• 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?

femr2 said:
You should start all your posts with that, Disbelief.
Click to expand...

That would get to monotonous.

Clearly not.
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. In this forum, it has always meant the USG. You can split hairs and ask whether it was the whole government or a rogue element that initiated the attacks, but for the investigation you would have to include the investigative bodies.
 
femr2 said:
I don't need to go on a hunt to find endless examples, because...

There is nothing about the acronym M.I.H.O.P. which denotes "who".

"They made it happen on purpose !"
"Who made what happen on purpose, and how ?"
Click to expand...
1. You're using an article that doesn't use the acronym MIHOP to support your definition of MIHOP.
2. Yes, yes, you're being a pedant, and an incorrect one, sticking strictly to the literal meaning of the term rather than the one in common usage. We're all aware.
 
femr2 said:
Deary me. Irrelevant, and whether you think that true or not, incorrect. Others, including myself, have used the term with other meaning within this forum.
Click to expand...

No, not irrelevant. If you are discussing it here, you use the norm here. Because you think that you can redefine a term so you can maintain your no-claim status, does not mean we have to accept it.
 
000063 said:
If someone used some sort of alternative meaning of MIHOP, they're wrong.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The acronym M.I.H.O.P. does not denote "who". Nor does it denote "what" or "how".

As you said yourself within this thread...
000063 said:
Strictly speaking, both acronyms should be prefaced with "TG", for "The Government". Or "The United States Government" (TUSG). However, TUSG[x]IHOP isn't as "punchy" an acronym.
Click to expand...

...and...

000063 said:
Any definitions other than this one are incorrect, or a minority usage
Click to expand...

My bolding.

I agree that use of the acronym M.I.H.O.P. with alternate "who" can be viewed as a minority usage, but that does not make that usage incorrect.
 
Disbelief said:
No, not irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The meaning of acronyms is not defined by JREF forums overriding their meaning or scope of applicability in the rest of the world.

If you are discussing it here, you use the norm here.
Click to expand...
What a bizarre thing to say.

Because you think that you can redefine a term so you can maintain your no-claim status, does not mean we have to accept it.
Click to expand...
I'm not redefining anything. I'm simply showing that the assertion that the acronym has one singular and fixed meaning is utter nonsense.
 
femr2 said:
As I have said on multiple occasions within this thread, I would suggest that each variable term has limits and scope.

There are a number of "who"'s already listed, which include...
  • Cheney-Bush MIHOP
  • Peak Oil MIHOP
  • Mossad MIHOP
  • Zionist MIHOP
  • Jewish MIHOP
  • New World Order MIHOP
  • Rogue Network MIHOP

The other terms also have practical limits, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Why do you get to decide those limits? Why isn't Al Qaida on your list? Nothing about your usage of MIHOP precludes it from involving Al Qaida.

femr2 said:
I disagree. As I said recently somewhere else...

IF signs of MIHOP emerge from analyses THEN who could be looked at.

Unless "something" can be found which confirms "someone" MADE it (destruction of the buildings) happen on purpose..."who" is redundant.
Click to expand...

Why do you also get to define "it"? Couldn't "it" be the events as a whole? Couldn't "it" be just the attacks? Face it, femr2. Everyone's MIHOP and the word is meaningless.
 
femr2 said:
Incorrect. A number of alternate "who"s have been listed a number of times in this thread, from an article written years ago.

If you want a more recent example of suggested involvement other than USG, consider...
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108


I don't need to go on a hunt to find endless examples, because...

There is nothing about the acronym M.I.H.O.P. which denotes "who".

"They made it happen on purpose !"
"Who made what happen on purpose, and how ?"
Click to expand...

The Dr. had nothing to do with it.
 
femr2 said:
Incorrect. The meaning of acronyms is not defined by JREF forums overriding their meaning or scope of applicability in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Not only have you been shown that MIOP is used to mean government involvement in multiple locations through the world, per your own argument you should use the term as commonmly defined.

What a bizarre thing to say.
Click to expand...

Why is it bizarre to use a term how it is most easily understood? Because by trying to use it in another way means you can try and hide behind semantics. We can see through you.

I'm not redefining anything. I'm simply showing that the assertion that the acronym has one singular and fixed meaning is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

No, in the 9/11 forum it has a commonly used definition and you are trying to redefine. This thread should prove to you and the users of this forum use the term specifically to mean government involvement. In fact, the majority of truthers use it the same way.
 
femr2 said:
Incorrect. The meaning of acronyms is not defined by JREF forums overriding their meaning or scope of applicability in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Nor are they defined by you. You are wrong. Majority rules.

femr2 said:
What a bizarre thing to say.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

femr2 said:
I'm not redefining anything.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are.

femr2 said:
I'm simply showing that the assertion that the acronym has one singular and fixed meaning is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

You aren't "showing" that at all. You are merely asserting it. Unsuccessfully.
 
femr2 said:
Incorrect. The acronym M.I.H.O.P. does not denote "who". Nor does it denote "what" or "how".

As you said yourself within this thread...


...and...



My bolding.

I agree that use of the acronym M.I.H.O.P. with alternate "who" can be viewed as a minority usage, but that does not make that usage incorrect.
Click to expand...
You're quote-mining again. Shall we?

000063 said:
Strictly speaking, both acronyms should be prefaced with "TG", for "The Government". Or "The United States Government" (TUSG). However, TUSG[x]IHOP isn't as "punchy" an acronym.
Click to expand...
That was to emphasize the difference between the literal acronym and what it's actually used for, as I clarified later.
000063 said:
I said "strictly". I didn't say "realistically". Realistically, of course, "TUSG" is an implied part of the of the acronym. Only some sort of sophistic pedant would argue otherwise, contrary to all evidence.
Click to expand...

And that second quote?

000063 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quote-mining sentence fragments now. How low you've sunk.
 
000063 said:
1. You're using an article that doesn't use the acronym MIHOP to support your definition of MIHOP.
Click to expand...
Ahem...
On their own, the words “made” and “let” are as simple and basic as exist within the English language, while “it” can mean anything that happened on 9/11. Both imply intent with the phrase “on purpose”.
Click to expand...
...and...
they 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.
Click to expand...
The article questions the meaning of the acronym including and even beyond the inherent variable meaning I have highlighted.

2. Yes, yes, you're being a pedant, and an incorrect one, sticking strictly to the literal meaning of the term rather than the one in common usage. We're all aware.
Click to expand...
Baseless name-calling. This thread asks "what does MIHOP mean".

The correct answer is...

The acronym can mean almost anything depending on what the user wants them to mean when left unqualified.

It does NOT mean only "da gubmint did it".
 
The Platypus said:
threads like this show how 911 kooks will never own up to even the tiniest bit of their crap.
Click to expand...
Well, there was Cicorp/TMP's Pentagon thread, when he changed his theory in response to new information. Problem was, his modified theories were no more plausible than his earlier ones, and, like most Truthers, he ran headlong into facts which he refused to accept and kept ignoring.

*cough*
 
000063 said:
Quote-mining sentence fragments now. How low you've sunk.
Click to expand...
ROFL.

Inclusion of the additional text does not change the fact that even you accept usage other than what you call "common" as long as...
"the person using them in a non-standard manner explain their usage of the term, or be responsible for the confusion that follows.".

When I've written the acronym M.I.H.O.P. I am not attributing any particular "who", "what" or "how".

Have a nice day.
 
uke2se said:
Why do you get to decide those limits? Why isn't Al Qaida on your list? Nothing about your usage of MIHOP precludes it from involving Al Qaida.
Click to expand...
I haven't applied any limits. We have already discussed this. In fact I have stated...
femr2 said:
I'm sure there have been MANY flavours of MIHOP discussed, and many more "who"s to add to the list if you were inclined to do so.
Click to expand...

Feel free to add as many different "whos" as you please to the list. You don't need my permission.

Why do you also get to define "it"?
Click to expand...
I don't. I can highlight that "it" is subjective and can refer to another long list of different things. You are free to add as many items to that list as you please. You don't need my permission.

Couldn't "it" be the events as a whole?
Click to expand...
Sure.

Couldn't "it" be just the attacks?
Click to expand...
Sure.

That's the point. "It" can be many different things.

Face it, femr2. Everyone's MIHOP and the word is meaningless.
Click to expand...
If left unqualified it can be ambiguous, sure.
That ambiguity can be removed by qualifying intent.
 
femr2 said:
ROFL.

Inclusion of the additional text does not change the fact that even you accept usage other than what you call "common" as long as...
"the person using them in a non-standard manner explain their usage of the term, or be responsible for the confusion that follows.".

When I've written the acronym M.I.H.O.P. I am not attributing any particular "who", "what" or "how".

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Then do not use the term here since you obviously do not plan to use it as it is accepted here. The only reason you would use it after this discussion is to make sure you are as unclear as possible.

You remind me of an English-speaking person who visits another country where he does not speak the native langauge. You believe that speaking English louder and slower will allow someone to understand what you are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom