Piss off, Yurt. I demonstrated to your forgetful ass that the House and Senate for the 111th Congress clearly defined what earmarks are such that there can be no dispute as to the definition thereof for the 111th Congress. Assuming for purposes of argument that there really are "multiple understandings of earmarks" and that those alleged "multiple understandings" are legitimate, for the 111th Congress, of which these 52 jackasses were members, that is not the case.
P.S. Perhaps you could link to where you showed me multiple understandings of earmarks because I don't remember that in the least.