Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

[NoahFence]

Just don't assume everyone anyone else is.

Here, on the JREF 9/11 subforum, MIHOP = US Government did it.










"incorrect" in 3...2....1....

 

[femr2]

Here, on the JREF 9/11 subforum, MIHOP = US Government did it.

Incorrect.

See my previous post...

M.I.H.O.P. is an acronym for:

Made It Happen On Purpose

As discussed a few years ago on an external site...


[MIHOP/LIHOP] can mean almost anything depending on what the user wants them to mean when left unqualified, and they can just as easily be misunderstood by the intended audience when this happens.

Without clarification, the terms are like empty, unfilled glasses; containers without meaningful content.

When these labels are followed by specific explanations and analysis they are somewhat more useful, but without clarification they are dangerously open-ended:

• Who made it happen?
• What happened?
• How did it happen?
• Why did it happen?
• Why is the official story wrong?
• Which parts of the official story are wrong?
• What parts are true?
• And most importantly, how can you prove it?

These are all questions that MIHOP and LIHOP do not answer when they are not followed with explanation or precise definition;
on their own these terms are virtually meaningless.


The "who", "what" and "how" are subjective and undefined unless stated.

Many differently scoped M.I.H.O.P. "who"'s have been discussed over the years, including, but not limited to...

• Cheney-Bush MIHOP
• Peak Oil MIHOP
• Mossad MIHOP
• Zionist MIHOP
• Jewish MIHOP
• New World Order MIHOP
• Rogue Network MIHOP
• Space Aliens MIHOP
• Al Qaeda MIHOP
• BP MIHOP

Note the repeated usage of a "who" prefix to the acronym.

Similarly, there are a number of differing "what"'s including, but not limited to...

• Destruction of WTC 1 & 2
• Destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
• Destruction of WTC 7
• Destruction of a segment of the Pentagon
• Destruction of Flight 93

Anyone using the acronym may be talking about any of the above, singularly or in combination.

The "how" list is rather longer, comprising each and every "theory" about how any of the various "who" and "what" would be accomplished.


Many using the acronym assume a USG (US Government) prefix as the "who", however, as can be seen from the list above, that is far from the only discussed "who".

It should also be highlighted that even those assuming a particular "who" are still using the term with undefined "what" and "how".

Context can assist in narrowing the scope a little, but many assumptions are almost guaranteed.
After all, assumption is the mother of all ...

Ozeco41 provided a clear viewpoint near the beginning of this thread...

Except it isn't the truthers running the argument.

It is the "debunker side" which is arguing that MIHOP cannot be used with its literal meaning of Made It Happen On Purpose. They are claiming that femr2 (and I ) are wrong if we use it in its literal meaning. Even when it is absolutely clear in context to a person of modest intellect that the literal meaning is intended. That is not good enough they claim that it can only be legitimately used to mean that the US Govt. was the subject of "Made". That means some of the protagonists will also have to change how they use the phrase and acronym - a point which seems to be overlooked so far.

So, if they win this fabricated controversy, will the new definition apply to other Internet forums?

And do I have to go back and edit every use I have made of MIHOP on this and other forums and put in some disclaimers?

I have historically presumed a level of intelligent comprehension on the part of my readers. I expected them to understand in context as to whether I did or did not mean the US Government. Have I been expecting too high a level of comprehension? If so why has none of my target audience been confused? Femr's audience claims to be confused - does that mean that my audience is more discerning?

Keep it in perspective. This whole discussion arose because one member posted "What femr2 believes" - present tense - with a series of quotemines which showed femr2 modifying his stance as he continued research. It doesn't even make logical sense to represent a past tense historic and changing viewpoint as what "someone believes" - present tense. "Believed" maybe! "Believes" apart from being untrue is in self conflict because the quotes showed mutually conflicting positions as part of the progress. That's where it started. It's gone sillier since.

I suggest that if anyone is confused about what is intended by use of the acronym, that they assume the literal meaning...

Made It Happen On Purpose aka MIHOP

...regardless of who, what and how.

If you choose to assume a USG prefix, that's fine. Just don't assume everyone else is.

If you're not using the acronym with a literal meaning, then I suggest the need to qualify the "who", "what" and "how" increases.

 

[NoahFence]

That's YOUR interpretation.

See MY Previous post:

Here, on the JREF 9/11 subforum, MIHOP = US Government did it.

"incorrect" in 3....2.....1.....

 

[TheRedWorm]

femr; you're wrong. In fact, you're so wrong, you're not even wrong in the right direction.

 

[Carll68]

There is no need to entertain F2 on this topic any longer. It is now a moot point (as it always was), a dead issue.

The post below states all that needs to be stated.

Have fun reading it again champ. Try for comprehension this time.

Thanks Kiddo

Again, for comprehension F2:

con·text   [kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Either you are ignorant of the above, or are simply lying in a vain attempt at narcissism. Either way, you desperately need the following:

per·spec·tive   [per-spek-tiv] noun
5.
the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship

So, again, allow me to supply it champ.

What does P.C. mean? Personal computer? Primary care? Politically Correct? Pro choice? All of those? None of those? What?

F2, it means all of them...DEPENDING ON CONTEXT.

Point.
Blank.
End.

If one is talking about computers, and use the acronym PC...it means 'Personal Computer'. Each and every time. Without fail. If it doesn't, one is not talking about computers. Thus, in a conversation about computers, PC means personal computer.

If one is talking about Political left thinking ideals regarding language and behavior, P.C. means Political Correctness/Politically Correct. Each and every time. Without fail. If it doesn't, one is not talking about left thinking ideals regarding language and behavior. Thus, in a conversation about left thinking ideals regarding language and behavior PC means Political Correctness/Politically Correct.

Shall I go on? I think I don't need to.

So, F2, when you say "MIHOP"....it CAN mean many things.....but that all depends on CONTEXT.

con·text   [kon-tekst]
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

So, the fact stands..when you used, or anyone uses, MIHOP, when talking about the events of 9/11, on a conspiracy theory forum, in a 9/11 conspiracy theory sub forum..they are saying elements within the USG (scope undefined) MIHOP! They are taking a stance against the official narrative, which has been funded and overseen by the USG. The "what" and "who" are defined by default by the context.
And, By USG..I didn't mean University System of Georgia, or United Stated Gypsum.

Of course, everyone know this..because of the....CONTEXT.

Even more damning is the use of "it" in the English language. "It" always, every-time, without fail, refers to the subject being discussed. That is why "Pull IT" was so absurd...because the subject was never building 7, and always the rescue and fire fighting attempt's around it.

So, to re-cap: "It" = the subject matter. This is perhaps where your argument fails most dynamically and dramatically. When you say MIHOP...the "It" is made clear by the subject. Read that again. The "It" is made clear by the subject. The context. So, therefor, when talking about 911..the "It", by definition, by default, is the events of 9/11. More specifically, when talking about the collapse of the WTC's, the "It" is just that...the collapse of the WTC's.

So, when you told a fellow (as in like yourself) truther, when discussing the collapse of the WTC's, at the 911 forum that you where, quote "MIHOP"..it is abundantly and crystal clear what your meant.

The Who. The What. All made perfectly clear by context. If that (USG M WTC collapse OP) is not what you meant, then it is you who has the problem communicating your thoughts, and should thus admit so.

That, F2, is the bottom line.

No If's.
No And's.
No But's.

 

[femr2]

"MIHOP"....it CAN mean many things

Correct.

.....but that all depends on CONTEXT.

Incorrect. Context helps to narrow the scope in some circumstances, but context is very unlikely to provide enough detail for the meaning of the acronym MIHOP to mean exactly the same thing to two or more people in the same discussion (that being the same "who", "what" and "how"). The last of those in particular.

MIHOP, when talking about the events of 9/11, on a conspiracy theory forum, in a 9/11 conspiracy theory sub forum..they are saying elements within the USG (scope undefined) MIHOP!

Some may be, some may not be. A partial list of "who"'s has been provided to you many times.

Here it is again...

• Cheney-Bush MIHOP
• Peak Oil MIHOP
• Mossad MIHOP
• Zionist MIHOP
• Jewish MIHOP
• New World Order MIHOP
• Rogue Network MIHOP
• Space Aliens MIHOP
• Al Qaeda MIHOP

They are taking a stance against the official narrative, which has been funded and overseen by the USG.

Some may be, some may not be. See list above.

The "what" and "who" are defined by default by the context.

Nope. List of "who" above, and you've not even mentioned "what".

Here's a list of "what"'s again...

• Destruction of WTC 1 & 2
• Destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
• Destruction of WTC 7
• Destruction of a segment of the Pentagon
• Destruction of Flight 93

Feel free to add items to the list.

Each of those is likely to require further sub-classing to cater for more specific "how"'s, such as separation of initiation from descent by those who suggest initiation was deliberate, but progression was natural.

Even more damning is the use of "it" in the English language. "It" always, every-time, without fail, refers to the subject being discussed.

Which item(s) in the list above were you thinking of ?

So, to re-cap: "It" = the subject matter.

Again, which item(s) on the list were you thinking of ?

when talking about 911..the "It", by definition, by default, is the events of 9/11. More specifically, when talking about the collapse of the WTC's, the "It" is just that...the collapse of the WTC's.

Oh, the irony. I guess you'll want to add "the events of 9/11" to the "what" list above.

Now, does that mean 1&2, or 1,2 & 7 ? There are many who think 1&2 were deliberate, but 7 was natural. There are folk that think 1&2 were natural, but 7 was deliberate. Does that preclude the Pentagon and Flight 93 from your MIHOP scenario in mind ?

So, when you told a fellow (as in like yourself) truther, when discussing the collapse of the WTC's, at the 911 forum that you where, quote "MIHOP"..it is abundantly and crystal clear what your meant.

Especially as I've told you that most of the time...

Literal MIHOP

Undefined "who", "what", "how".

What I meant by use of an acronym can be stated by one person. Me.

Disagreeing with me on that point is beyond silly.

The Who. The What. All made perfectly clear by context.

Nope. And you've forgotten "how".

Context narrows the scope "a bit", sure. Perfectly clear ? Nope.

If that (USG M WTC collapse OP) is not what you meant, then it is you who has the problem communicating your thoughts, and should thus admit so.

Incorrect. I have stated many times...

Any "who", "What" and "how".

If you can't understand that, well, ...

 

[Carll68]

F2,

Reread for comprehension. Keep reading it until it sinks it. Many times if needed. You can do it. It may take time, but I have faith in you kiddo. Accept the English language, don't fight it.

Thanks champ.

 

[Carll68]

Which item(s) in the list above were you thinking of ?


Again, which item(s) on the list were you thinking of ?


Oh, the irony. I guess you'll want to add "the events of 9/11" to the "what" list above.

Now, does that mean 1&2, or 1,2 & 7 ? There are many who think 1&2 were deliberate, but 7 was natural. There are folk that think 1&2 were natural, but 7 was deliberate. Does that preclude the Pentagon and Flight 93 from your MIHOP scenario in mind ?

F2, I am trying to help you. Seriously, you are making a fool of yourself.


Again... "It", as per those unfortunate (for you) rules of grammar that, even if you don't agree with, you are bound too by using the English language, always references the subject matter.

So, when talking about the general events of 9/11, the "it" is the general events of 9/11. If I say MIHOP in this conversation, I am, by the rules of English, by the context of the conversation, stating the "it" that was made to happen as the general events of 9/11.

SUBJECT MATTER


The who is implied by the context of the conversation. Thus, if I am taking a pro-official narrative stance, the person stating "MIHOP" in disagreement is stating the "Who" as the USG. Because of context kiddo, you know what USG means in this conversation, don't you? Think about that.

As the scope narrows, so does the subject, and as such, the "it" becomes more defined...building 7, pentagon, et.al.

Simple.

3rd grade stuff here. Literally.

Again, when you told that fellow at the 911forum of brilliance that you were "MIHOP"...WHICH WAS EVEN MORE DAMNING TO YOUR CASE BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS VERY NARROW AND YOU WERE CONFIRMING YOUR STANCE...if you did not mean elements of the USG made WTC collapse on purpose then it is you who has the communication problem, not we who have the understanding problem.

GIVE.
UP.
NOW.

 

[000063]

Yes. All prior usage has been of the form (any who) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means)

It has generally been destruction to ground of WTC 1 & 2, but not exclusively.

And the people who did not use it in that manner or ones close to it (perpetration of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, in whole or in part, by elements of the United States Government) are the overwhelming minority.

"Generally", in this case, is the same as "standard". You use is not a general one. It is not a standard one. Any usage of the term by you, in the manner you claim to use it, should have been accompanied by a disclaimer. This is not your glory, Humpty Dumpty. You are ignoring context, you are ignoring the fact that your version of MIHOP is so vague as to be useless for the purposed of conversation, and I'm pretty certain you're just copy/pasting parts of your posts wholesale.

 

[Animal]

And the people who did not use it in that manner or ones close to it (perpetration of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, in whole or in part, by elements of the United States Government) are the overwhelming minority.

"Generally", in this case, is the same as "standard". You use is not a general one. It is not a standard one. Any usage of the term by you, in the manner you claim to use it, should have been accompanied by a disclaimer. This is not your glory, Humpty Dumpty. You are ignoring context, you are ignoring the fact that your version of MIHOP is so vague as to be useless for the purposed of conversation, and I'm pretty certain you're just copy/pasting parts of your posts wholesale.

Troofers ignoring facts? Really? Seriously?

 

[femr2]

"It", as per those unfortunate (for you) rules of grammar that, even if you don't agree with, you are bound too by using the English language, always references the subject matter.

As I said, context can narrow the scope of what is meant by the acronym MIHOP, but it certainly doesn't define "what MIHOP means", nor does it fix what "it" means in any discussion.

You could be discussing, as you say, "the events of 9/11" as your "it", whilst someone else could be discussing "it" as destruction of WTC 7 only.

It's good to see you've accepted that the acronym does not have a singular meaning.

So, when talking about the general events of 9/11, the "it" is the general events of 9/11.

Nope. When someone uses MIHOP in a discussion, it means whatever the person writing it intended it to mean at the time they wrote it, regardless of the context of the discussion at the time. That may match the discussion context, it may not.

I am thinking of a MIHOP scenario. You have no idea what it is unless I tell you. The context of the current discussion is irrelevant. I will write MIHOP again, with a completely different scenario in mind. Again, you have absolutely no idea what that scenraio is. The "who", "what" and "how" are unstated.

If I say MIHOP in this conversation, I am, by the rules of English, by the context of the conversation, stating the "it" that was made to happen as the general events of 9/11.

If that is your intent, sure, but see previous paragraph for the flaw in your linguistic intent. It has nothing to do with the "rules" of English in the slightest. It has everything to do with what was going on in your "enourmous" brain when you wrote the acronym. Your intent.

MIHOP.
MIHOP.
MIHOP.

I just wrote MIHOP in this discussion an additional number of times. Each of them was for a different scenario.

Thus, if I am taking a pro-official narrative stance, the person stating "MIHOP" in disagreement is stating the "Who" as the USG.

Nope. MIHOP. That one was "who"less. Tedious this, isn't it.

As the scope narrows, so does the subject, and as such, the "it" becomes more defined...building 7, pentagon, et.al.

It can do, but as you can see you cannot rely upon context.
You have not even touched "how" yet.

Never mind eh

if you did not mean elements of the USG made WTC collapse on purpose then it is you who has the communication problem, not we who have the understanding problem.

Nope. Here...Any who. Any what. Any how. If you do not understand what I am communicating to you, well, never mind eh.

MIHOP.

I'd estimate you have about a 1 in 1000 chance of knowing what MIHOP scenario I was thinking of when I wrote that.

Best to simply assume a literal meaning.

Again, good to see you progress and accept that "what MIHOP means" is very variable.

 

[tsig]

M.I.H.O.P. is an acronym for:

Made It Happen On Purpose

As discussed a few years ago on an external site...


[MIHOP/LIHOP] can mean almost anything depending on what the user wants them to mean when left unqualified, and they can just as easily be misunderstood by the intended audience when this happens.

Without clarification, the terms are like empty, unfilled glasses; containers without meaningful content.

When these labels are followed by specific explanations and analysis they are somewhat more useful, but without clarification they are dangerously open-ended:

• Who made it happen?
• What happened?
• How did it happen?
• Why did it happen?
• Why is the official story wrong?
• Which parts of the official story are wrong?
• What parts are true?
• And most importantly, how can you prove it?

These are all questions that MIHOP and LIHOP do not answer when they are not followed with explanation or precise definition;
on their own these terms are virtually meaningless.


The "who", "what" and "how" are subjective and undefined unless stated.

Many differently scoped M.I.H.O.P. "who"'s have been discussed over the years, including, but not limited to...

• Cheney-Bush MIHOP
• Peak Oil MIHOP
• Mossad MIHOP
• Zionist MIHOP
• Jewish MIHOP
• New World Order MIHOP
• Rogue Network MIHOP
• Space Aliens MIHOP
• Al Qaeda MIHOP
• BP MIHOP

Note the repeated usage of a "who" prefix to the acronym.

Similarly, there are a number of differing "what"'s including, but not limited to...

• Destruction of WTC 1 & 2
• Destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
• Destruction of WTC 7
• Destruction of a segment of the Pentagon
• Destruction of Flight 93

Anyone using the acronym may be talking about any of the above, singularly or in combination.

The "how" list is rather longer, comprising each and every "theory" about how any of the various "who" and "what" would be accomplished.


Many using the acronym assume a USG (US Government) prefix as the "who", however, as can be seen from the list above, that is far from the only discussed "who".

It should also be highlighted that even those assuming a particular "who" are still using the term with undefined "what" and "how".

Context can assist in narrowing the scope a little, but many assumptions are almost guaranteed.
After all, assumption is the mother of all ...

Ozeco41 provided a clear viewpoint near the beginning of this thread...


I suggest that if anyone is confused about what is intended by use of the acronym, that they assume the literal meaning...

Made It Happen On Purpose aka MIHOP

...regardless of who, what and how.

If you choose to assume a USG prefix, that's fine. Just don't assume everyone else is.

If you're not using the acronym with a literal meaning, then I suggest the need to qualify the "who", "what" and "how" increases.

Ok, what do you mean by MIHOP?

Maids In Hats On Parade?

 

[femr2]

You[r] use is not a general one.

It's generally a literal one. As ozeco41 said a while back...

They are claiming that femr2 (and I ) are wrong if we use it in its literal meaning. Even when it is absolutely clear in context to a person of modest intellect that the literal meaning is intended.

...

I have historically presumed a level of intelligent comprehension on the part of my readers. I expected them to understand in context as to whether I did or did not mean the US Government. Have I been expecting too high a level of comprehension? If so why has none of my target audience been confused? Femr's audience claims to be confused - does that mean that my audience is more discerning?

Rather well stated I'd suggest

Any usage of the term by you, in the manner you claim to use it, should have been accompanied by a disclaimer.

ROFL. That's really rather funny.

 

[femr2]

Ok, what do you mean by MIHOP?

I've said a few times within this thread, maybe 50 times ?

I've generally used the acronym in a literal sense.

(Someone) Made It (whatever it is) Happen on Purpose (by some means).

 

[Carll68]

As I said, context can narrow the scope of what is meant by the acronym MIHOP, but it certainly doesn't define "what MIHOP means", nor does it fix what "it" means in any discussion.

You could be discussing, as you say, "the events of 9/11" as your "it", whilst someone else could be discussing "it" as destruction of WTC 7 only.

F2, kiddo..you have arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If the scope narrows beyond the subject matter, than the person assigning the scope is responsible for defining it beyond the context, not the reader.

Nope. When someone uses MIHOP in a discussion, it means whatever the person writing it intended it to mean at the time they wrote it, regardless of the context of the discussion at the time.

F2 -- bolding and sizing mine.

Your post above stands to show how "IT". always and every time refers to the subject matter being discussed. Never fails, unless the person writing is incompetent or deceitful.

POINT.
BLANK.
END.

 

[Animal]

F2 -- bolding and sizing mine.

unless the person writing is incompetent or deceitful.

.

You are talking to a troofer

 

[000063]

It's generally a literal one. As ozeco41 said a while back...



Rather well stated I'd suggest

I expected them to understand in context as to whether I did or did not mean the US Government. Have I been expecting too high a level of comprehension? If so why has none of my target audience been confused? Femr's audience claims to be confused - does that mean that my audience is more discerning?

I'm not sure if Ozeco41 is asking these questions sincerely, or playing devil's advocate for his own amusement. And it doesn't matter. I don't have examples of his usage. I have seen examples of yours, and its definition seems to shift and change depending on the context. However, it does have a definition. Not the vague non-term you claim as its meaning.

ROFL. That's really rather funny.

For you to explain what you mean when you use a term in an uncommon fashion? Yes, I suppose it is rather amusing.

Strange how my post got so much shorter. I'm accusing you of quote-mining, just to be clear.

 

[femr2]

Your post above stands to show how "IT". always and every time refers to the subject matter being discussed. Never fails, unless the person writing is incompetent or deceitful.

ROFL.

Berty is a fluffy cat. It is brown.

I've stated in the past "I am openly MIHOP".

By your frankly bizarre view of the written word and context, you now think that I am talking about a Made It Happen On Purpose scenario where the "it" refers to a brown fluffy cat called Berty.

Don't breed eh.

 

[femr2]

it does have a definition.

Not a singular one.

Even if the acronym is used in a fully qualified manner, what MIHOP means still depends upon the viewpoint/position of the person stating it.

Some people believe "USG" Made "Demolition of WTC 7" Happen on purpose "by installing explosives on the core columns"

Some people believe "Mossad" Made "Demolition of WTC 1 & 2" happen "by installing floor by floor explosives"

Some people believe "Space Aliens" Made "WTC 1 & 2 vaporise in mid air" by "using their space beams"

...etc...

Of course, the acronym can also be used in a literal sense with undefined "who", "what" and "how".

 

[000063]

Reduced to quote-mining sentence fragments. For the second time in this thread. And you misunderstood me the first time.

You never provided that page number. I'm not sure why it took you so long to say whether your usage of the term was standard or not. I asked in 262, you answered in 336. I'm not sure why it took you two weeks and change to directly answer a yes or no question, which i had to ask several times. And you still couldn't refrain from, well, lying.

All prior usage has been of the form (any who) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means)

This directly contradicts your position that the terms has no standard usage. "It", as several people have pointed out, is inferred from the context. Given that the context is generally 9/11 and conspiracy theories thereof, "it" does have a meaning which can reasonably inferred from context.

Of course, given that the standard, overwhelming majority usage carries the meaning "The USG perpetrated the 'terrorist attacks' of September 11th" in stead of your meaningless version, I feel rather confident in calling you a bald-faced liar.

You are a bald-faced liar.