"When they [newspapers] used a word the word meant what they chose that it should mean; they were the masters, never the slaves, of language. As to that. . .they were but one with the rest of mankind. What, after all, is language, that it should dominate and hamper man who made it? And what right have any of us to demand that the meanings of words should be, what in point of fact they seldom are, static? Words move, turning over like tumbling clowns; like certain books and like fleas, they possess activity. All men equally have the right to say: 'This word shall bear this meaning,' and see if they can get it across. It is a sporting game, which all can play, only all cannot win. 'He altered the meaning of a word': is this a noble epitaph or the reverse? 'He refused to acknowledge a new meaning to a word': is this to be a hero or merely a linguistic backwoodsman? Still, why be coerced by Fleet Street? If words are changing their meanings, as assuredly they are, let each user of language make such change as please himself, put up his own suggestion, and let the beast win. It is unfair that, just because they have a staff of printers and a large supply of paper, newspapers should have it all their own way."