywhere in the Arab world because of new metal detectors. No Arab cleric anywhere in the Arab world announced that metal detectors are religiously unacceptable because anyone who passes through them will have their prayers to Heaven nullified."
In Jerusalem, metal detectors humiliate Muslims!

 

[louie888]

The unintentional winner is you.

--------------------------"Metal Detectors"----------------------------

 

[Roudy]

...of the week!

Perhaps.....of the year!!!



"In Jerusalem, metal detectors humiliate Muslims!
The saga of 'anti-Palestinian metal detectors' at the Temple Mount continues (see below). The outrage caused by these metal detectors frightens Israel's leaders. They don't know if they should keep the detectors in place or take them down to appease 'Palestinian' leaders and local Islamic clerics (Raphael Ahren, Dov Lieber, "Amid protests, Israel weighs taking down Temple Mt. metal detectors", timesofisrael, July 19, 2017).

More to our point here, no Arabs complained that the Saudi metal detectors at a revered Islamic holy site (in Mecca) had 'humiliated' them. No Arab complained that the Saudi metal detectors were a 'collective punishment' against Muslims (Ali Waked, "Exclusive: Fatah official: Israeli metal detectors at Temple Mount are 'collective punishment' of Muslim worshipers", breitbart, July 18, 2017).

No Arab politicians called for a Day of Rage anywhere in the Arab world because of new metal detectors. No Arab cleric anywhere in the Arab world announced that metal detectors are religiously unacceptable because anyone who passes through them will have their prayers to Heaven nullified."
In Jerusalem, metal detectors humiliate Muslims!

Just imagine, the Palestinians can't sneak in their guns and bombs that easily any longer. This policy is oppressive and racist and needs to stop!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Israel refuses to remove metal detectors from mosque despite rising violence"
Israel refuses to remove metal detectors from mosque despite rising violence



Islam: building a bridge to the 7th century.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

 

[fanger]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

Really, you are quoting an Anonymous persons Blog as your proof of something ?

 

[Challenger]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

The winner of unintentional humour is....PoliticalChic! Since any "fatwa" issued by al-Azhar university is non-binding; it's just an opinon with no force in islamic law whatsoever. Another non-story. Next?

 

[mudwhistle]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

I remember years ago saying that the Democrats were becoming like Hamas.
You could never get the truth out of them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

The winner of unintentional humour is....PoliticalChic! Since any "fatwa" issued by al-Azhar university is non-binding; it's just an opinon with no force in islamic law whatsoever. Another non-story. Next?

I love how the truth inflames the less than astute.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

Really, you are quoting an Anonymous persons Blog as your proof of something ?

If it didn't occur....please provide your proof.

Or.....never open your mouth except to change feet.

 

[fanger]

Ha Ha he's funny, you should see his Shlomo The Dead jewish capo... Oy Vey!

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

Really, you are quoting an Anonymous persons Blog as your proof of something ?

If it didn't occur....please provide your proof.

Or.....never open your mouth except to change feet.

The Clock Ticks: Offensive Jihad
It wasn't of any consequence when you copy/pasted the same words 6 years ago

 

[PoliticalChic]

And this is not funny...

Not funny or accurate PoliticalChinc

Of course, it is accurate....hence your outrage.


"1. IN EGYPT, an extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University, the world’s most important Islamic university.

2. …Mustafa has publicly and explicitly come up with a new concept, one that up until now was supposedly restricted to groups like al-Qaida: “Then there is another type of fighting against the non- Muslims known as offensive jihad... which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]...

3. “Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam’s border, to extend God’s religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula.”

4. …this means that it is permissible to wage jihad against a country if anything “necessary” to Islam according to (hard-line) clerics’ interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of head scarves or burkas).

5. In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh century- style jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim ruled lands. Merely to “extend God’s religion” to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam’s main schools have always endorsed offensive jihad, but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or 20 years ago.

6. …radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa’s statement publicly – if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West – this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won’t be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt’s government.

7. Moreover, we probably won’t see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive jihad.
This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not be covered in the Western mass media. If this viewpoint continues to spread, along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West.ShrinkWrapped: Stories You May Have Missed If You Only Read the New York Times: Updated



The savages have endorsed attacking women and children....or any civilians.

Really, you are quoting an Anonymous persons Blog as your proof of something ?

If it didn't occur....please provide your proof.

Or.....never open your mouth except to change feet.

The Clock Ticks: Offensive Jihad
It wasn't of any consequence when you copy/pasted the same words 6 years ago

"The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted May 1-5 among 1,504 adults, finds that finds sizable demographic and religious differences in attitudes toward Islam and violence. And the partisan gap is as large as ever: 62% of Republicans say that Islam encourages violence more than other religions, compared with 39% of independents and just 29% of Democrats." http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/5-7-13 Islam Release.pdf


Liberal is synonymous with Democrat....and both represent the denial of reality.



Sooo....you're a Democrat?

 

[fanger]

Those Label's you use are of American origin
I associate the word "democrat" as a person who supports democracy
Do you support democracy?

 

[Challenger]

I love how the truth inflames the less than astute.

...and I love how the less than astute keep abusing the word "truth", when they have no idea about what they are talking about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those Label's you use are of American origin
I associate the word "democrat" as a person who supports democracy
Do you support democracy?

Do the Islamofascists that you support support democracy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I love how the truth inflames the less than astute.

...and I love how the less than astute keep abusing the word "truth", when they have no idea about what they are talking about.

Let's check.

Are the Islamofascists psychopathic thugs whose doctrines mirror those of 7th century barbarians?


Truth?

 

[fanger]

Those Label's you use are of American origin
I associate the word "democrat" as a person who supports democracy
Do you support democracy?

Do the Islamofascists that you support support democracy?

You didn't answer the question I asked,Do you support democracy? (you might be a Democrat)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those Label's you use are of American origin
I associate the word "democrat" as a person who supports democracy
Do you support democracy?

Do the Islamofascists that you support support democracy?

You didn't answer the question I asked,Do you support democracy? (you might be a Democrat)

Let's check.

Are the Islamofascists psychopathic thugs whose doctrines mirror those of 7th century barbarians?


Truth?

 

[fanger]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass.