Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[uke2se]

Not entirely, but almost, absolutely.

(Someone) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means).

Good to see you understand.

This is like being in upside-down world. That has been my point from the beginning. Without qualifiers, the word is meaningless, so that when you claimed to be "MIHOP", you were in fact saying nothing at all, while simultaneously making the other party believe you where saying something. That's dishonesty.

 

[000063]

LMAO.

M.I.H.O.P. does not mean exclusively "USG-MIHOP".

M.I.H.O.P. does not mean exclusively "Inside Job".


I imagine the merry-go-round will begin again...

One, you're conflating "exclusively" with "standard usage".

2.It's weird how you keep not-quoting vital parts of my posts. Hang on.

Except that you never made such an explanation, or admitted to using it in a non-standard manner. You acted as if you already were using it in the standard manner, and when called on it, switched to this "possible meaning" bull pucky. I never said I'd accept the alternate definition, just that it should be explained, like Elephant the Pencil Sharpener.

Also, it's nice that you're finally admitting that the standard usage is the one I defined. (Much simplied: "The USG committed the attacks.")

And, as uke2se has pointed out repeatedly, and you have repeatedly ignored, a "Made It Happen On Purpose" without any "who", "what"(IE: the "It"), or "how"(IE: "On Purpose") is a meaningless term. All you have left is "Made Happen", which is so ambiguous as to be useless for purposes of discussion. And since the "what" is undefined, the "Happen" doesn't refer to anything, merely leaving "Made".

And you are still misunderstanding or deliberately conflating the difference between standard usage and non-standard usage, and between potential usage and actual usage. You said, incorrectly, that I'd accept the non-standard version of the term being used with qualifiers clarifying it, in a manner suggesting a point scored for you, but you didn't use those qualifiers. You acted like the non-standard use was the standard use, and changed your story later.

In fact, let's just clarify; femr, is your non-specific usage of the term a standard one or not?

 

[Disbelief]

This is like being in upside-down world. That has been my point from the beginning. Without qualifiers, the word is meaningless, so that when you claimed to be "MIHOP", you were in fact saying nothing at all, while simultaneously making the other party believe you where saying something. That's dishonesty.

No, when he said he was MIHOP, he clearly meant that someone, somehow made something happen! Does that clear it up?

 

[uke2se]

One, you're conflating "exclusively" with "standard usage".

2.It's weird how you keep not-quoting vital parts of my posts. Hang on.



And you are still misunderstanding or deliberately conflating the difference between standard usage and non-standard usage, and between potential usage and actual usage. You said, incorrectly, that I'd accept the non-standard version of the term being used with qualifiers clarifying it, in a manner suggesting a point scored for you, but you didn't use those qualifiers. You acted like the non-standard use was the standard use, and changed your story later.

In fact, let's just clarify; femr, is your non-specific usage of the term a standard one or not?

"Incorrect" in 3... 2... 1...

 

[000063]

Not entirely, but almost, absolutely.

(Someone) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means).

Good to see you understand.

If the "it" is undefined, then there's absolutely no meaning to the phrase. It's the subject of the phrase, the operative word. Without "whatever it is" having some sort of meaning, the rest of the phrase means nothing. There have to be some sort of limiters on what "it" refers to. Given that it is used in the context of 9/11 discussion, this automatically limits "it" to some part or the collective terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.

So femr2's assertion that it "can" mean anything is false.

Unless, of course, he cares to qualify said statement.

 

[NoahFence]

HE SAID THE WORD!!

What? "is"?

No - you can't go very far in life without saying "is"....

 

[000063]

"Incorrect" in 3... 2... 1...

The judges will also accept femr declaring examination of his personal opinion irrelevant again, despite it actually being the topic at hand this time.

I'd also like to see femr2 say what the standard definition actually is, not what it "could mean". Reality, not hypothetical.

 

[femr2]

You are speaking for whom ?

Who is this "everyone" ?

Have you asked them ?

Show me the dialogue.

Google it. MIHOP means, at the very least, "someone other than Al Qaida" made it happen on purpose, signifying that the MIHOP believer is a conspiracy theorist.

No, no, no uke2se...

Here, yes, but as far as I could see, not in the quoted discussion with a fellow truther.

There was never any apparent confusion about meaning, and implying their was is a strawman.

There was never any confusion because everyone was clear that it meant USG MIHOP.

You are speaking for whom ?

Who is this "everyone" ?

Have you asked them ?

Show me the dialogue.

uke2se, when you say "the quoted discussion with a fellow truther", then "everyone was clear" and I ask you "Who is this "everyone" ?"...

"google it" is a nonsensical response.

You are referring to a quoted discussion, and speaking for who you refer to as "a fellow truther".

You are making it up as you go along.

Tsk.

 

[femr2]

This is like being in upside-down world. That has been my point from the beginning. Without qualifiers, the word is meaningless, so that when you claimed to be "MIHOP", you were in fact saying nothing at all, while simultaneously making the other party believe you where saying something. That's dishonesty.

Incorrect. Without qualifiers simply means non-specific who, non-specific what and non-specific how.

A who. A what. A how.

 

[uke2se]

No, no, no uke2se...






uke2se, when you say "the quoted discussion with a fellow truther", then "everyone was clear" and I ask you "Who is this "everyone" ?"...

"google it" is a nonsensical response.

You are referring to a quoted discussion, and speaking for who you refer to as "a fellow truther".

You are making it up as you go along.

Tsk.

The quoted discussion was between you and a truther. You claimed to be MIHOP, indicating to said truther that you where on his side, i.e, a conspiracy theorist. Either you where using the standard usage for MIHOP, meaning US government involvement, like the truther was, or you where using your own, non-standard version, meaning you were being dishonest.

It's not hard to understand, femr.

 

[000063]

Incorrect. Without qualifiers simply means non-specific who, non-specific what and non-specific how.

A who. A what. A how.

In other words, you're referring to something done by someone in some manner.

Such a vague term is useless for the purposes of discussion.

 

[uke2se]

Incorrect.

Not incorrect, especially when you follow with this:

Without qualifiers simply means non-specific who, non-specific what and non-specific how.

A who. A what. A how.

Which is exactly what I've been saying. Without qualifiers, MIHOP means "someone made something happen somewhere on purpose", which is a meaningless statement.

Wonder if I qualify for Randi's million for predicting that femr2 would begin his post with the word "incorrect".

 

[femr2]

One, you're conflating "exclusively" with "standard usage".

Incorrect.

And you are still misunderstanding or deliberately conflating the difference between standard usage and non-standard usage, and between potential usage and actual usage.

Incorrect. I've clearly indicated several times that USG-MIHOP is a common usage, and many do so without the USG qualifier.

I've also highlighted that many other usages are also valid, including any "who", and "what", and any "how".

you didn't use those qualifiers

Correct.

You acted like the non-standard use was the standard use, and changed your story later.

Incorrect.

In fact, let's just clarify; femr, is your non-specific usage of the term a standard one or not?

As I've said...

I have used the term with what may be validly considered a minority defintiion, but it is neither incorrect nor dishonest to do so.

 

[GlennB]

This is like being in upside-down world. That has been my point from the beginning. Without qualifiers, the word is meaningless, so that when you claimed to be "MIHOP", you were in fact saying nothing at all, while simultaneously making the other party believe you where saying something. That's dishonesty.

This about sums it up. If one's personal understanding of a MIHOP claim goes beyond that which is accepted by 99.9% of those who use that acronym, then failure to qualify - in order to explain one's position within the 0.1% - makes it meaningless. If I told people here I am a union member you'd know what I meant. If I then told you that I was only talking about my marital union you'd think I was weird. If I proceeded to insist this was a reasonable understanding of "union" you'd think I was nuts.

femr2 isn't allowed to accept this blindingly obvious point, as it would give him less to waffle about. femr2 appears, more and more and amply evidenced by his countless posts offering nothing but smokescreens, to be simply an attention-whore.

For example, despite countless requests, we still have no summary of his current belief on what happened on 9/11, or what he believes is so significant about his deep analyses of collapse initiation and progression.

 

[femr2]

Either you where using the standard usage for MIHOP, meaning US government involvement, like the truther was, or you where using your own, non-standard version

How have you determined in what sense the other party understood the term ?

 

[uke2se]

Incorrect.

Not incorrect.

Incorrect. I've clearly indicated several times that USG-MIHOP is a common usage, and many do so without the USG qualifier.

It is the most common usage, to the point of being exclusive without qualifiers, which you have failed to list in your conversations.

I've also highlighted that many other usages are also valid, including any "who", and "what", and any "how".

Rendering the acronym meaningless without explicit qualifiers, which you failed to provide in your quoted conversations.

Incorrect.

Not incorrect.

 

[uke2se]

How have you determined in what sense the other party understood the term ?

That was rather obvious. You can read the quote yourself. It has been posted in the thread.

 

[femr2]

In other words, you're referring to something done by someone in some manner.

Nope.

There are additional assumptions...

The "vague" meaning you attribute to literal use still implies...

someone deliberately destroying the towers on 9/11, somehow or other.

It doesn't mean in context discussion about BP MIHOP, which is about whether BP made that ol' leak happen or not, by some means unspecified.

 

[femr2]

What does MIHOP mean ?

The acronym M.I.H.O.P. stands for...

Made It Happen On Purpose.

For the literal meaning...

WHO made WHAT happen on purpose, and HOW

...who, what and how are subjective.


It does not solely refer to USG-MIHOP.

 

[Disbelief]

Nope.

There are additional assumptions...

The "vague" meaning you attribute to literal use still implies...

someone deliberately destroying the towers on 9/11, somehow or other.

It doesn't mean in context discussion about BP MIHOP, which is about whether BP made that ol' leak happen or not, by some means unspecified.

So you agree that there are assumptions in the acronym MIHOP. Now, take the next step to the implications in the 9/11 conspiracy forum.