Incorrect. The problem is that it means diferent things to diffeerent people. Whilst you may wish for an acronym to mean a singular thing, in the real world, you just don't get what you want. Tough luck I'm afraid.
I suggest you have a cox's orange pippin apple.
Another apple ?
Absolutely, my ID is femr2, and no other name called.
Laugh Out Loud.
Even the devout "debunkers" do the same.
Make another ol'skool speaker.
Bit worried about the fold B. ?
Last edited:
Context: JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy TheoriesNope. Suggest you loook at "context". How very strange, eh
Well, that's sorted.
It's kinda sad how the things you bring in to prop up your nonsense actually end up making your already weak position weaker. And now you've resorted to starting your posts with condescending incredulity, quote-mining and repeating the same incorrect points ad nauseum. Who do you think you are, Ergo?
Last edited:
Nope. How ever much you wish it did.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Scope narrowing isn't useful within this thread
You don't get to whine and bitch about "scope narrowing" until you learn that fire really can warp and weaken steel.
That's the context. Also, you are using the Ergo School of Baseless Incredulity-patented "Flat, Unsupported Denial" method of arguing.
If one were using some other meaning, one which runs counter to standard usage--and I am sure that on at least some level you know it does, no matter how much you deny it--the onus is on one to explain such a usage, not act like the blame rests on everyone else for not understanding one, as you have done repeatedly. There are two possibilities.
1. Meaning can reasonably be inferred from context. Context of your usage and the vast majority of usage of the term is 9/11 and Conspiracy Theories thereof. At the very least, it narrows the "I" in "MIHOP" to something to do with 9/11. However much you wish it didn't.
2. Meaning cannot be reasonably inferred from context. In which case meaning should be stated, in order to maintain clarity.
I like how you've argued yourself into a pair of lose-lose positions. Either the term does have meaning, or the meaning should've been stated.
I look forward to whatever dazzling mental acrobatics you will use to support your position next, Femr2.
Last edited:
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Nope. Suggest you loook at "context". How very strange, eh
Suggest you also look at intent.
None of which you have provided, despite repeated requests.
This is why your use of the term is meaningless.
The thread is about the meaning of "MIHOP"
You use the acronym in a particular way, it appears.
Unless we know the nature of your 9/11 beliefs we can't determine what your interpretation of MIHOP might be.
Would it be so difficult for you just to post a brief summary of your beliefs, rather than indulge in this endless and obscure dodging and weaving? If you have done this already then a link would be fine, otherwise it means trawling through countless posts in several very long threads.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Then you don't know me well enough.
In a situation such as this ridiculous debate - allegedly over the meaning of "MIHOP" - I would never play games. The "debate" is polarised into two extreme positions - neither of which I would support.
The "debunker" position, IMNSHO driven by the need to disagree with the "truther" - femr2 - without regard to logic or honesty - defining than "MIHOP" can only ever mean that the US Government was the subject who "made it happen". Without addressing all the ridiculous claims made by this side I restate my position and the only position available to persons with the slightest respect for the usage of the English language. The use of many words or acronyms is often context dependent. That point clearly identified by Carl68 (who is no ally of mine - see his aggressive posting responses to some of my posts
) Being blissfully unaware of this claim that "MIHOP" can only ever refer to US Govt MIHOP I have used the acronym in its literal meaning AND in contexts where it meant "US Govt MIHOP". The argument that MIHOP can only mean "US Government MIHOP" is ridiculous and, in this thread, merely a construct adopted to assist the attack on femr2's usage of MIHOP if not personal attacks on femr2.(BTW note that I used the pronoun "I". Was anyone in doubt as to who it meant in this context? I could stop there.
)Is femr2 correct? No says I.
Because in arguing for the reality that MIHOP can mean a wide range of MIHOPs other than US Government as subject AND an equally wide range of objects - the what "it" is part of the definition. By arguing that line hard femr2 goes too far IMHO. He overlooks the reality that some folks, and a large proportion of members here, use "MIHOP" to mean "US Govt MIHOP". However given the vehemence of the material directed at him I understand why he could prefer to not give an inch.
Their usage of "MIHOP" to mean "US Govt MIHOP" is legitimate. In the context of discussions here they would almost certainly be understood to mean US Govt and the assumption would probably not be questioned for ambiguity. What is wrong - ridiculously wrong - is the global exclusive claim that "US Govt MIHOP" is the only allowable meaning - anywhere, any time. And some members who are normally clear thinking seem to have been caught up in the blood lust of attack. Maybe I could ask them in 12 months if they still support what they have said.
However, and if you really need them I may be able to dig up some past history of my own usage. I have many times used MIHOP without the presumption of US Government as the subject and not caused any confusion.
Yup. Normal usage of English language despite a wide range of posts denying that practice.
It has two at the minimum. The meaning which most here claim implies "US Govt MIHOP" which is a legitimate claim. What is not legitimate is the denial of the second meaning which is the literal meaning without the implication of "US Govt" as the subject. As I said in an earlier post I should not need to explain why the literal meaning is available and will be used without ambiguity. The logic is trivial - even if the demographic sector of those who use it that way is quite small.
Remember in logic of argument that exclusive or global claims about the real world are almost always false. It only needs one example to prove the falsity of a global claim.
I've done no such thing, and anyone in prior discussion could have asked. They didn't feel the need to. It's just the folk in this thread who seem to need additional hand-holding.
Of course.
What an odd thing to say.
The likelyhood of specific meaning being correctly inferred simply by context is very low, specially as it is unlikely that each paticipant in a discussion will have the exact same viewpoint on a specific scenario. The most ridiculous assertion from many here is that what you describe above as an "it" context..."something to do with 911" ...automatically infers USG. Clearly not.
What are you, the literary police ? Funny stuff.
I didn't explicitly state a literal use of an acronym in 2009 ! Shock ! Horrors ! What a strange bunch
Not at all. I've said on many occasions that many assume a USG MIHOP, but also defend the use of other, and more precise, meanings. Folk can apply whatever meaning they please, but cannot demand that I accept their viewpoint. I've clearly shown that usage "out there" is very variable.
I've presented detail of various "who"s that have been discussed by others. I don't personally use any of them, as I don't have any "who" in mind when writing the acronym.
The possible "who" "what" and "how" options presented are about what the acronym can mean to different people.
Again, always worthwhile repeating that anyone using the acronym to mean "USG MIHOP" is still using an acronym which has a "what" and "how" and leaving them undefined. Rather ironic if you ask me.
Femr has specialized in measurements and observables. The measurements and observables are ignored while the group seems most interested in his personal beliefs.
Why ignore his measurements while focussing on his personal beliefs?
Why do you need to know?
.........................................
I have used the best data of "truthers" and "debunkers" for a few years. I was interested in the accuracy of the data and observations, not their personal beliefs. Why is the religious conversion so important to you while accurate data is ignored?
Last edited:
Because, as I have explained above, it's vital to an understanding of the thread topic. As a sideline it's a mystery why femr2 (don't call him Femr, ok, or he'll probably report you!!) is so reluctant to summarise his current beliefs. His beliefs have seemingly changed over the years and nobody knows where they stand, except him. It seems.
Measurements are not the topic here.
No, it's not.
I've stated the kind of scope I've used the acronym in in the past (any-who, any-what, any-how), and if that's not good enough for you. Tough luck I'm afraid.
My personal view of "the events of 9/11" is not the topic here.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
The accurate data was in the wrong place. It's not a conspiracy, therefore does not belong on a conspiracy subforum. It's sciency and mathie...maybe it's over there that it should be discussed.
As for f2's beliefs, he's already made that clear. Go to his website and read the mission statement.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
Neither Red nor F2 seem to have the balls to try to answer this question.
Your silence on this is deafening, F2. In fact, it kinda blows away your entire claim, doesn't it, champ?
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
False bravado to provoke a response to your goofy question is corny, and if I didn't think the mods have enough to deal with, I would flag it for incivility
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
How about you answer the question, Red?
Your question is irrelevant to the thread topic.
Your question is irrelevant to the thread topic.
I also note, presumably because you need to feel part of a gang, that you have jumped on the recent band-wagon of petty name calling and deliberate alteration of my user ID. My userID is femr2, not "F2".
Your question is irrelevant to the thread topic.
What claim ?
My userID is femr2, not "champ".