• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread What does "MIHOP" mean?

DGM said:
femr2:

You are a true "twoofer". And by that I naturally mean someone that honi[e]stly seeks the truth. You don't mind If we call you a "twoofer", right?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm glad you realise I'm only interested in truth.

I do mind being called "twoofer".

My ID is femr2.


I realise your, er, jest, but it boils down to...

By **** I mean you're a nice guy.

You're a ****.


Not really very funny, and without the **** would likely be offensive, as the variably scoped insult "twoofer" is. Yes, some people mean conjunction of truth and woo, some limited intellect speech inpedement (sic), some...
 
Truther would be a perfectly fine thing to call femr2 (not sure about "twoofer")

A truther, by definition, is someone who believes in the truth. As it pertains to 9/11, airplanes and fire did it IS the truth. Since we all know this is what femr2 believes, then calling him a truther would be fine, IMO.

However, it's his opinion that matters re: his handle, so I'll call him femr2 from now on. Femr for short.
 
femr2 said:
I'm glad you realise I'm only interested in truth.

I do mind being called "twoofer".

My ID is femr2.


I realise your, er, jest, but it boils down to...

By **** I mean you're a nice guy.

You're a ****.


Not really very funny, and without the **** would likely be offensive, as the variably scoped insult "twoofer" is. Yes, some people mean conjunction of truth and woo, some limited intellect speech inpedement (sic), some...
Click to expand...
Why would you mind? I clearly stated what I think it means.

I have a friend Richard, he's by far the smartest person I know. I call him Dick. His brains are in his head. I think you're smart. Would you mind me calling you "Dick head"? I explain my definition so there's no way you could consider this an insult.

When in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
 
1. "They don't know" what? What you believe?

2. You responded to a statement about your beliefs saying it was incorrect, not saying that it was off topic. You have discussed, at length, what people's assumptions about your beliefs are. Now, when asked to correct said assumptions and to state what your beliefs are, or even whether you have any at all, discussion of your beliefs are suddenly off topic.

e) You're an intellectually dishonest sophist.

3. You can't say people are wrong to assume what you believe when you refuse to actually say what you believe. That leaves judgements, guesses, and assumptions. Incidentally, your current story is that you have never said that the assumptions themselves are wrong. Since you have no objection to the assumptions themselves, merely the act of assuming, that would indicater said assumptions are correct, and you believe the official story.

You now can't say anything without contradicting yourself and/or admitting you were wrong, and you can't shut up. Just keep heading out into the quicksand.

Oh, and quit quote-mining my posts to a line or two.
 
000063 said:
1. "They don't know" what? What you believe?
Click to expand...
Correct.

2. You responded to a statement about your beliefs saying it was incorrect, not saying that it was off topic.
Click to expand...
See above.

discussion of your beliefs are suddenly off topic.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, and you were given a number of options, not just one. This entire "what femr2 believes" discussion is and always has been off topic within this thread. I imagine the lot will be dumped into AAH fairly soon.

e) You're an intellectually dishonest sophist.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

3. You can't say people are wrong to assume what you believe when you refuse to actually say what you believe.
Click to expand...
Correct. I can however state that they are incorrect when they say...
BasqueArch said:
At least we now know this much
Click to expand...

"They" do not know. They are assuming.

Yawn.

There is nothing about the acronym M.I.H.O.P. which denotes "who".
 
femr2 said:
Incorrect, and you were given a number of options, not just one. This entire "what femr2 believes" discussion is and always has been off topic within this thread. I imagine the lot will be dumped into AAH fairly soon.
Click to expand...

Too bad you ain't a mod around here, eh?

femr2 said:
There is nothing about the acronym M.I.H.O.P. which denotes "who".
Click to expand...

In that case, the acronym is meaningless to determine your stance on 911. Everyone is MIHOP.
 
You have discussed, at length, what people's assumptions about your beliefs are. Now, when asked to correct said assumptions and to state what your beliefs are, or even whether you have any at all,
+++
Incidentally, your current story is that you have never said that the assumptions themselves are wrong. Since you have no objection to the assumptions themselves, merely the act of assuming, that would indicate said assumptions are correct, and you believe the official story.
+++
You now can't say anything without contradicting yourself and/or admitting you were wrong, and you can't shut up. Just keep heading out into the quicksand.

Oh, and quit quote-mining my posts to a line or two.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you're responding to most of my post now, instead of just quoting a line or two. You're still, oddly, ignoring some vital bits, but we can deal with this on a going forward basis.

Assumptions != incorrect.

If it's off-topic, then why do you keep responding to us to tell us it's off-topic? Why not report the thread to the mods, let them handle it? If you think we're just going to keep making assumptions, why bother responding?

And you can't claim the assumptions about your beliefs are wrong without discussing the assumptions themselves. It's like trying to discuss water purification equipment without discussing water. I assert that you only declared your beliefs off-topic when I requested you simply say what they are. And you still refuse to say that the assumptions themselves are right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
You know what Femr2? You're right. While what you think is right or wrong is an interesting topic, it's not germane to this thread. Let's get back to the matter at hand;

MIHOP, in standard Truther/debunker usage, means "the government of the United States conspired to actively commit a terrorist act". Whether it was CD, MP3, or space beams are just details. MIHOP and LIHOP are "big picture" acronyms, both describing the complicity of the United States Government in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001, committed by 19 men who were part of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization founded and formerly led by Osama bin Laden, and led currently by Ayman al-Zawahiri. Any definitions other than this one are incorrect, or a minority usage, which requires that the person using them in a non-standard manner explain their usage of the term, or be responsible for the confusion that follows.
 
000063 said:
Assumptions != incorrect.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. If you assume that the moon is mde of cheese, your assumption is incorrect.

If you assume A, then declare you know A to be true, then your declaration is incorrect regardless of whether your assumption is true or not.

If it's off-topic, then why do you keep responding to us to tell us it's off-topic?
Click to expand...
To remind you of the actual topic, and/or inform you that it's off topic.

Why not report the thread to the mods, let them handle it?
Click to expand...
I have.

If you think we're just going to keep making assumptions, why bother responding?
Click to expand...
To highlight that you are making assumptions.

And you can't claim the assumptions about your beliefs are wrong without discussing the assumptions themselves.
Click to expand...
Who claimed such ?
 
111aMihop.jpg

Who? The Multinational International House of Pancakes.

Those who are MIHOP can't define who, can't finishes their pseudosciences studies. MIHOPers think they have evidence and make fun of those who they think fail to see the evidence they made up, and can't define or explain. What could be call a technobabble approach backed with lots of TLAR visual study nonsense they make up as they go. How can they define who did 911 when they can't define what they are doing or cite reference why what they are doing is appropriate.

911 truth MIHOP evildoers is the government/Bush/Cheney/NORAD, et al. Guess what sub-forum this is? If you can figure out what sub-forum you are in you can guess what MIHOP means. If you are a MIHOPer, you might not be able to figure out what it means, because you can't figure out what happen on 911 given the answers, and 10 years to figure out. Many minutes more than Passengers on Flight 93.

Those who can't figure out MIHOP, can't figure out 911. If you are pretending to be doing serious work on 911, why would you be quibbling about MIHOP?
 
000063 said:
MIHOP, in standard Truther/debunker usage, means "the government of the United States conspired to actively commit a terrorist act". Whether it was CD, MP3, or space beams are just details. MIHOP and LIHOP are "big picture" acronyms
Click to expand...
USG-MIHOP is a very common usage of the acronym, with the USG qualifier omitted and assumed.

Also assumed is the "what" and "how", which are still ambiguous in that same common usage even if the acronym is not used and the words written out in full.

They made it happen on purpose !
Who made what happen on purpose, and how ?

All those assuming USG as "who" are likely to have different views of "what" and "how".

Any definitions other than this one are incorrect
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

or a minority usage
Click to expand...
Perhaps. There are quite a lot of folk who will assume you are talking about BP if you use the unqualified acronym MIHOP these days...

which requires that the person using them in a non-standard manner explain their usage of the term, or be responsible for the confusion that follows.
Click to expand...
A strange turn of phrase, but I don't think there should have been any confusion once I stated in post #2...
femr2 said:
There is nothing about the acronym MIHOP which denotes "who".
Click to expand...
...along with regular repeat of same, clarification of the ambiguous nature of the acronym, further confirmation that my use of the acronym has never had any specific "who" attached, and was used in a general sense...

Any "who", any "what", any "how".
 
Last edited:
femr2, your definition of the word MIHOP makes it meaningless as an indication of stance on 911 issues. This is the whole point of the thread. When you say "I'm MIHOP", according to your definition, you aren't saying anything. You are indicating that you believe someone initiated the events on 911. That's a meaningless statement. Everyone in the whole world thinks that.
 
uke2se said:
femr2, your definition of the word MIHOP makes it meaningless as an indication of stance on 911 issues. This is the whole point of the thread. When you say "I'm MIHOP", according to your definition, you aren't saying anything. You are indicating that you believe someone initiated the events on 911. That's a meaningless statement. Everyone in the whole world thinks that.
Click to expand...

I can't wait till the "argument" turns to the "It"!:rolleyes:
 
uke2se said:
femr2, your definition of the word MIHOP
Click to expand...
Deja vu.

I've (along with others) highlighted that what the acronym M.I.H.O.P. "means" depends upon the intended "who" and "what". When "what" is defined "how" becomes relevant.

They made it happen on purpose !

Who made what happen on purpose, and how ?
 
femr2 said:
Deja vu.

I've (along with others) highlighted that what the acronym M.I.H.O.P. "means" depends upon the intended "who" and "what". When "what" is defined "how" becomes relevant.

They made it happen on purpose !

Who made what happen on purpose, and how ?
Click to expand...

femr2, when you say "I'm MIHOP", that is a meaningless statement according to your definition of the acronym. Everyone else here, with one notable exception, have always heard the phrase used as an indicator for the belief that the US government were behind 911. When you use it as loosely as you do, it becomes without meaning.

I am repeating this because you don't seem to get it. If you include all possible culprits in the "who" (which is necessary to give the phrase any meaning at all), it becomes meaningless. Everyone's MIHOP. You, me, my mother, President Obama, the King of god-damned Siam!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom